http://www.racesimcentral.net/~apcb20/times.html
Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Here's another one: http://www.syclone.freeserve.co.uk/rivals.htm
--
Don Scurlock
Vancouver,B.C.
GPLRank -15.39
MonsterRank 90.86
Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site
http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/
Interesting. Anyone got a similar list for European cars? I'd like to
see how the new MG saloons (ZR, ZS, ZT) compare.
--
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.
The GPL Scrapyard returns (slowly): http://www.hillclimbfan.f2s.com
Todd,
Interesting information but not very reliable. How can anyone say
"This is THE 0-60 and 1/4 mile time for this car"? There are way too
many factors that govern the results, such as temperature, humidity,
barometric pressure, fuel quality, shift speed, etc. and so on.
Perfect example -- I used to have a 1998 Pontiac Formula. It was bone
stock except for a Flowmaster muffler. I ran a best 1/4 mile in that
shifting. Yet the 1/4 mile time for my car on that list is 13.8. What
makes even less sense is that the 1998 Trans Am which the same
identical car to the Formula, except that it weighs MORE because of
the gaudy "aero" ***has a 1/4 mile time listed of 13.4 -- almost a
half second faster than the Formula!
Don't think I'm flaming you Todd -- it is very interesting to look at
the numbers and I appreciate you posting the link. It's just always
been a pet peeve of mine when people say "My car runs the 1/4 in
xx.x!" Oh really? Under what conditions and with who driving? :-)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Todd Walker
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Canon Pro90IS:
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Pbase galleries:
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
I looked at the cars I was considering purchasing back in '84 (CRX, RX7, Rabbit
GTI, Prelude). They are 0-60 in 9-10 sec. BTW, yes, the Lude is listed at
9.7. I remember that review. I also remember some that were 10.2-10.5!
Good point, I can certainly understand that being a pet peeve :-) Many
(most?) folks quoting times like that probably don't realize how true what
you've just said is! Two identical cars from a dealership could have different
times too, although I don't know how much they vary, my guess would be maybe a
.1 second deviation in 0-60, maybe a tiny bit higher in the 1/4 mile, but I
don't know that for sure. That depends mostly on how consistant the
manufacturing process is, probably.
I don't know if/which magazines "standardize" their acceleration times in
these tests by correcting the numbers to "standard atmospheric conditions."
There are a couple standards (I've heard of two or three in automotive stuff),
the one I usually use is 60 degrees Fahrenheit, 29.92 inHG barometric pressure,
and dry air (0% relative humidity). When comparing runs after modifying one
particular car, it's a good idea to multiply the measured times by correction
factors that take into account the real atmospheric conditions during the test,
then "correct" them to the time you'd theoretically get at sea level under the
temp, barometric pressure, and relative humidity "standards" above. This way,
you can more or less eliminate the atmospheric effects (although that's not
perfect, but can come pretty close, that's what dial-in setup software is for
in drag racing.)
I'm not saying anyone actually does this (especially not the folks you probably
have in mind :0)), but it could be argued that there is a publishable "best
time" for a car, I think. For instance, you could spend a year drag racing
your car at different tracks (different altitudes) and in different weather
conditions, record all those 1/4 mile times, then "correct" them to times in
"standard" atmospheric conditions.. This isn't exact, but I think it usually
falls within a few hundreths of a second. The point there is to find the
absolute "best time" the car could achieve, so you could compare it to the
"best time" of another car, and know who's gonna win if everybody drives
perfectly...
From those tests over the year, you could probably pick the best time and list
it, which would probably be the run you made where the shifting was just right,
the launch was just right, etc, so you could eliminate those variables too
(more or less). The more tests you ran, the closer you would get to
determining a "best time," unless you got lucky on your first try :0). You
might have really run faster or slower than that in the real tests, but by
correcting it all this way, you could probably arrive at a "best time" within a
couple hundreths of a second. And with the time stated in "standard
atmospheric conditions" (of which there are a couple definitions), you could
find the new "best time" under a different weather condition if you wanted. Of
course, if you need accuracy to the 1/100000th second, this point is moot...
Correction factors aren't THAT good :0)
This is one major purpose for 1/4 mile prediction software (and correction
factors, density altitude calcs, etc.)... Once you show up at the track, you
want to guess what your best time could be, then run as close to it as you can
without going any quicker... The software or correction factor stuff is
supposed to let you predict what the car will run in today's weather
conditions, which you've never actually run in before, and hopefully get you
within a few hundreths of a second or so, just a little closer than the guy
without the program, so you win the prize $$ and write a thank you letter to
the author :0) ... I don't know for sure how well my little proggie does this,
so I don't mention that as a selling point on my website ;-)
>What
Seems wierd to me too, but isn't the TA supposed to be faster than the
Formula? Perhaps the 13.4 time had a different axle ratio, and/or the 13.8
Formula time was the best the test driver could do that day. Who knows, maybe
the Formula guy only had 10 minutes to test the 1/4 mile time, and was just
getting used to the car, while the TA driver had a couple hours to burn ***
and do better... That really backs up your point more than anything though.
Aside from that, with a difference that big, I'd think there was something
different between the two cars besides the faster car being heavier... Are
they really identical in all other ways?
Anyway, I agree that you might have to take the first quoted "best time" you
see with a grain of salt, but expect that you could do at least that well, if
not faster.. I'd personally stick with the fastest test done, as that's
probably going to be closest to the real "best time", once corrected to
standard atmospheric conditions (if they did that), the driver had enough time
to get in the best run he could, etc...
Of course, then you might change the oil and mess it all up a bit ;-)
Good grief, this turned into a long post... Fun stuff to talk about.
Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
..not to mention break-in.
--
Gunnar
#31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
"a language is a dialect with an army and a navy"
Oh yeah, I forgot about that entirely. I wonder how much influence that can
have... Do you know?
Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://PerformanceSimulations.Com
not really. it _seems_ to be quite important for motorbikes, at
least. I remember a Honda Fireblade model from a couple years back
benching anything from 115 to 130 bhp after a few thousand
kilometers, but this was for road-bikes, so there's no way (for me at
least) to make any comment on break-in vs manufacturing sloppiness.
in stock motorbike racing, where everybody break in their
bikes in pretty much the same way (a few heat cycles, and full power),
there doesn't seem to be any significant variation that cannot be
attributed to tuning skills, but this is a highly unqualified
observation, mind you. :)
there _could_ be conclusive evidence out there, but I know I've never
seen it, and I've been looking.
--
Gunnar
#31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
"Det er nok ingen ovn, men fartsm?leren v?r."
Great Googily Moogily
Was there some rocket accessory installed?
:-)
Nope, that's the LeMans car. Wouldn't mind one as my daily driver ;-)
Andy
--
PC-Based Multimedia System
http://www.andylaurence.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/pcbmms
Not bad for something designed 36 years ago ;)
--
Slot
Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com
