Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#51 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,307 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 March 2012 - 03:34

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

Talk vs Horseshit. I will start a thread right now - should be good for at least 2000 posts.

Advertisement

#52 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 18 March 2012 - 08:11

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.


I agree well worth a good read. :up:
Lots of wrong statements but its all in there if you search.
It even shows why that 'shaft' horsepower is seldom measured on the output of a vehicle powertrain.
This helps explain how quoting torque at the propellor shaft will hide the gearbox shift/overlap GAP
The huge torque losses after the engine output are conveniently ignored with this method.

I love the obsession with engine power and torque, it totally ignores the powertrain.

Interesting that a BMW M3 engine has the same torque as an F1 engine. :wave:

Edited by 24gerrard, 18 March 2012 - 08:19.


#53 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 18 March 2012 - 08:13

Talk vs Horseshit. I will start a thread right now - should be good for at least 2000 posts.


Throw in your obsession with impossible 'instant' gear shift and it should be a good laugh.
To infinity and beyond eh grunt.

Edited by 24gerrard, 18 March 2012 - 08:14.


#54 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 18 March 2012 - 17:54

Interesting that a BMW M3 engine has the same torque as an F1 engine. :wave:


Not as interesting as that V12 diesel Audi LMP car engine conversion would would be in a 2.4 litre F1 car and there wouldn't be any reason for the rule makers to whinge about it considering the similar hp outputs. :clap:


#55 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 18 March 2012 - 17:57

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.


It's only the last sentence that's wrong in any of that. :lol:


#56 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 March 2012 - 03:03

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.


You can tell VW didn't really look into the history of Bugatti.

Sure, Bugatti built some heavy cars - like the Type 41 - but their sports models all went for lightness.

Oh, and real Bugattis have solid front axles....

#57 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 March 2012 - 05:45

Oh, and real Bugattis have solid front axles....


Beams, and of course they are referred to as one of the greatest cars made  ;)


#58 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 25 March 2012 - 08:16

Oh, and real Bugattis have solid front axles....

Assuming you call the Type 35 a 'real' Bugatti, some had, I believe, hollow front axles.

#59 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 March 2012 - 08:32

Assuming you call the Type 35 a 'real' Bugatti, some had, I believe, hollow front axles.


I think I used the wrong term....

Beam axle, as used by Cheapy, may be the better term.

I think teh type 51 and Type 59 GP cars had hollow front axles built in halves and screwed together.

Advertisement

#60 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:14

I think I used the wrong term....


Easily done!

I think the type 51 and Type 59 GP cars had hollow front axles built in halves and screwed together.

The Type 59 certainly did, it allowed a bit of angular movement between the two halves.