|
|
03-22-2008, 11:01 PM | #23 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
On the other hand, I've just read devo's post, and in addition to being authoritative, it makes complete sense to me. If devo is completely correct, then in my opinion the overboost isn't available for long enough during a quarter mile run to materially affect the trap speed. In that case, its augmented power (estimated from quarter mile speed) is from something else entirely. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2008, 08:43 AM | #24 | |
Colonel
755
Rep 2,736
Posts |
Quote:
I did own a 997tt (althoguh owninga car does not necessarily make my opinion(s) correct) and have seen dyno sheets that confirm much of what I have said; specifically where boost tapers at 4k then returns to normal at 5k. As I said, over-boost would only be realized in first gear during any drag race. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2008, 10:20 AM | #25 |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
My Webster's says: "having the weight of authority; official"
My intent was to use a slightly more powerful word than, say, "credible". In other words, it seemed to me that I ought to lend weight to that particular post. Bruce |
Appreciate
0
|
03-24-2008, 11:50 AM | #26 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Bruce, using the recent C&D numbers that gbb posted and your formula above puts the GT-R right back at 580 hp. Trap was 124, weight 3908. Not sure this formula is so "tried and true" and if so we are right back to the under-rating issue.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-24-2008, 12:41 PM | #27 | |
Major General
1072
Rep 8,008
Posts
Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast
|
Quote:
Pick the one you feel that suits this thread. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-24-2008, 06:24 PM | #29 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
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). 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?
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-24-2008, 06:31 PM | #30 |
Major General
1072
Rep 8,008
Posts
Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast
|
The thing I find hilarious is the fact that we has all written posts on the GTR, possibly hundreds by now and yet we are right back to the original comment from your good self swampie that the GTR is Under-rated after all.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-24-2008, 06:47 PM | #31 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Well it is funny I guess. But the evidence just won't seem to cooperate (to put it very sarcastically) with the specs. I am certainly not going back down the path of "massive under-rating" but I think something is very much in question with Bruce's magic formula, the cars hp or both.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-25-2008, 12:46 AM | #32 | ||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
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:
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. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
03-25-2008, 02:16 AM | #33 |
Major General
1072
Rep 8,008
Posts
Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast
|
Bruce,
When you compare the M3 results in Europe against those in the US and in particular C & D you have to assume that almost all of their results must come from ringers. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-25-2008, 02:49 AM | #34 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
As much as you are willing to pass along a couple of small compliments here your ongoing insults and exaggerations are have worn thin long long ago. Do we have to completely address all of these old topics? Your insults push me to want to do so. My early attempts "pathetic", sure a couple mph and a couple tenths here or there = pathetic. We will never see eye to eye on the sources and real meaning of simple concepts like average, standard deviation, systematic and random errors. What about your use of a 2WD simulation tool to simulate an AWD vehicle, talk about, inapproproate and hopelessly inaccurate. Note my avoidance of much more insulting words/terms like pathetic or "Abbott and Costello". Pot, kettle, black. Carry on, and like I always say let the evidence continue to flow and to be analyzed. Last edited by swamp2; 03-25-2008 at 07:52 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-25-2008, 02:58 AM | #35 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Not so. A 111 mph to 115 mph variation in trap is not quite as extreme as 124 vs. 117. You can not just subtract the numbers, i.e. max spread = 4 vs. 7. There is a CUBIC relationship here as well as a much larger spread. Rememer that tests absolutely are not always appled to apples, in fact we know them to generally be apples vs. organges.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-25-2008, 04:20 AM | #36 | |
Major General
1072
Rep 8,008
Posts
Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast
|
Quote:
Look at the figures for the GTR on this side of the water and I reckon they will be closer to that of the 117mph figure. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-25-2008, 08:58 AM | #37 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Meanwhile, this is pretty fascinating stuff. The only thing that sort of jumps out is that the C & D car was an engineering test mule, which could mean anything - or nothing, of course. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|