Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
Look guys, glad you feel it is all hilarious and pathetic. I am genuinely interested in the various conundrums here. If you will recall I have faced near infinite flak from Bruce about the validity and application of formulae (which really is what simulation is anyway - a whole lot of forumlae).
|
C'mon, Swamp, you have to admit this is funny - and by the way, the remarks and general reactions are not all at your expense.
By the way, you never got any flak from me about the validity and application of simulation tools/formulae. Nope, it was more personal than that. It was specifically about your use of those tools, and you have to admit that at first, you were pretty pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
I am very curious how he can explain this. Tell me a 124 mph trap speed does not give you slightest inkling, of a small possibilty, of a slight over-rating?  |
My explanation is that if the numbers hold up (and in my opinion, C & D doesn't screw up very often), then the GT-R is
massively under-rated, or at least their particular Amerispec test car was. No smiley. I'm not kidding.
The speed over 234, result cubed times vehicle weight formula really is tried and true, and the last time I saw it was in the April Road & Track as part of an answer in the tech questions section - page 106.
That formula shows the GT-R with over 600 HP, assuming 124 mph and 4078 pounds with full tank plus driver and test equipment (3908 curb weight).
Horsepower understated by more than 20%? Is that massive? I should say so! If these results start coming in from other sources, it'll be confirmed, in my book.
I may need to face in your compass direction from my place and do the "We're not worthy!" bow at least three or four times.
On the other hand, there's something a little screwy about the disparity between Road & Track and Car & Driver. They vary a bit in test methods, most notably in that R & T doesn't bother zeroing their results to standard day test conditions, but in this case test conditions were quite good at their site. So, 124 mph vs 116.5 mph just isn't a credible difference unless we've got either a problem with one car or a ringer for the other.
Film at 11, as they (used to) say. Meanwhile this situation grows curiouser and curiouser. I am definitely looking forward to the inevitable further comparison tests.
Swamp, if we see more of such trap speeds from the GT-R, you were right, right from the beginning.
Bruce
PS - Of course, you really were an "Abbott and Costello in the lab" routine with your early simulations.