Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

the ford rs2000 held the record in the late 80's early 90's. the current record for 0-100mph-0 is held by the a Ultima GTR (no its not a nissan) at 9.8 seconds. we previously held by a ferrari enzo at 10.9.

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Electric cars aren't gay. Have you seen that new Lexus forget what model it is, but's a big v8 with electric engine as well and it goes so damn hard and quite good on fuel for a big v8. They look awesom as well.

I'll try and dig up a website on it.

Its a V6. 'Power' of a V8 with 'economy' of a 4cyl. But its MILES better than that pyruis thing. Or I think so from what I have read and seen so far.

I still dont get this 100% though.

So car A travels 100m to get to 100kmh and takes 10 seconds

Car B takes 50m to get to 100kmh but also does in it 10 seconds

Is that it?

Im trying to get my head around that... Can someone explain it differently please.

Basically

When talking 0-100kmh races, the 'KMH' is the Constant and the 'Distance' reached varies.

When talking 400m races the 'Distance' is the Constant and the 'KMH' reached Varies.

Simple......

Edited by PSI_GTSII
So car A travels 100m to get to 100kmh and takes 10 seconds

Car B takes 50m to get to 100kmh but also does in it 10 seconds

Is that it?

Im trying to get my head around that... Can someone explain it differently please.

Imagine Car B is REALLY laggy, and only does 10k/h for the first 9 seconds, then for the last second full boost comes on crazy hard and it flys from 10k/h to 100/kh in that last second, the first 9 seconds it only covered 40meters because it was going so slow, then the last few metres it speed up to 100k/h..... covered it really quick..

(maths aren't right there just trying to make the point).

So car A travels 100m to get to 100kmh and takes 10 seconds

Car B takes 50m to get to 100kmh but also does in it 10 seconds

Is that it?

Im trying to get my head around that... Can someone explain it differently please.

Think of it like this. Both cars accelerate for 10 seconds. Car one accelerates very quickly to almost 100km/h in the first one second, then slowly accelerates to 100km/h over the next 9 seconds. It spends most of its 10 seconds at high speed. Car two accelerates very slowly for the first nine seconds, the quickly accelerates to 100km/h at the end. So it spends most of its 10 seconds at low speeds.

Both cars will reach 100km/h at the 10 second mark, but car one will have travelled more distance because it has spent more time at higher speeds than car two, so the AVERAGE speed over 10 seconds was higher.

This is an extreme example, but it applies to real world situations - a more reallistic example might be a stock GTR (all wheel drive) and modified GTST (rear wheel drive). These might have the same 0-100km/h time of 5 seconds, but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover more distance before the 100km/h speed is reached.

If that makes any sense to anyone...

Edited by Big Rizza
This is an extreme example, but it applies to real world situations - a more reallistic example might be a stock GTR (all wheel drive) and modified GTST (rear wheel drive). These might have the same 0-100km/h time of 5 seconds, but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover more distance before the 100km/h speed is reached.

If that makes any sense to anyone...

"but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover more distance before the 100km/h speed is reached. "

Shouldnt it be,

but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover less distance before the 100km/h speed is reached.

Or perhaps i do not grasp this concept real well? :P

"but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover more distance before the 100km/h speed is reached. "

Shouldnt it be,

but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover less distance before the 100km/h speed is reached.

Or perhaps i do not grasp this concept real well? :P

The GTR will launch harder, so it will be ahead of the GTST. The leading car will have covered more distance than the trailing car (otherwise it would be behind the other car, right?). Therefore, the GTR will have covered more distance than the GTST, and would be leadin the race. The GTST accelerates harder than the GTR once its tyres hook up properly, so it manages to reach 100km/h at the same TIME, but the GTR is already ahead by several car lengths after the brutal launch, so it has still covered more distance.

Edited by Big Rizza

im not so sure about that last example in this context, the initial example is simplified and is correct and interesting but it fails to model traction off the line, it assumes all have perfect traction

that last example of the gtr vs gtst attempts to incorporate traction/launch and is confusing peoples :P

So what your saying Big Rizza is Torque wins races. :P

To some degree yes. All else equal, the torquier car will win. But just as power alone will not win races, torque alone doesn't win races either. The Mazda Bravo turbo diesel I occasionally drive for work makes more torque at 2000rpm than the RB20DET powered Skyline I own makes at its peak, but with a peak power of just eighty-something kilowatts at 3500rpm, there's no way it would keep up with the skyline.

The turbo car runs a 16.3 at 265.69km/h (see what I mean about unreallistic :P)

This is only because your turbo car's speed increases exponentially (ie. it keeps accelerating faster and faster the more speed it piles up) - a parabola doesn't even come close to modelling a turbo car's speed over time :P it might be right initially because of the wheelspin but it won't be right afterwards.

Im still really struggling with this hey. I'll work it out when I get home. I think I got it. I just need to get my head around the whole dont work out out with speed and time, work it out with DISTANCE and time.

Thanks fellas. This really should be basic for me. :P

To some degree yes. All else equal, the torquier car will win. But just as power alone will not win races, torque alone doesn't win races either. The Mazda Bravo turbo diesel I occasionally drive for work makes more torque at 2000rpm than the RB20DET powered Skyline I own makes at its peak, but with a peak power of just eighty-something kilowatts at 3500rpm, there's no way it would keep up with the skyline.

Which leads me on to...

AVERAGE POWER!

Throw that Mazda Bravo behind a CVT trans and it might be a different story. :P

But yes as I've said before, its the complete package that matters.

Power, gearing, weight, traction and driver. :P

im not so sure about that last example in this context, the initial example is simplified and is correct and interesting but it fails to model traction off the line, it assumes all have perfect traction

that last example of the gtr vs gtst attempts to incorporate traction/launch and is confusing peoples :P

Well, if you don't like it, ignore it! :P If the original example works in your head better, use that!

Edited by Big Rizza
This is only because your turbo car's speed increases exponentially (ie. it keeps accelerating faster and faster the more speed it piles up) - a parabola doesn't even come close to modelling a turbo car's speed over time :P it might be right initially because of the wheelspin but it won't be right afterwards.

I DID say that extrapolating the formulas I chose wouldn't be reallistic :P It is just as unreallistic for the family car, which accelerates at a constant and linear rate for all eternity.

Which leads me on to...

AVERAGE POWER!

Throw that Mazda Bravo behind a CVT trans and it might be a different story. :P

But yes as I've said before, its the complete package that matters.

Power, gearing, weight, traction and driver. :D

Even with the CVT, I doubt the Bravo would keep with the skyline. The Bravo has a peak power of eighty-something kilowatts as I said, and I reckon that even with gear changes, rev changes etc. my peak power of 160+kw would result in greater average power. Plus skyline is lighter :P .

I understand what you're getting at.

I had an argument in High School with someone about this very thing. Had a pic of the graph you gave and you had to say which car was in front when they all hot 100kms/hr.

It's funny, nearly 90% of people thought they were a the same position! Geeze!

Anyway.....0-100's and quarter miles are good benchmarks..but to get what i think you want, you would like to see a 'How far can a car travel in 10secs..or 20sec' from a standing start (or rolling, or adapt further)

Yeah???

But if you did have that, people could then argue the opposite.. "10sec distance measurements mean nothing, doesn't show how fast it would do a quater mile!" and then show another graph and quote a few formulas.

Gotta do your own research i guess and go from there

:P

..and while I'm thinking about it more (gotta stop soon)

Your comparing apples oranges and lemons.

Everyone here is pretty much apples, apples so it does make sense to compare

Catchya

Birnie :P

Well to me I always thought you could compair fruits.

I mean apple is green or red, oranges are well orange. There is a comparision, its fair... I never understood the problem with it. Thats what comparisions are meant to do :P

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • just an update to this, poor man pays twice  Tried sanding down the pulleys but it didnt do the trick. Chucked another second hand alternator in the na car which I got for free off my mate and its fixed the squelling. Must have been unlucky with the bearings.    As for my turbo car, I managed to pick up a cwc rb alternator conversion bracket + LS alternator for 250 off marketplace, looked to be in really good nick. Installed it , started the car and its not charging the battery.... ( Im not good with auto elec stuff so im not sure if this was all I needed to do but I verified such by using a multimeter on the battery when the engine was running and I was only getting 12.2v )   I had to modify the earth strap for the new LS alternator , factory earth strap was a 10mm bolt which did not fit the bolt on the LS alternator which was double the size so I cut it off , went to repco bought some ring terminals that fit, crimped it onto the old earth strap and bolted it up to the alternator , started the car and same issue. Ran like shit and was reading 12.2 at the battery.  For a "plug and play" advertised kit thats not very plug and play but alas.  My question is , am I missing something ? Ive been reading that some people recommend upgrading the stock 80 amp alternator fuse to a 140 amp but I dont see how that would stop the alternator charging especially at idle not under load.  Regardless ive pulled it out and am going to get it bench tested by an auto elec tomorrow but it would be handy to know if ive missed something silly or have done something wrong.   
    • My wild guess is that you have popped off an intake pipe....check all of the hoses between the turbo and the throttle for splits or loose clamps.
    • Awesome, thanks for sharing!
    • To provide more specific help, more information is needed. What Android screen? What is its wiring diagram? Does the car's wiring have power at any required BAT and ACC wires, and is the loom's earth good?
    • So, now all you need to do is connect the 2 or 3x 12v feeds into the unit to permanent 12v, ACC 12V and IGN 12V that you can find in the spot behind the stereo, and the earth, and then it will switch on with the car.
×
×
  • Create New...