Kyle was just practicing for Baja. :)

Kyle got brake checked by two cars ahead due to all the gravel Jake Rozelle had just thrown on the course while trying to keep up with Mark :D:

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-m...-mmXRpHb-L.jpg

Who would do such a thing

cup holders too? The perfect street car. :snapout:

Pesky Corvettes......

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4...4pF3XJZ-XL.jpg

Mark,
I'm considering pursing an automotive engineering degree after I deploy in August. I was hoping you could recommend a few colleges that excel in that arena, or that automotive manufactures tend to recruit more often from. I tried to send you a PM, but your inbox is full. If you could send me a few recommendations that would be a great help, PM or [email protected].

Thank you,

Mitch

So, how far a long is the next project?

I would think he must have already started on the next bad ass Camaro.

Fuse Panel
 

Hi Mark, Love your builds.

Earlier in the thread you had built out a fuse panel that was going to be in the trunk, but then I saw later that you had one in the engine bay beside the ECU.

Just wondering if you changed your mind and if so why? I loved the idea of putting it in the trunk, but I could see the additional wiring adding up to quite a bit of weight.

Shawn

Let's hope it's a Camaro....

It looks like the fuse panel in the engine bay is for the engine, and the one in the trunk is for the car's electrical.

I'd love to see what he would do with a Chevelle.:stirthepot: :peepwall: :secret:

Guys bout fell off of their rocker when Mark deviated from the norm and did Mayhem, the 67 Camaro. Also, guys have been waiting and asking if he'd ever do a 2nd gen. If so, at least it would still be a Camaro. So, if he did a Chevelle, everyone would probably think he'd need a mental evaluation. LOL!! But, whatever Mark does, it'll be killer....no doubt.

Kinda hard to improve what Mark has done with Camaro's. A corvette with Mark's engineering goodies would be cool.

I would love to see a Camaro "Hybrid Supercar"
- 196X Year Camaro
- 3.6 direct injection twin turbo
- Chevrolet Volt electric motor and battery pack
- Stielow magic

I know you can do it Mark!

2nd Gen
 

Another (begging) request for Mark to do a 2nd Gen! :beathorse

He did do one!
http://image.hotrod.com/f/8858995+cr...ielow_14_z.jpg

Malitude. Then Jody made it better! :thumbsup:

He did one years ago, one of our own still has it!
https://lateral-g.net/bernard/malitude%20771b.jpg

I missed those. I guess I have been under a rock. Any build threads on it? Who owns it now?

Off to find google.

Edit... Google is my friend. So, Mr Camcojb is the proud owner. I'll be over in the corner reading....

I sold Malitude years ago and I think it is now in Kentucky.

Looking the data Hellfire lacks forward bite.

Max Lat about 1.1 G
Max Decel about 1.3 G
Max Accel about .85 G

What to build next? I'm not sure. If I want to play in the OUSCI deal I need to wait for the new rules

I really like Hellfire and '69 Camaros. I think I'll enjoy doing nothing for awhile and fix rock chips......

Looking at the data AWD would fix forward bite. :headspin:

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/q...ps8737453d.jpg

Looks like a mushroom cloud... :lol:

Sounds like a plan, enjoy it for a while!!! :drive:

Awd
 

Hi Mark
I was thinking about putting awd in a 69 Camaro.
Looks like the trailblazer ss system would be the way to go.
I'm sure you would have no problem fabbing up mounts for struts.
Is it possible to have awd and use the new Z/28 struts?
That is what I want to see in the next Stielow Camaro :headspin:

I thought it was a bug on Hellfire's windshield after a 150 mph straight away!

This is what I was referring to, when I made my comment about hoping its a Camaro...

That's 0-60 in 3.2 if you could do .85 from a standing start. I'm guessing that sample was from the road course.

Realistically you shook the car down twice(?) before sending it to vegas. I would really like to see you dial the car in, if you can keep it long enough. What can you do about forward acceleration? Spring change, shock tuning, wider wheels, perhaps a taller tire if it doesn't mess with the ABS......they're never finished.

It is geeky engineer Friday. The graph below is the tractive effort curve from LVMS. Longitudinal acceleration vs vehicle speed.

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/q...ps8040715d.jpg

The data shows I'm accelerating at about 0.85 G at 60 MPH and still pulling 0.6 G at 100 MPH. On the flip side I can generate 1.3 G decel at 120 MPH.

Just fun to look at the data.

On the temperature side this is the data from my last run the air temp was 85 degrees F.

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/q...psb39fcdf6.jpg

After 15 minutes the water was at around 220 F and the oil was around 270 F. To road race a 900 ish car and to keep it cool is tough. I'm very happy with the data.

Looking at the data the temps are becoming steady state and they will stabilize below peak excursion limits.

Once I get out of the throttle look how fast it cools!

Mark

After hitting the brakes at 120mph.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDldZrAeZQ8/hqdefault.jpg

Such cool data!!
I had a prof that would always tell us, "If you can't express it with a number, you don't know anything!"

What are you using to record all this?

Need to add another dial on the dash........for traction management.

:popcorn2:

http://www.race-technology.com/dash2_pro_2_31358.html

It will pull in the GM CAN data (All the information from the ECM). It has built in accelerometers, GPS and open channels for analog inputs. You can also link a GoPro to it to sync video and data.

The other thing I really like is you can program it for all the warnings you want and add math to the warning channels. For example if oil pressure is below 20 psi and RPM is above 2000 set warning lights.

Once you get used to using data it is hard to go back.

Mark

I've always wondered about onboard accelerometers for measuring lateral-g's. It seems to me that the roll angle of a car will amplify the measurement. If the sensor rolls by even just 3deg, that is still +0.05 apparent accel.

Is this an issue in data collection? Thanks!

I've been thinking about this dash for my car. I'm assuming the hookup is pretty simple given that it plugs into the OBDII port - right?

It uses the internal Accels and GPS to give data. Not sure of the full logic but I do know the GPS is also used to help cancel roll effects.

Mark

Hi Mark
I love your builds and wondered if would mind sharing some part numbers or information (year and model)on the source of your radiator mounts, brake booster and master cylinder.

Thanks Mark

Hi Mark,

I came across this thread yesterday and haven't had the time to digest it all just yet (!) but some simple math tells me that a rear-engine design with something like a 40/60% F/R weight distribution might do wonders for forward acceleration. I know this is a huge transformation, but at the rate you're going, I might imagine you're not many iterations away from something even this bold. Assuming mu(s) is 1.4 from the braking data, then your attainment of 0.85(ish) g's long. accel. is right at the theoretical limit given your weight distribution and ignoring transient effects from anti-squat (I'm assuming WB is 108" and the COM height is 21".) Go 40/60%, and you could attain 1.15g's.

Best,
MAP

Braking would improve too.

Indeed!

Some other quick thoughts:

1. Total vehicle mass might be reduced by about 5%, other things being equal (which they rarely are...!) Cost in production might come down similarly due to this packaging efficiency and reduced redundancy of parts - rather like FWD, in reverse. The rear engine/tranny/suspension cradle might even go down the same production lines as existing FWD platforms. The '80's Fiero comes to mind inside the GM camp...

2. Izz would probably come down even more -maybe 20% or so. This, plus shifting the yaw center farther back, should result in a much snappier steering response (but I'm guessing this isn't critical for the kind of driving Mark might be most interested in?)

3. The desire for rear traction, and the desire for steering neutrality, could finally converge under the hotrodder's favorite theme of narrow tires up front, and wide in the rear. RWD with a front-heavy bias tends to demand conflicting, opposing width parities.

4. From above, it would be easier to package really wide tires when they don't have to turn the vehicle as opposed to when they do.

5. Crash worthiness may be a big issue, however...

Anyway, I'm probably missing a bunch, but that's what I get off the top of my head (?)

Best,
MAP