Hah, more of my glorious audio setup woes. I think my mic does record quiet, I’ll have to see if I can boost it at all without destroying the quality And yeah, hydration is key, definitely. Recording days I try to avoid anything that isn’t water until it’s done. And my nose gets stuffy real easy, I’ve taken to putting my head over a bowl of boiled water to steam clear it out

@@BoostandEthanol Man, that water thing takes me back. I used to breathe special hot water/salt steam mixtures when my sinuses got really bad, alongside a stuffed nose ofc. Anyway real solid monologue you had here, enjoyed it.

It's tragic that I peaked so early, now I'm just a fraud chasing the glory days

@@BoostandEthanol Aren't we all?

Probably got the devs shook rn

Interesting! Would love to know your results from testing! Is the more advanced ignition timing just because of the higher RPM, or is there another property I’m forgetting about?

@@BoostandEthanol The ability to run more timing on the straight 6 vs the 4 would be that for the amount of power I will be making, the load would be spread out more over 6 cylinders than 4, assuming the dynamic charge pressure is the same between both engines. Thus, there will be more leeway to run more timing before hitting MBT (maximum brake torque) before running into the detonation limit. When I looked at both stock timing maps on both engines, I noticed the straight 6 had by default around 8-10 degrees more advanced timing in the same load/RPM cells compared to the inline 4, similar boost pressures. All this is further supported by the arguments you made in your video. Simply put, having more cylinders does allow for more (safer, smoother) power, even if the displacement stays the same. P.S Also you're right, at a certain point, the higher the RPM gets, the more we need to advance timing in order to prevent detonation so the flamefront can keep up with the pistons.

There's no nice and easy number, since there are so many variables that affect the bottom end strength and maximum revs. The best I can offer is that, if you know the maximum piston speed of a bottom end design, you could probably be able to figure out the maximum RPM of different size strokes. Actually, there are piston speed calculators online that can do exactly that. Say if you knew a crank/conrod/piston could survive up to 7000RPM, and you've got a stroke of 86mm, that's 20m/s piston speed. If you then could take that exact design and downscale it (without having any negative effects), to say, a stroke of 80mm, at 7000RPM, that's a piston speed of only 18.67m/s. To hit that 20m/s limit I used as an example, you'd need to rev the 80mm stroke engine up to 7500RPM. Bleh, engines are complicated but maybe this helps a little

Thanks for the feedback though, yeah it should've been clearer. I just don't like this idea being spread that there's something special about the shape, after all, when they're reversed they're just acting as a hole.

i dont think heavily skewed cars were around in 2003

Actually, it wouldn’t they only started using asymmetrical GEN 4 cars in 2006

Not really only GEN 4 cars from 2006 and 2007 are asymmetrical before that they weren’t asymmetrical

because your scat pack is a fat pack, 1000lbs more

Some people have standards dammit I am above professional car designers

that's character development, love a good arc where they learn about themselves and understand that some can beat kurt wylde

@@BoostandEthanol Meanwhile Taro already said "I'm gonna pass you" 3 times in AcceleRacers.