C7 Zo6

[V8FunNaturally]

Originally Posted by swanson

There is so much lol here that, I cant anymore. May God have mercy on your soul.

you're welcome

Originally Posted by Blipit_

He is just mad he lives in the land of Nascar.

You got me wrong if you think i'm angry, I'm having fun here seeing GM trying so hard with the same old platform over and over. Grandpa's condo association are big supporters of vettes

[gthal]

Originally Posted by sunsweet

You got me wrong if you think i'm angry, I'm having fun here seeing GM trying so hard with the same old platform over and over. Grandpa's condo association are big supporters of vettes

You need to get edu-ma-cated my friend

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Petros

Well, you're the one who seems to be confused about this topic. I have 2 university degrees so I'm sure about what I'm talking about. Power is simply the PRODUCT of both torque and rotational speed. You keep talking as if they are separate things. If you increase the torque output of an engine, for example by supercharging it, then you cannot possibly not increase the power output at the same rotational speed. Torque is the independent variable, the one along the x axis. Power is the dependent variable. It is on the y axis and is a function of torque. Saying that car A is faster than car B because it has a higher peak horsepower is nonsense. What matters is the torque curve at the wheels as the speed increases from stop to the desired top speed. This is dependent on two things, the torque output of the engine, and the torque magnification through the gears of the transmission and differential. Power and torque are not separate and independent entities like you make them seem. Power is a function of torque and is determined by torque and rotational speed only. It's just like power for an object moving in a straight line, just a product of the force and the speed of the object.

Well I can one up you, so almost humorously, but completely true, I have 3 and they are in physics and math. Your degrees are buying you zero credibility here on this topic. NOTHING, because you are fundamentally wrong.

Power (peak) to weight is the single most predictive quantity in vehicle performance. And yes, obviously if you know the entire torque curve you know the entire power curve, no debate there. But power is the most significant factor. Yes, in a given engine the quantities are related but power allows you to not have to worry about knowing the gear ratios. Even though it would be darn difficult or impossible to double an engines peak torque and leave its power unaltered, if it could be done the vehicle would accelerate nearly identically. There is no argument here otherwise, fact. So to keep it simple we can know power or the entire torque curve and all gear ratios. Which is simpler?

Also while we are on facts until you can explain and reconcile the following facts about vehicle performance you clearly don't understand power vs. torque.

1. At any given speed, the vehicle that can develop the most power (to weight) will out accelerate the other vehicle. This follows from rearranging the fundamental definition of power to be:

a = P/(m*v) (acceleration is power divided by mass x velocity, of course in SI units, not US common units). Also power is net power minus losses, of course, drivetrain, aero and tires, predominantly.

One simply can not make such a statement about torque. Why, again it is mostly meaningless.

2. Peak acceleration in any given gear is at the rpm of peak torque.

#1 and #2 seem contradictory but aren't. Put some more thought into to.

Please save yourself some additional "foot in mouth" and read up, there are a plethora of discussions and good posts here on this topic. I can barely count the number of folks who have posted the same/similar as you have and had only later to have to seriously adjust their claims.

[1MOREMOD]

Probably why nasa puts cars on equal terms by placing you according to power to weight ratio, with a few other things thrown in like aero and tire choice.

[Petros]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Power (peak) to weight is the single most predictive quantity in vehicle performance.

If you really have all those physics and math degrees you should know that peak power to weight ratio means diddly squat. It's just one number obtained at only one rotational speed of the engine. Unless you have a CVT, the engine is only at peak power for a fraction of a second. For example, take 2 cars. Lets assume they have identical mass (for the sake of accuracy mass is the relevant parameter and not the popularly used weight, which of course you already know) and identical gear ratios and wheel sizes. Now lets assume both cars redline at 8000 rpm and produce 400 hp at that engine speed. They therefore have the same power to mass ratio. That should mean they accelerate equally. But lets assume the first car produced 262 lb ft of torque from 2000 rpm all the way to the 8000 rpm redline. And lets assume the second car had an anemic torque curve at low rpm and only produces the peak 262 lb ft of torque at 6000-8000 rpm. Guess what? the first car will be faster than the second under most conditions. The low rpm torque advantage will help build up more acceleration from idle all the way to 6000 rpm. After that, both cars will accelerate at a similar rate, but by then the first car has already built up a head start the second car cannot match. My point is that you have to know the engine's behavior throughout its entire rev range to make any predictions at all about performance. Knowing its performance at just one point in this entire rev range does not tell you anything about real world performance.

And yes, obviously if you know the entire torque curve you know the entire power curve, no debate there. But power is the most significant factor. Yes, in a given engine the quantities are related but power allows you to not have to worry about knowing the gear ratios. Even though it would be darn difficult or impossible to double an engines peak torque and leave its power unaltered, if it could be done the vehicle would accelerate nearly identically. There is no argument here otherwise, fact. So to keep it simple we can know power or the entire torque curve and all gear ratios. Which is simpler?

look, I get what you're trying to say and I see your point. You're trying to avoid having to worry about torque, gear ratios, and rotational speeds by just using power. But it just doesn't work that way. You still need to have a measurement of speed to determine acceleration, even if you bypass torque, gear ratios, and engine rpm. Power will only tell you how much kinetic energy the vehicle is gaining every second. It doesn't tell you how much it is accelerating. You need to also know the vehicle's speed to calculate that. The reason is that as speed increases, a similar increase in kinetic energy results in a smaller increase in speed. And therefore if you know the vehicle's speed, and you know the engine's speed, then calculating gear ratios would be a piece of cake.

To address your hypothetical example, if you double the engine's torque output while keeping power the same, then the engine's rotational speed MUST be cut in half so the equation balances out and energy is conserved. Then that leaves us with two options. If total gear ratios remain the same, then torque at the wheels will be doubled, and the vehicle will accelerate twice as fast, while traveling at half the speed. If, however, you also half the gear ratio, then you get half the torque magnification going through the gearbox and diff. The resultant torque at the wheels remain the same and the vehicle maintains the same acceleration at the same speed. See my point? In both situations the net power is the same, but you end up with an inversely proportional relationship between acceleration and speed. What that means is that power alone cannot be used to predict acceleration without knowing the speed of the car (which is nothing more than a function of engine speed and gear ratios).

Also while we are on facts until you can explain and reconcile the following facts about vehicle performance you clearly don't understand power vs. torque.

1. At any given speed, the vehicle that can develop the most power (to weight) will out accelerate the other vehicle. This follows from rearranging the fundamental definition of power to be:

a = P/(m*v) (acceleration is power divided by mass x velocity, of course in SI units, not US common units). Also power is net power minus losses, of course, drivetrain, aero and tires, predominantly.

One simply can not make such a statement about torque. Why, again it is mostly meaningless.

YES! Knowing an engine's torque by itself doesn't tell you anything without also knowing both engine speed AND gear ratios. But don't forget that vehicle speed (v in your equation) is really just a combination of both engine speed and gear ratios into one. It's true you may not know each one individually, but you don't need to, as long as you have both combined into this package called vehicle speed. You then end up with an inverse relationship between possible torque and engine rotational speed values that all produce the same power output at a given vehicle speed. And of course in such a case you still would have no idea of engine speed and whether this is the peak power output of the engine or not.

2. Peak acceleration in any given gear is at the rpm of peak torque.

#1 and #2 seem contradictory but aren't. Put some more thought into to.

Of course there is no contradiction. You're the one who seems to see a contradiction where there isn't one. You seem to think torque and power are independent of each other, even though they are directly related. I wonder if you bought your physics degree from some univeristy in Timbuktu or something. Ok, here is a hypothetical scenario for you:

A certain Bimmer weighs 1600 kg and produces roughly 400 hp at 8000 rpm. You don't know the gear ratios. What is its acceleration at 20 km/h? According to you, torque and gear ratios are unnecessary if you know peak power output. So go ahead and solve it.

[gthal]

I saw a C7 tonight up close and personal for the first time. Wow... it looks amazing in person. Very small... much smaller than they look in pictures and amazing lines. Very aggressive stance. However, what struck me the most was the interior. Fantastic fit/finish and amazing detail and material. Without exaggerating, the interior was absolutely on par with either my C63 or M3 while being far more driver centric.

It felt like you were in a cockpit. The seats hugged you and are actually quite small. The dash surrounded you and was very driver focused. The steering wheel was firm and thick. It was a great environment for a sports car.

With the performance of the Z06 and the massive (and I mean massive) improvements on interior quality, design and fit/finish, this car will be absolutely stunning.

[1MOREMOD]

^^ he said firm and thick.

[swanson]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

^^ he said firm and thick.

I just pictured Butthead saying that. "He said firm and thick. huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh"

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by swanson

I just pictured Butthead saying that. "He said firm and thick. huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh"

Sorry, I used to watch that show all the time!

[track_warrior]

I just hope this thing is high revving.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

^^ he said firm and thick.

Yes, yes it was

Should have said small diameter and thick grip

[nick3753]

Originally Posted by gthal

I saw a C7 tonight up close and personal for the first time. Wow... it looks amazing in person. Very small... much smaller than they look in pictures and amazing lines. Very aggressive stance. However, what struck me the most was the interior. Fantastic fit/finish and amazing detail and material. Without exaggerating, the interior was absolutely on par with either my C63 or M3 while being far more driver centric.

It felt like you were in a cockpit. The seats hugged you and are actually quite small. The dash surrounded you and was very driver focused. The steering wheel was firm and thick. It was a great environment for a sports car.

With the performance of the Z06 and the massive (and I mean massive) improvements on interior quality, design and fit/finish, this car will be absolutely stunning.

Out of curiosity, what trim level was it and which seats?

[1MOREMOD]

What color was it?

[swanson]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

Sorry, I used to watch that show all the time!

No need to apologize. I used to watch it too!

[swanson]

Originally Posted by gthal

I saw a C7 tonight up close and personal for the first time. Wow... it looks amazing in person. Very small... much smaller than they look in pictures and amazing lines. Very aggressive stance. However, what struck me the most was the interior. Fantastic fit/finish and amazing detail and material. Without exaggerating, the interior was absolutely on par with either my C63 or M3 while being far more driver centric.

It felt like you were in a cockpit. The seats hugged you and are actually quite small. The dash surrounded you and was very driver focused. The steering wheel was firm and thick. It was a great environment for a sports car.

With the performance of the Z06 and the massive (and I mean massive) improvements on interior quality, design and fit/finish, this car will be absolutely stunning.

When is yours coming in?

[gthal]

Originally Posted by nick3753

Out of curiosity, what trim level was it and which seats?

2LT with GT seats. GT seats were fantastic... can only imagine how nice the competition seats will be.

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

What color was it?

Cyber gray... kind of a boring color but still looked great.

Originally Posted by swanson

When is yours coming in?

Hopefully soon. It's on a train coming to me but it is way too slow IMO. My bet is early next week.

This is the car on its way... not a Z06 but it will be fun for a couple of years before a Z06 follows it

[swanson]

Originally Posted by gthal

2LT with GT seats. GT seats were fantastic... can only imagine how nice the competition seats will be.



Cyber gray... kind of a boring color but still looked great.



Hopefully soon. It's on a train coming to me but it is way too slow IMO. My bet is early next week.

This is the car on its way...

About time. Seems like forever since you ordered.

[deletedelete]

I saw c7 driving by the other day and it looked nice. Maybe this gen will erase the grandpa stigma that comes with them

[1MOREMOD]

Looks good in most colors I think. Red pops.

[swamp2]

Ugh, I really can't believe I am getting sucked into the nonsense again...

Originally Posted by Petros

If you really have all those physics and math degrees you should know that peak power to weight ratio means diddly squat.

Why don't you please try to duplicate the drag racing study (link) or the Nurburgring Nordeschleife regression results (posted by me and others here on the forum) that provide wonderful predictions of times (and trap speeds) using a single descriptive number - power to weight (or its inverse, whatever). Since you are arguing for torque, choose peak torque to weight ratio and get busy regressing. Really put up or shut up. There is no argument that knowing more is better. For any fully rigorous approach either the entire torque or entire power curve along with all gearing information is required (not to mention a plethora of inertial and loss terms). I know this since I use and have written my own vehicle acceleration prediction software tools. However, for predictive power for a broad range of performance metrics power is what matters.

Again, since you submit otherwise, the onus is entirely on you to prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by Petros

It's just one number obtained at only one rotational speed of the engine. Unless you have a CVT, the engine is only at peak power for a fraction of a second. For example, take 2 cars. Lets assume they have identical mass (for the sake of accuracy mass is the relevant parameter and not the popularly used weight, which of course you already know) and identical gear ratios and wheel sizes. Now lets assume both cars redline at 8000 rpm and produce 400 hp at that engine speed. They therefore have the same power to mass ratio. That should mean they accelerate equally. But lets assume the first car produced 262 lb ft of torque from 2000 rpm all the way to the 8000 rpm redline. And lets assume the second car had an anemic torque curve at low rpm and only produces the peak 262 lb ft of torque at 6000-8000 rpm. Guess what? the first car will be faster than the second under most conditions. The low rpm torque advantage will help build up more acceleration from idle all the way to 6000 rpm. After that, both cars will accelerate at a similar rate, but by then the first car has already built up a head start the second car cannot match. My point is that you have to know the engine's behavior throughout its entire rev range to make any predictions at all about performance. Knowing its performance at just one point in this entire rev range does not tell you anything about real world performance.

Wrong again. Although one can find counter examples the reasons you are incorrect are:

1. Peak power correlates quite well with average power and average power is a better prediction than peak power.
2. When strung out to get maximum performance cars spend a considerable amount of the operating time producing a power reasonably close to peak power. That's why we shift...

Originally Posted by Petros

look, I get what you're trying to say and I see your point.

Good, you are coming along...

Originally Posted by Petros

You're trying to avoid having to worry about torque, gear ratios, and rotational speeds by just using power. But it just doesn't work that way. You still need to have a measurement of speed to determine acceleration, even if you bypass torque, gear ratios, and engine rpm. Power will only tell you how much kinetic energy the vehicle is gaining every second. It doesn't tell you how much it is accelerating. You need to also know the vehicle's speed to calculate that. The reason is that as speed increases, a similar increase in kinetic energy results in a smaller increase in speed. And therefore if you know the vehicle's speed, and you know the engine's speed, then calculating gear ratios would be a piece of cake.

Wait a second, you are telling me that a vehicle has to accelerate to have an increasing velocity? This is circular nonsense. Again, what SIMPLE metric is more meaningful, peak power (to weight, and yes it does not matter if you use weight or mass, it's only a constant of difference and as long as we don't leave earth, all of our calculations will be just fine) or peak torque to weight? Put up or shut up. The regression data is out there, the physics is out there, show me how torque is more predictive.

Originally Posted by Petros

To address your hypothetical example, if you double the engine's torque output while keeping power the same, then the engine's rotational speed MUST be cut in half so the equation balances out and energy is conserved. Then that leaves us with two options. If total gear ratios remain the same, then torque at the wheels will be doubled, and the vehicle will accelerate twice as fast, while traveling at half the speed. If, however, you also half the gear ratio, then you get half the torque magnification going through the gearbox and diff. The resultant torque at the wheels remain the same and the vehicle maintains the same acceleration at the same speed. See my point? In both situations the net power is the same, but you end up with an inversely proportional relationship between acceleration and speed. What that means is that power alone cannot be used to predict acceleration without knowing the speed of the car (which is nothing more than a function of engine speed and gear ratios).

No, no, no. Double the PEAK torque and leave the PEAK power and redline identical. That means optimal gears will be about the same. Conservation of energy, where the heck in left field did that come from, that is meaningless and irrelevant.

Guess what, performance when doing so is very minorly altered.

Now leave peak torque the same and double the peak power (implies a redline and gearing changes). Performance is radically improved.

Originally Posted by Petros

You seem to think torque and power are independent of each other, even though they are directly related. I wonder if you bought your physics degree from some univeristy in Timbuktu or something. Ok, here is a hypothetical scenario for you:

I've completely accepted the simply inextricable relationship between them. However, again, your initial massively false claim was that

Originally Posted by Petros

Power is just a number used by marketing departments to sell cars. What makes you accelerate is torque.

Who is making it sound like they are independent and that the one that matters doesn't?

I suppose all jet engine, rocket engine, marine engine, electric engine and all the rest focusing their specification on POWER is also a really big case for the importance of torque...

It's pretty obvious to me that the degrees often mean jack shit in real life and it's you who can't appropriately apply physical concepts to the real world. So just drop the ad hominem crap, it is not helping your case.

Originally Posted by Petros

A certain Bimmer weighs 1600 kg and produces roughly 400 hp at 8000 rpm. You don't know the gear ratios. What is its acceleration at 20 km/h? According to you, torque and gear ratios are unnecessary if you know peak power output. So go ahead and solve it.

Nonsense. I never said such a case can be calculated analytically. My point is simply that more power at any given speed gives better acceleration (and that in general more peak power implies more power across the board) whereas more peak torque absolutely does not guarantee or really tell much of anything about performance. However, in the case you have mentioned, due to traction limitations, the acceleration is likely to be on the order of 1g. Much of all of the above assumes that adequate traction exists and wheelspin does not (should be obvious but worth stating).

Last but not least have a look at "On the Physics of Drag Racing". American Journal of Physics, Volume 41 (3) – Mar 1, 1973. It should be quite enlightenting on the importance of power over torque even for someone with the fundamentals as screwy as you have them. The "funny" thing is that torque isn't even mentioned in the equations!

[Antonio1988]

Originally Posted by track_warrior

I just hope this thing is high revving.

I'm betting on 7k tops considering the ZR1 only went up to 6500, it is getting a roots style blower right?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Ugh, I really can't believe I am getting sucked into the nonsense again...

Swamp.

Stop. Just stop.

He doesn't get it. He may never get it. Why bother?

He's also the kind of guy who feels the need to demonstrate that he knows the difference between mass and weight. (!)

My dad once told me to never get into an argument with an idiot, because people may not be able to tell the difference.

Good advice. Take it.

Bruce