[Tom Vaught]

https://www.performanceracing.com/si...ag+-+B+Version

Someone should run a Pontiac there who has Hill Climb experience like the
guy who ran the Trans Am out of Canada a few years ago.

Anyone remember his "handle"?

Tom V.

[Darren 639]

Roger Boliger ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Me_eLrG0ro

[Tom Vaught]

Nope, Roger is in Europe, This racer was located in North America (Canada I believe).

Tom V.

[Keith Seymore]

I loved the time I spent at Pikes Peak.

We did a lot of engine calibration work going up the Hill (powertrain guys) and brake development going down the Hill (me). We would wave at each other as we would pass half way.

You would see all the major auto manufacturers there, with their vehicles all camo'd up, doing various tests. We even saw Rolls Royce there, in case you ever want to take your Rolls all the way to the top (they used Suburbans as chase vehicles).

I loved the history there, and the GM garage in Manitou Springs was especially laid back. We would drive there from Phoenix so often my family would come along. The data input ladies would keep an eye on my young son in the garage while I made passes up and down the Hill (I can't imagine that happening these days).

The roadway has a lot of excavation work to help with water runoff, including little ditches on either side. Those racers would actually hook their inside front tire into the ditch and use it to swing themselves around the turn, just like you or I would grab a post and swing around it. No guardrails either.

K

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

No guardrails either.

When we were doing development for the S10 chassis postal vehicle we had one test car LITERALLY blow off the top of the hill. Big gust of wind came up and blew it off the roadway. It tumbled only a short distance before being stopped by a boulder; otherwise it would have been a long (long) ways down.

Truck was totaled (no biggie, plenty more where that came from) but fortunately the brake engineer driving it was ok.

K

[Keith Seymore]

Two more and then I'll quit:

It's 14,110 ft at the top. Not only does the altitude wreak havoc on an engine's ability to make horsepower, it wreaks havoc on a person's ability to make personpower.

A lot of people get light headed from the thinner air. We drove to the top one time and my boss (a smoker) hopped out of the car. He made it about half way to the visitor center and promptly passed out.

One of the things the powertrain guys would do (not us, of course) is follow a newbie to the top and then park as far away from them as possible. When the new guy got out of the car they'd yell "FIRE!" and then laugh as the guy would start running across the parking lot carrying the fire extinguisher, running slower, then s l o w e r, then s l o w e r....

K

[Tom Vaught]

Normal day at work, in my mind, Keith. Thanks for the experiences.

Tom V.

[hojs69]

Don't recall "handle" but this car, right Tom?

[Tom Vaught]

Yes, Thank You Very Much hojs69. I would like to visit one of his hill climb events if the car is still in one piece and racing. Maybe now that others have seen the car, thanks to your post, they can furnish the log-on info and name for the gentleman.

Tom V.

[Tom Vaught]

I have posted some of this in the Turbo Forums and also in the Boost Forum, but the main reason why I am posting it again is that the density of the air molecules in each combustion event in the engine is what is important, not the CFM of air displaced by the engine, to make power, especially at Altitude.

Turbocharging 101: Some history and basics of turbocharging systems

Apr 8th, 2005

Since the beginning of time, man has always looked for ways to add power to the machines that he's built. The combustion engine is a prime example of a power source that was just waiting to be improved upon. Since the very beginning of the 20th century, inventors and industrialists alike have looked for ways to boost the performance of engines.

As surprising as it may seem, the typical piston engine converts only about 1/3 of its potential energy from fuel into useful work. The remaining energy is lost to other forces such as friction and cooling losses. A major part of the potential energy is simply wasted out the exhaust. Fortunately for us some early inventors found the power boost they were looking for. They found it in the form of turbochargers and superchargers.

Historical perspective

Looking at turbocharging from a historical perspective, you could actually go back as far as the late 1800s, to the German inventor Gottlieb Daimler, or even Rudolf Diesel, who was credited with designing the mechanical supercharger way back in 1896. But for the sake of this discussion, we're going to start with Swiss engineer Dr. Alfred Buchi. In 1905 Buchi was granted the first patent for a practical turbocharger - a supercharger driven by exhaust gas pulses.

General Electric began to manufacture turbochargers in 1910. In 1915, working as chief engineer for Sulzer brothers research department, Dr. Alfred Buchi proposed and developed the first prototype of a turbocharged diesel engine. Unfortunately, it wasn't very efficient. It wasn't efficient enough to maintain adequate boost pressure.

1918 was another important year, probably the benchmark year for aviation-related turbocharging. It was in this year that Dr. Sanford Moss, an engineer for General Electric, carted a 350 horsepower engine to the top of Pike's Peak in Colorado. And there, in the thin air of the summit of the second-highest mountain in Colorado, at 14,109 feet, Moss was able to boost the power output of that engine to 356 horsepower.

In terms of un-manned flight, in 1986 the Boeing Condor set an altitude record for recip. engines at 66,980 feet.

Engine horsepower

No matter what type of piston engine you are working with, engine horsepower is always dependent on the amount of fuel and air the engine burns. Keep in mind that it's the density of the mixture, not the volume that determines the power that the engine is capable of generating. Power is not a function of the volume of air, it's a function of the mass, or weight, of the air - the actual number of molecules entering the combustion chamber. This is an important factor to keep in mind when discussing turbocharging. Let's look at an example.

Let's assume a standard day, and we've got a TSIO-550-cubic-inch displacement engine at sea level. At sea level field elevation, that engine will inhale 550 cubic inches of air for every two revolutions of the crank. It would also inhale around 550 cubic inches of air in Denver, at 5,000 feet altitude, on a hot day. (550 cid is not too much greater than the 525 cid engine on of our PY members runs in Michigan. But the actual number of air molecules entering the combustion chamber, and of course the resulting power, is going to be very different in these two examples. In Denver, there's fewer air molecules at that altitude to support combustion than there are at sea level. The result is less power for the same volume of air. So he runs a boosted engine for a reason.

The bottom line is this. We can only burn more fuel if we build a larger engine, or we artificially cause a small engine to breathe as if it were larger than it really is. And that's what we do with turbocharging. We cause a small engine to breathe as if it were a larger engine.

Let's go over a few principles of turbocharging. Keep in mind it's not only the cubic-inch displacement of the engine that it's rated at and its rated manifold pressure that determine the engine's performance. Power is also affected by the temperature of the air as it's swept into the cylinders. The temperature of the air greatly affects the density of the air. It's the weight of the air, not the volume, that produces the power.

Now at sea level, assuming a standard day, sea level air density is 0.0765 pounds per cubic foot whereas at 10,000 feet, on a standard day, air density drops to 0.0565 pounds per cubic foot. So in a naturally aspirated engine, let's say it's rated at 100 horsepower at sea level. It generates only 73.9 horsepower at 10,000 feet.

Tom V.

That is Why Keith and other engineers were at Pikes Peak. In Keith's case Brake Testing and in the other GM Engineer's Case, Engine Calibration testing.

[Bigger is Better]

Hi Tom,

I think you are talking about me I did crash my car about 10 years ago, took a break, did kid stuff and built a house. I just started with a new car build, it will be slow but hoping to have it together in the next couple years. Funny enough I have not been on the forums much but just started looking at them again to plan stuff and saw this post! Pikes Peak is cool, one of the local hillclimb racers has raced it a few times and talks a lot about it.

I do not think this new car will a hillclimb car, more autocross, solo I, track days. I picked up another Fbird I dont care about, I might look at that as a hillclimb car after I get this one done

Johnny

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

https://www.performanceracing.com/si...ag+-+B+Version

Someone should run a Pontiac there who has Hill Climb experience like the
guy who ran the Trans Am out of Canada a few years ago.

Anyone remember his "handle"?

Tom V.

[Tom Vaught]

Very Nice to see you posting again. I knew about your crash about 10 years ago.
Welcome back to the board.

Tom V.