Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimman
Because I feel they 'believe' in the OHV setup, but not the springs.
|
??? I honestly don't know what to make of this statement. Large-displacement OHV V8 is a valid approach to engine performance. Leaf springs are a valid method to get force/distance restoring force in the suspension.
Both are valid engineering approaches. And you're talking about what you "feel"? About what the engineers might (or might not) "believe in"? Funny!
Quote:
|
Ducati didn't just shrug at engine development because they had a displacement advantage. They believed that the desmo was best.
|
Worth noting that desmo was legacy for them. For sure they had a very good appreciation of the advantages *and the disadvantages* of desmodromic valve actuation. They had experience with desmo, they exploited that. The didn't/don't have as much experience with non-desmo, so they probably would take some time to get up to speed if they abandoned desmodromics.
It's a practical choice between two valid approaches. No one can say one is "better" as both have been proven effective.
Quote:
|
For what it's worth the 750cc L4s still raped them on the straights, and the V2's advantages were it's low-end response, packaging, low CoG, and balance that allowed them to put power down out of the corners.
|
The FIM giving them a weight break as well certainly helped them a LOT in braking/cornering!
Quote:
|
(Sounds rather familiar, including the displacement advantage, heh...) They needed power up top, and felt desmo would be their best option. Not to be different.
|
Similarly, leafs were the best option for the production Corvette.
Quote:
|
Then Honda brought out the RC51.
|
No desmo, playing to the same rules as Ducati, and beat them. Which, again, doesn't really say non-desmo is "superior".
Quote:
|
So saying that Ducati didn't have to put a world class attempt-to-be-the-best effort in because of displacement advantage is a bit rude to their engineers, and by logical association, to GM as well.
|
Where in the hell did I say THAT?! Of course their effort WAS world class. They came from nowhere to beat the 4-cylinders. They *were* given huge displacement and weight advantages, that's a simple fact. I certainly don't hold it against them that they capitalized on them.
Quote:
|
... So there will probably soon be a point where a DOHC will be smaller and lighter, with a smaller displacement that still outperforms the OHV in every category.
|
Still thinking in terms of absolutes, that there MUST be exactly ONE "best" way...
DOHC has inherent advantages and disadvantages. Ditto OHV. AT the moment, I don't see a clear advantage one way or the other. Other than that GM's OHV V8s are a much easier fit into smaller/lighterweight cars
*IF* regulations or taxes were applied based on displacement, DOHC multivalve wins. IF they continue to be based on fuel economy, however...