Jump to content


Photo

0-100Km`t 0-200km`t 0-300km`t


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,052 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 March 2012 - 15:16

Very impressive times from the Lotus Renault F1 car.

http://www.youtube.c...053RVAAAAAAAACA

Advertisement

#2 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 March 2012 - 04:40

Had to be wet of course.



#3 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,052 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 March 2012 - 07:14

Had to be wet of course.


Seems to not matter above 100km`t But yea it woulda have been nicer in the dry. less df needed.

#4 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 12 March 2012 - 17:39

Don't forget the difference in gearing between the Veyron and the F1 car.The Veyron would have left the F1 car standing after the 200 mph mark had been reached considering it's top speed and it's acceleration figures would have looked a lot better if it's overall gearing had been shortened to around 190-200 mph max.

#5 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 12 March 2012 - 18:24

Don't forget the difference in gearing between the Veyron and the F1 car.The Veyron would have left the F1 car standing after the 200 mph mark had been reached considering it's top speed and it's acceleration figures would have looked a lot better if it's overall gearing had been shortened to around 190-200 mph max.


Posted Image



#6 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 March 2012 - 18:44

:lol: There's always someone... If we had some bread we could have bread and cheese if we had some cheese.

Edited by Tony Matthews, 12 March 2012 - 18:46.


#7 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 12 March 2012 - 20:01

:lol: There's always someone... If we had some bread we could have bread and cheese if we had some cheese.


Ok to put it another way the Veyron's times are more impressive considering it's combination of acceleration 'and' top speed and the gearing required to obtain that.


#8 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 March 2012 - 23:41

You would be surprised at how little difference a change in gearing would make. (close to zero in fact) The Veyron is traction limited up to a fairly high speed and the ratios are close enough to keep the engine pretty close to its power peak (;) ) from there on.

#9 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 March 2012 - 02:07

Veyron power to weight; 999hp/1900kgs = 1.9kgs per hp

2010 F1 power to weight; 700hp/620kgs = 0.886kgs per hp


Jaguar XJS V12 power to weight; Couldn't be recorded as car broke down on way to test facility.

#10 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 13 March 2012 - 03:03

Veyron power to weight; 999hp/1900kgs = 1.9kgs per hp


Wasn't it ol' Ettore who called 4 1/2l Bentleys 'world's fastest trucks'? My, my, it would seem the tip of the scales has turned... literally.

#11 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:02

You would be surprised at how little difference a change in gearing would make. (close to zero in fact) The Veyron is traction limited up to a fairly high speed and the ratios are close enough to keep the engine pretty close to its power peak (;) ) from there on.


I'd doubt wether the Veyron would be too limited in traction to make use of such a cut in overall gearing considering it's overall weight and four wheel drive and the idea of gear ratios is to make sure that each step drops the revs to around peak torque on every upshift not hold them close to peak power,which why you change up a gear at peak power not leave it in that same gear.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 13 March 2012 - 04:13.


#12 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:08

Veyron power to weight; 999hp/1900kgs = 1.9kgs per hp

2010 F1 power to weight; 700hp/620kgs = 0.886kgs per hp


Jaguar XJS V12 power to weight; Couldn't be recorded as car broke down on way to test facility.


I think you've forgotten that acceleration is all about torque to weight ratios not power to weight,which is why a car accelerates faster in the lower gears than the higher ones and lower overall gearing improves acceleration with no alteration in power outputs and the best way to make the Jag accelerate slower (and blow up faster) would be by raising the power to weight ratio by fitting it with a 400 bhp+ Cosworth DFV V8 instead of a 350-395 bhp V12. :stoned: :lol:

Therefore if we're not going to give the F1 screamer a chance to look better than it is the relevant comparison is the 612 lbs/ft per tonne of the Veyron Super Sport (+ the extra torque provided at the wheels by the overall reduction in gearing from around 265 mph max to around 200 mph max) v the ? torque per tonne of the F 1 car ?.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 13 March 2012 - 04:27.


#13 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:19

Wasn't it ol' Ettore who called 4 1/2l Bentleys 'world's fastest trucks'? My, my, it would seem the tip of the scales has turned... literally.


Reminds me - Way back when I owned my Yamaha XS1100 a little too long and some of my Mates had the latest in sports bikes and when we came to a stop sometimes they would make 'Jake Brake' sounds in my direction, bastards :lol:


#14 Todd

Todd
  • Member

  • 18,936 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:06

Road & Track tested a Hennessey Venom Viper TT against a Veyron. Half the driven wheels, but the Viper still left the Veyron for dead in the standing mile, which the Viper completed at over 220 mph while the tank ambled through the traps at 204.4 mph. Weight matters. Somebody should have told VW.

#15 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:50

I think you've forgotten that acceleration is all about torque to weight ratios not power to weight,which is why a car accelerates faster in the lower gears than the higher ones and lower overall gearing improves acceleration with no alteration in power outputs and the best way to make the Jag accelerate slower (and blow up faster) would be by raising the power to weight ratio by fitting it with a 400 bhp+ Cosworth DFV V8 instead of a 350-395 bhp V12. :stoned: :lol:

Therefore if we're not going to give the F1 screamer a chance to look better than it is the relevant comparison is the 612 lbs/ft per tonne of the Veyron Super Sport (+ the extra torque provided at the wheels by the overall reduction in gearing from around 265 mph max to around 200 mph max) v the ? torque per tonne of the F 1 car ?.

Sir, I refer you to the definitive volume on the subject. Do not reply in this thread until you have read it in its entirety and realised the foolishness of your post above.

http://forums.autosp...p;hl=v10 torque

#16 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 13 March 2012 - 07:27

I think you've forgotten that acceleration is all about torque to weight ratios not power to weight,



:rotfl:

#17 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 866 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:24

Very impressive times from the Lotus Renault F1 car.

http://www.youtube.c...053RVAAAAAAAACA


I think the most remarkable things about an F1 car are their cornering speeds, braking distances and lap times.
By comparison their acceleration times could even be called sluggish.
A typical road registered superbike (even the 600cc variety) has a similar 0-100 kph time - a Top Fuel dragster has a 0-100 kph time of about 0.5 sec.

#18 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:40

A typical road registered superbike (even the 600cc variety) has a similar 0-100 kph time

Not in the wet.

#19 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,605 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:42

:rotfl:



Ooooooh please let it slip. Let it go. Don't start it.

Pretty please?

How would sound a TXHP argument with 24gerrard involved?

Edited by saudoso, 13 March 2012 - 10:49.


Advertisement

#20 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 866 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 13 March 2012 - 11:29

Not in the wet.


If you mean the 'bike would be a lot slower in the wet? - I am not sure that is correct - I think both the F1 car and the 'bike would be similarly affected by the wet.

#21 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 March 2012 - 13:54

Sir, I refer you to the definitive volume on the subject. Do not reply in this thread until you have read it in its entirety and realised the foolishness of your post above.

http://forums.autosp...p;hl=v10 torque


So you can be put down as one of those who'd chuck that 350-395 bhp V12 out of the Jag and put a 400 bhp + Cosworth DFV V8 in it instead because you think the better power to weight ratio will make the thing accelerate faster. :stoned: :lol:



#22 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 March 2012 - 13:57

I think the most remarkable things about an F1 car are their cornering speeds, braking distances and lap times.
By comparison their acceleration times could even be called sluggish.
A typical road registered superbike (even the 600cc variety) has a similar 0-100 kph time - a Top Fuel dragster has a 0-100 kph time of about 0.5 sec.


And as we all know the reason why a top fuel dragster can accelerate much faster than an F1 car,or a superbike,is because of the amount ot torque it has by comparison.


#23 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 March 2012 - 14:22

Road & Track tested a Hennessey Venom Viper TT against a Veyron. Half the driven wheels, but the Viper still left the Veyron for dead in the standing mile, which the Viper completed at over 220 mph while the tank ambled through the traps at 204.4 mph. Weight matters. Somebody should have told VW.


Like the F1 0-300 kmh comparison it's more a case of the Veyron's overall gearing being against it more than it's weight.The fact is could that Viper have gone on to around 260 mph ? and if the target was a terminal velocity of 220 mph in the standing mile then 220 mph would be the type of speed that the overall gearing would need to be ruduced to to provide better acceleration.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 13 March 2012 - 14:26.


#24 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 March 2012 - 14:29

And as we all know the reason why a top fuel dragster can accelerate much faster than an F1 car,or a superbike,is because of the amount ot torque it has by comparison.


You mean a vehicle with 80 years of specific development to accelerate as fast as absolutely possible with no other purpose in life can out accelerate one that wasn't also designed within that parameter?

I am surprised.






#25 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 March 2012 - 16:20

You mean a vehicle with 80 years of specific development to accelerate as fast as absolutely possible with no other purpose in life can out accelerate one that wasn't also designed within that parameter?

I am surprised.


The relevant bit is that they still came to the conclusion that what's needed for the job is a large capacity forced induction motor that puts out loads of torque to provide a good torque to weight ratio not something much smaller with similar specific power outputs of the old BMW F1 turbo engine that could probably provide a similar power to weight ratio (assuming that acceleration was all about power to weight not torque which isn't the case) and you can bet that they wouldn't then waste that torque by overgearing the thing to provide more max speed than the target terminal velocity required.

#26 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,052 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 March 2012 - 18:27

8000horses..... there is a reason no one knows and cares about the available torque they put out. Stop trolling... Desmo!


Edited by MatsNorway, 13 March 2012 - 18:28.


#27 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 13 March 2012 - 20:00

there is one thing people keep forgetting when looking at F1 acceleration numbers... those cars have horrendous air ressistance..so above 250 km/h it is no surprise they are outaccelerated by a supercar..

but such comparisons are pointless, a veyron will be outaccelerated down the strip by a serious EVO, even by a propperly souped up GTR daily driver.. .... at the same time, all of them will have their a$#%s handed to them around a circuit by a 140 hp formula BMW junior...

#28 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 March 2012 - 20:15

8000horses..... there is a reason no one knows and cares about the available torque they put out. Stop trolling... Desmo!


If you know the hp and the engine speed it's produced at (in this case around 8-9000 rpm) then it's no problem to sort out how much torque that relates to because it's that relationship between the two which was how the hp figure was derived to start with.But no surprise that dragster engine design has always been based on the idea of the type of power that's made by multiplying a lot of torque by relatively low engine speeds.





#29 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 March 2012 - 20:22

there is one thing people keep forgetting when looking at F1 acceleration numbers... those cars have horrendous air ressistance..so above 250 km/h it is no surprise they are outaccelerated by a supercar..

but such comparisons are pointless, a veyron will be outaccelerated down the strip by a serious EVO, even by a propperly souped up GTR daily driver..


Those serious EVO or GTR geared for a 250 mph + max I doubt it.


#30 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 13 March 2012 - 20:29

Those serious EVO or GTR geared for a 250 mph + max I doubt it.



guess not, but could be, they are after all producing similar power levels to a veyron..



#31 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,925 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 13 March 2012 - 21:05

I I I. Some users here almost make me pull my hair out.

#32 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,605 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 March 2012 - 21:53

Do you guys thing a Veyron geared to the top speed of an SR-71 will beat it in the 0-100Kph run?

Edited by saudoso, 13 March 2012 - 21:54.


#33 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 13 March 2012 - 23:21

I stopped going to pubs to avoid this sort of ****ing stupid adolescent rubbish, but it seems there's no getting away from it...

#34 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,605 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 March 2012 - 23:32

Trying to collect rubish to write bulshit, I found something interesting:

http://www.sr-71.org...kbird/yf-12a-1/ The Black Bird flight manual.

At approximately 30,000 feet, accelerate to 450 KEAS in a level or slightly descending flight path, and then climb at constant 450 KEAS to mach 2.6

http://www.sr-71.org...p?file=2-21.png

Edited by saudoso, 13 March 2012 - 23:33.


#35 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,646 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 15 March 2012 - 04:18

I stopped going to pubs to avoid this sort of ****ing stupid adolescent rubbish, but it seems there's no getting away from it...

Pffft. Whatever. Mine's bigger.


#36 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 15 March 2012 - 05:01

So you can be put down as one of those who'd chuck that 350-395 bhp V12 out of the Jag and put a 400 bhp + Cosworth DFV V8 in it instead because you think the better power to weight ratio will make the thing accelerate faster. :stoned: :lol:

I know you haven't read the thread I linked because it takes at least 3 days to read. Now p**s off and read it first if you want to post on this subject.

BTW The Cosworth Jag would easily out-accelerate the stocker, but no I wouldn't put one in.

#37 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 15 March 2012 - 05:04

If you mean the 'bike would be a lot slower in the wet? - I am not sure that is correct - I think both the F1 car and the 'bike would be similarly affected by the wet.

What I mean't is you are comparing a "best case" time for a bike to a one-off test in the wet for the F1. Side by side in dry conditions the bike would be comprehensively hosed.

#38 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 866 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 15 March 2012 - 06:43

What I mean't is you are comparing a "best case" time for a bike to a one-off test in the wet for the F1. Side by side in dry conditions the bike would be comprehensively hosed.


I don't think it would be especially "comprehensive" - but I am not going to argue about it.
The point I was trying to make was that the incredibly fast F1 lap times are due mainly to the F1 cars cornering speeds and braking performances. Their straight-line performance in both acceleration and top speed is not particularly notable.

#39 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 March 2012 - 17:29

I know you haven't read the thread I linked because it takes at least 3 days to read. Now p**s off and read it first if you want to post on this subject.

BTW The Cosworth Jag would easily out-accelerate the stocker, but no I wouldn't put one in.


Why would I want to spend 3 days reading something just because someone on here thinks that the relevant comparison is power relative to weight to make almost 2 tonnes of Jaguar accelerate not torque relative to weight.

No surprise though that you probably wouldn't want to put your money on the issue by going to all the expense of fitting that gutless screamer in the Jag just to find out that you'd made the thing slower afterwards.By the way a 350-395 bhp V12 Jag wouldn't be stock but it's a (much) cheaper and effective way of making the thing actually go than your idea would be. :stoned: :lol:

Edited by Vanishing Point, 15 March 2012 - 17:33.


Advertisement

#40 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 March 2012 - 17:40

The point I was trying to make was that the incredibly fast F1 lap times are due mainly to the F1 cars cornering speeds and braking performances. Their straight-line performance in both acceleration and top speed is not particularly notable.


Which that almost 2 tonnes of Veyron would probably prove 'if' one of those bright engineers,who had the idea of building the thing,could just provide some projected figures assuming the thing wasn't pulling overall gearing that provides it with it's 260 mph max and geared it to run out off the edge of it's power band at around 200 mph instead.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 15 March 2012 - 17:42.


#41 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,605 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 March 2012 - 18:30

I really would like to watch a VP X 24G match...

#42 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 15 March 2012 - 18:39

Howabout matching an artillary shell against a supertanker! Wow! You could reduce the charge so the shell's top speed would be reduced and empty the tanker to increase its power to weight ratio or something and run the tanker down a slope to give it some help and give it a start on the shell and make it best of three and and and oops bedtime

#43 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,605 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 March 2012 - 19:02

You could aways run a VMax with a full fairing and see how it goes above 100km/h. Because bellow that there is no mtch fot the Yamaha.

Like that Indian from Sir Anthony Hopkins' movie.

#44 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,052 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 15 March 2012 - 19:11

If you know the hp and the engine speed it's produced at (in this case around 8-9000 rpm) then it's no problem to sort out how much torque


I know that.. i formulatet myself poorly..

Fun fact: they only estimate the power to be that.

A crane with a cargo load on the end got lots of Newton meters applied to its base. Does that mean it will outrun a veyron?

VP fact: If i just mount this winch to my car i will outrun a veyron. Posted Image

#45 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,605 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 March 2012 - 19:16

And this one?

Posted Image

#46 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:07

I know that.. i formulatet myself poorly..

Fun fact: they only estimate the power to be that.

A crane with a cargo load on the end got lots of Newton meters applied to its base. Does that mean it will outrun a veyron?

VP fact: If i just mount this winch to my car i will outrun a veyron. Posted Image


NN idea if we reduce the capacity of a 2.4 Litre F1 engine to 600 cc all we'd need to do is to make it sustain 1/4 of the torque that it had to four times as many rpm to make the F1 car accelerate to the same speed just as fast as it did before.Fail. :lol:

Whereas if you could make that crane boom spin vertically around it's axis at up to the same engine speed of 6,000 rpm.You could probably then get the same acceleration even if you increased the weight of the Veyron to around 180 tonnes. :clap: :stoned:

Edited by Vanishing Point, 16 March 2012 - 03:27.


#47 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 378 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 17 March 2012 - 21:14

NN idea if we reduce the capacity of a 2.4 Litre F1 engine to 600 cc all we'd need to do is to make it sustain 1/4 of the torque that it had to four times as many rpm to make the F1 car accelerate to the same speed just as fast as it did before.Fail. :lol:

Whereas if you could make that crane boom spin vertically around it's axis at up to the same engine speed of 6,000 rpm.You could probably then get the same acceleration even if you increased the weight of the Veyron to around 180 tonnes. :clap: :stoned:


If torque is the only thing that matters why not just put a diesel truck engine in there that produces 3000lbs/ft of torque? Why do old american cars that produce 400lbs/ft get beaten to 60mph by Honda's with 130lbs/ft of torque? The torque has to be effective over a decent range of engine speeds to be of any use this is what BHP is a measure of. You could have an engine that will produce 1000lbs/ft of torque at 100rpm it would be good for dragging things at low speed but would be of no use what so ever at making a car go fast.

#48 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 17 March 2012 - 23:45

If torque is the only thing that matters why not just put a diesel truck engine in there that produces 3000lbs/ft of torque? Why do old american cars that produce 400lbs/ft get beaten to 60mph by Honda's with 130lbs/ft of torque? The torque has to be effective over a decent range of engine speeds to be of any use this is what BHP is a measure of. You could have an engine that will produce 1000lbs/ft of torque at 100rpm it would be good for dragging things at low speed but would be of no use what so ever at making a car go fast.


It's torque that does the work which is why acceleration is better in the lower gears,to multiply torque relative to weight,than it is in the higher gears and it's why torque to weight ratio is as,if not more,important as power to weight ratio and that's why the acceleration figures,for the Veyron to 300 kmh,would have been a lot better if the final drive ratio had been reduced to around 200 mph at peak power instead of 260 mph.

As for the truck engine.Are you saying that the F1 car wouldn't be able to accelerate a lot faster if it was fitted with an old spec V12 Audi Le Mans type diesel engine with a similar power output as the 2.4 Litre F1 engine because of the increased torque to weight ratio ?.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 18 March 2012 - 00:03.


#49 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,925 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 18 March 2012 - 03:20

It's torque that does the work which is why acceleration is better in the lower gears,to multiply torque relative to weight,than it is in the higher gears and it's why torque to weight ratio is as,if not more,important as power to weight ratio and that's why the acceleration figures,for the Veyron to 300 kmh,would have been a lot better if the final drive ratio had been reduced to around 200 mph at peak power instead of 260 mph.

As for the truck engine.Are you saying that the F1 car wouldn't be able to accelerate a lot faster if it was fitted with an old spec V12 Audi Le Mans type diesel engine with a similar power output as the 2.4 Litre F1 engine because of the increased torque to weight ratio ?.


Please read this thread http://forums.autosp...w...6717&hl=v10 before posting on torque vs. power questions. All of it. If you think have anything new to add that hasn't already been covered in that thread then add it there. But first read it; all of it.

#50 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 March 2012 - 03:30

it's a (much) cheaper and effective way of making the thing actually go than your idea would be. :stoned: :lol:

Your idea actually and I did say that I wouldn't do it. It would be a ridiculously expensive, laborious conversion and totally impractical in every sense. It would be faster though.