|
|
12-01-2007, 04:29 PM | #155 | |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Furthermore I am not sugar coating anyhting. How is showing the IS-F faster than the M3 MT (which is consistent with test data BTW) sugar coating anything?? You are simply wrong here! Also, for the millionth time simulation is BETTER at comparing relative times rather than absolute times. I definitely disagree with you about the gear ratios BMW will choose for the 7 M-DCT, why make the car get better mileage thorugh gearing with the DCT itself will do that. Why not use closer ratios as well when you have 7 instead of 6 to cover the same total speed range. Do you think they need to make the high revving engine product faster speeds at very low engine rpm ala a Z06 You OPINIONS simply make no sense here. Last I have no idea what you mean about 4 vs. 5 shifts. The software shifts all car in simulation at the optimum shift point to maximize acceleration, red line or below redline. I have used .25 s for MT shift speeds, .1 s for IS-F and .03 s for M-DCT. If you can find better data than that and want to run some simulations youself go for it. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-01-2007, 04:36 PM | #156 | |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
If you want a deterministic simulation (do you know what that even means...?) to be a stochastic one, then no, this particular software does not do this auotmatically. However, putting a human into the "equation" is all you are asking for, and this can easily be done by computer. Next 0-X speed times are completely independent from reaction time, the clock only starts ticking once the car starts moving. Reaction time is simply irrelevant here. It only becomes relevant for the human at the drag strip, never for a simulation. You just keep missing the poing, which is what about half of the earlier part of the thread was about. Multiple people pointed this out to you and you earlier and you are still oblivious to it and KEEP MISSING THE MAIN POINTS. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-01-2007, 05:53 PM | #157 | |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-01-2007, 09:56 PM | #158 | |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
And "poing", OMG so sorry to upset your delicate sense of language, spelling and grammar. Notice the context using the word "point" in the immediately preceeding sentence? And that the "G" key is right next to the "T" key, probably not - a bit too subtle for you. On that point I will glady bet that I have many fewer grammar and spelling errors as a percentage in my posts than yours. No one here will be very confused as to who has a drastically superior mastery of language, both English and Science (which is a language you so tremendously misunderstand). P.S your "where" above should be "were" you little hypocrite . You are so fantastic at missing key points I'm going to have to think of a clever little nick name for you. Like I said above....REACTION TIME IS IRRELEVANT TO TIMED SPEED CONTESTS OF 0-ANY mph, WHEN THE CLOCK STARTS WHEN THE MOVEMENT DOES. Of course reaction time is key when the bloody clock starts when the light turns green. A simulation of a 1/4 mi time uses 0.0 second reaction time. If you wanted to alter that and choose a reaction time you could, but trying to match the best a human can do, it seems best to leave that parameter as default. BTW, just to clarify, I have run at the 1/4 mi strip, but it is far from my favorite motorsport activity. Nonetheless I'd be happy to meet you at the strip in my beat on, 200k+ mi, 10+ year old car and teach you a thing or two. You'll have to get over cars if you want to get over simulation because simulation is used so amazing broadly and deeply to design every modern car these days. It is used for just about everything: strength, durability, suspension kinematics and dynamics, engine, exhaust, brakes, comfort, safety, electrical, thermal, aerodynamics, acoustics, ergonomics, you name it. Maybe you might wonder why simulation is used so extensively (well you probably never actually pondered this...)? Let me tell you why - SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WORKS AND IS ACCURATE. Continue to live in your small isolated world of denial. In fact you will have to get over yourself if you want to get over science or physics, they govern every little detail of your annoying self as well. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-02-2007, 01:33 AM | #160 | |
Major General
1122
Rep 8,017
Posts |
Quote:
DSG style gearboxes are something I know a little about as I have had some experience with them. Number one mistake is that they do not improve economy, they offer the same economy as a manual but better that of an automatic which is the biggest sales pitch by marketing. Number two, the M5/6 both are limited to 155mph but their true topspeed is about 205mph and 6th gear is good for about 186mph so where is the logic in that if the thing is limited on 95% of it's sales markets. I just think you are jumping to conclusions that the gearbox will be set up for acceleration by on what you personally are looking for. If we were talking about the CSL then I would wholeheartedly agree with this opinion but we aren't. As for simulators, I think the problem with them is people read too much into them. Think of it this way, if you pull up to the lights in your car (X) and along side pull up car (Y) which according to the simulator will beat car (Y), what would you excuse be to your girlfriend when you lost. See me point, it all well and good to use them as a tool but that is all they are. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-02-2007, 04:29 AM | #161 | ||||
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for your example, I'd say, "damn I know my car is faster and I can beat that fellow but he out drove me" (or "he has a heavily modded sleeper", that will always give you wiggle room as well...). |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-02-2007, 05:39 AM | #162 | ||||
Major General
1122
Rep 8,017
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All I am saying about simulators are they are a good estimate of a car's capabilities, nothing more. |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-02-2007, 09:33 AM | #163 | |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Swampass, you're a Moron.
Quote:
Last edited by gbb357; 12-02-2007 at 02:16 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-02-2007, 09:55 PM | #169 |
Lieutenant Colonel
73
Rep 1,603
Posts
Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WHO DAT NATION
|
It's more likely dementia, as he drives an IS300, and Lexus sells most of its cars to retirees.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-02-2007, 10:09 PM | #170 |
Captain
61
Rep 924
Posts
Drives: Ford Falcon Ute, Ducati 1198S
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-03-2007, 07:53 AM | #171 | |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
Very nice, another moron. Do you even know what we're talking about, it's not about Lexus vs BMW you moron. I've been a fan of BMW since 86'. Last edited by gbb357; 12-03-2007 at 08:33 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-03-2007, 08:16 AM | #172 |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Just so you know, there are many members here that don't drive a BMW and you just diss Celsius who drives a LS430, Epacy drives a Maxima and ChitownM3 drives a Camaro SS just to name a few. Are you gonna be a typical badge whore fan boy and diss them all too?
Last edited by gbb357; 12-03-2007 at 01:33 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2007, 11:22 AM | #173 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Pilot error? GIGO? Lousy software? Poor instructions?
Quote:
Swamp, the thing is, useful tool or not, the simulation results seem to be fairly poor - notwithstanding your feeling that the results are just fine. Using the above E46 M3 results as an example, the simulator seems to show a power shortfall of around 10% compared with C & D's "new car" results - and C & D's results are not atypical of what one might expect of such a vehicle, corrected to approximate SAE "gross" Standard Day meteorological conditions. Our car went a best of 13.12 at 107 and change, if memory serves. A simulation that represents an approximate 10% power loss is seriously deficient. Doing some minor analysis, the ET-to-speed relationship (ET times speed) is about right, with the simulation coming in at a 1396 compared to C & D's 1402. (What one should look for is a number of about 1400 or better, with very powerful street cars struggling to reach this number. Anything much over 1400 means you've got a significant traction or gearing problem - or a pilot unfamilair with basic starting line procedures. Much under 1400 shows traction and torque.) One thing that does in fact stand out a bit is that the simulator shows a pickup of less than 20 miles per hour (19.81, to be exact) between the 660 and 1320 foot markers. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this car-made-of-electrons is a flat pig on the top end, which is just where you'd expect a power-laden, torque-challenged car to really be coming on strong, particularly with the relatively close gear-spacing BMW uses after second gear. Our E46 picked up an average of nearly 24 mph as a comparison, and other cars we've documented also have done comparitively well on the top end, as well. Examples: '85 Vette, 230 HP, 3230 pounds. Average 13.77 @ 101.36 MPH, picked up an average of 21.24 MPH in the last 660 feet over 20 runs. '91 Saleen, unknown power and weight. Average 13.67 @ 102.11 MPH, picked up 20.71 MPH over a dozen runs. '93 Vette, 300 HP, 3340 pounds. Average 13.13 @ 107.04 MPH, picked up 22.59 MPH over 31 runs. '95 M3, 240 HP, 3220 pounds. Average 14.11 @ 98.42 MPH, picked up 20.15 MPH over 30 runs. '04 M3, 333 HP, 3410 pounds. Only made three runs and didn't save the slips, but I checked while at the scene, and the car averaged around 13.2 @ about 107, with a 660 foot speed in the 83 range. Now (and finally getting on point), your simulation in note #89 shows that the Lexus is also a pig on the top end, doing only around a 20 MPH pickup in the last 1/8th mile. A car with this power to weight will just flat do better than that, especially compared with the examples already given in this note. I mean no disrespect, but to me, this is symptomatic of a general problem with these particular simulation results. I don't know the solution to the problem, but I do know there is a definite problem which makes these results pretty much without significant value, and by inference, other simulations you generate with this tool without a serious re-evaluation. Bruce PS - A high redline and short gear ratios have very little to do with actual quarter-mile results. Gearing essentially only matters a damn in the first 60 feet or so, and on a traction-challenged car, it won't make a significant difference even in that range. It's power and weight that mostly matter with cars in this performance range. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2007, 11:58 AM | #174 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2007, 12:12 PM | #175 | |
Captain
13
Rep 689
Posts |
Quote:
After the car is moving the engine should stay in its powerband. At that point the engine HP becomes a very good measure of TQ at the rear wheels since the engine RPM will be modified by whatever gears are needed at the speed the car is moving. Its all about rear wheel torque but thats more a product of engine HP than engine TQ. I suspect the flaw in the simulation may involve aerodynamic drag. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2007, 06:15 PM | #176 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|