rec.autos.simulators

by **Matthias Fla** » Thu, 06 May 1999 04:00:00

>>Same reason my 130hp bike will hit 170mph and my 150hp car will
>>only hit 120... It's small. Frontal area counts for a *LOT*.
>But as to top speed, even more important than frontal area is drag
>coefficient,

Frontal area (A) is exactly as important as drag coefficient (cd) and
air density (rho) - each factor has linear influence on air resistance
(drag).

--
Matthias Flatt

by **Tim Wheatle** » Thu, 06 May 1999 04:00:00

Jeez Jack, do you know everything? ...... What's the meaning of life?

--
Tim "Calm Down" Wheatley
________________________________________________

Tim Wheatley
"Yellow menacing helmet in the mirror"
http://start.at/igps_stats
IGPS - Ferrari Challenge - UKGPL - Summer Cup Driver
http://drive.to/grandprixlegends

http://website.lineone.net/~nascar
________________________________________________

by **Glenn Whit** » Thu, 06 May 1999 04:00:00

Ouch! As soon as I hit send I knew that was coming back at me! I meant
to say the overall drag, not the Cd, is a function of frontal area. The
Cd is a function of everything you described and is usually determined
experimentally. That's what I get for trying to send a quick reply at
the office w/o getting caught.

Glenn

by **^Frett** » Thu, 06 May 1999 04:00:00

I'll address this one; "Life is really a dream & you are not really
here!"
Words by: "Daffy Duck"

> Jeez Jack, do you know everything? ...... What's the meaning of life?

> --
> Tim "Calm Down" Wheatley
> ________________________________________________

> Tim Wheatley
> "Yellow menacing helmet in the mirror"
> http://start.at/igps_stats
> IGPS - Ferrari Challenge - UKGPL - Summer Cup Driver
> http://drive.to/grandprixlegends

> http://website.lineone.net/~nascar
> ________________________________________________

no_spam.n2rif1.vcf
< 1K Download

by **Steve Blankensh** » Thu, 06 May 1999 04:00:00

Right-O, and thanks to JR for settling the matter of drag, but I
probably hit the "send" button a touch too quick myself. I suppose my
point was that superbikes' top speeds are primarily limited by their
abysmal Cd's (relative to autos), which, as Chris noted anecdotally,
are primarily a function of their pilots' non-aerodynamic profiles.
We human critters just weren't built to go 170. Doesn't keep us from
trying, though! :-)

Steve B.

Remove "edy" from address for email

by **Bill Met** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

>Right-O, and thanks to JR for settling the matter of drag, but I
>probably hit the "send" button a touch too quick myself. I suppose my
>point was that superbikes' top speeds are primarily limited by their
>abysmal Cd's (relative to autos), which, as Chris noted anecdotally,
>are primarily a function of their pilots' non-aerodynamic profiles.
>We human critters just weren't built to go 170. Doesn't keep us from
>trying, though! :-)

Honestly, the easiest place to see the effects of frontal area vs. Cd is
in professional drag racing. It is relatively common for for funny cars
with their sleek bodies to go just as fast as top fuel cars that have
probably 1/3 th frontal area.
--
| "Instead of letting the moon be the
Bill Mette | gateway to our future, we have let
Enteract, Chicago | it become a brief chapter in our

by **Matthias Fla** » Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:00

I doubt that there is a big difference in frontal area between TF
dragsters and funny cars: both have 2 huge rear wheels, close
together. The gap in the middle is filled by the driver plus the
engine intake.
The bodywork of a FC might be a little bigger, but TF have huge wings,
so IMHO frontal area is more or less the same.

Drag coeffizient is hard to compare, but I guess TF are very bad,
despite their arrow-shaped sleek body.

AFAIK, TF achieve shorter elapsed times due to the better grip at the
start with the long wheelbase and at medium speeds with their huge
rear wings, but at speeds over 250 mph, even the 5000+ hp engines feel
the drag.
FC might need some tenths of a second more for the quarter mile, but
reach similar speeds, sometimes even higher.

Just a peek at the records on nhra.com:
TF 4.486sec 326.44 mph
FC 4.788sec 324.05 mph
Wow, that's racing!

--
Matthias Flatt

by **asgeir nes?e** » Sat, 08 May 1999 04:00:00

So, if I understand you right, the F1 engine research teams are morons because
they try to squeeze out those last 20 hps? Why don't they just reduce drag and
frontal area instead? ;-)

---Asgeir---
PS: I do know that racing has more to it than top speed, I really do... :-)

The bottom line: Incremental gains in top speed are very expensive in terms

> of horsepower requirements.

> Jack Rambo

by **asgeir nes?e** » Sat, 08 May 1999 04:00:00

Sorry, that would be cheating! They didn't have speedos in -67 (well, not
in their race cars anyway)...

We are purists, aren't we?

Digital speedo, bah!!!

HAahaha!

---Asgeir---

> >You can see it on replay :o)

> Bastids ... why not have a digital speedometer option on the bottom of
> the screen?

> Joe

by **Tim Wheatle** » Sat, 08 May 1999 04:00:00

Because Rules forbid it in certain areas.

--
Tim "Calm Down" Wheatley
________________________________________________

Tim Wheatley
"Yellow menacing helmet in the mirror"
http://start.at/igps_stats
IGPS - Ferrari Challenge - UKGPL - Summer Cup Driver
http://drive.to/grandprixlegends

http://website.lineone.net/~nascar
________________________________________________

rec.autos.simulators

Top speeds? GPL

Top speeds? GPL

Top speeds? GPL

Top speeds? GPL

Top speeds? GPL

Top speeds? GPL

Top speeds? GPL

Top speeds? GPL

Top speeds? GPL

Top speeds? GPL

Top speeds? GPL