HOW???

[ZaneWayne]

Damn that quick already? Awesome. Congrats.

Apparently so! Thanks!

Sponsored

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

I'm the magazine racer and some are using a 2 variable input calculator haha.

Ah, the second basher that adds nothing of value who cant afford to mod his car. Let me know when you get some experience.

 

[Memphis]

Ah, the second basher that adds nothing of value who cant afford to mod his car. Let me know when you get some experience.

A lot of people can't afford to mod their cars. You do realize that we are the minority on this forum right?

There will be more stock mustangs and camaros on the road than modded ones.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

Not by using a 2 input internet calculator LOL

"How far do you want to go? How much weight? Alright boys, I just submit it to the website. We need 50000 HP. Open and shut case, NASA out."

That calculator has assumptions for what the power curve looks like, assumptions for gearing, powertrain losses, rpm limits, etc. It's a complicated problem, that calculator is just a rule of thumb.

Can you find a better one, probably not. People been using formulas just like that for a long time. Try answering a question with something of value other than comedy. F=ma is pretty simple. Try applying it and tell my why the camaro can defy it.

 

[ZaneWayne]

Ah, the second basher that adds nothing of value who cant afford to mod his car. Let me know when you get some experience.

I can afford to, dear. I just like to spend my money on other things too. Vacations. Techy stuff. Homes. Spending another 10k on top of my car to make it go faster isn't something that I am interested in.........

Edit: how can you put faith in a extremely limited calculator, but not read world results?

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

A lot of people can't afford to mod their cars. You do realize that we are the minority on this forum right?

There will be more stock mustangs and camaros on the road than modded ones.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then don't give me advice on how a car runs at the track if you have never done it. I have, thousands of passes and lots of time and money.

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

I can afford to, dear. I just like to spend my money on other things too. Vacations. Techy stuff. Homes. Spending another 10k on top of my car to make it go faster isn't something that I am interested in.........

Edit: how can you put faith in a extremely limited calculator, but not read world results?

Because force over distance tells me how much power is needed. And if you are going to deviate from that, it can only be slower, not faster, unless you have less friction losses than everyone else or you have extra force applied, period. How about you bring YOUR car to the track and tell us what it does instead of what a magazine claims?

 

[ZaneWayne]

Then don't give me advice on how a car runs at the track if you have never done it. I have, thousands of passes and lots of time and money.

Oh boy. Got another one of these guys.

 

[cosmo]

Can you find a better one, probably not. People been using formulas just like that for a long time. Try answering a question with something of value other than comedy. F=ma is pretty simple. Try applying it and tell my why the camaro can defy it.

I'm building one lol. I've spoken on it in other threads. Plot a torque curve, get the equation of the line, integrate over the RPM range up to redline, reevaluate the RPM after the shift, integrate again, etc. Multiply this output by the gear ratio in that gear, you get net torque. Use F=ma with F(net torque)-F(rolling resistance)-F(wind resistance) and you get your acceleration. Use physics equations such as v(final) = v(inital) + a*t and limit this to ensure that you don't exceed that gear's top speed. Use d = v(initial)*t + (1/2)*a*t^2 to get to the quarter mile. I'm just having difficulty on how precise I want this. My initial builds gave too fast of times because I evaluated the system as perfect traction and didn't incorporate shift times.

Peak numbers give good estimators but the area under the torque/power curve tell the whole story. I've given quite a bit of value, even gave pointers at the end of the post. Online calculators just give a rule of thumb, and shouldn't be used in debates.

 

[ZaneWayne]

Because force over distance tells me how much power is needed. And if you are going to deviate from that, it can only be slower, not faster, unless you have less friction losses than everyone else or you have extra force applied, period. How about you bring YOUR car to the track and tell us what it does instead of what a magazine claims?

I'll probably track it few times after it gets broke in. But the weather is already turning. Won't be until the spring.

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

Oh boy. Got another one of these guys.

Its fact buddy. I mod and race my cars, not a mag racer like you.

 

[mdnt]

are you sayin the Pre-production cars in the mag tests are real world results?
So far the mag tests are saying its still close enough to be a drivers race.
MT 12.4 @114 base SS---12.9 @ 110 GT fully loaded.
CD 12.3 @116 looks like 2SS --- 13.0@112 looks loaded also (notice how CD can get a better time on a heavier SS, yet slower on the GT)

Sorry but a base GT is gonna be pretty close. Ive been in the staging lanes often enough to know that the 6thgenSS isnt enough to be a game changer.

 

[thePill]

I think you are switching what you hope will happen and what's going to happen. We are going to see 3,680ish automatic SS's that run low 12s.

No, merely pointing out a reoccurring pattern...

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

I'm building one lol. I've spoken on it in other threads. Plot a torque curve, get the equation of the line, integrate over the RPM range up to redline, reevaluate the RPM after the shift, integrate again, etc. Multiply this output by the gear ratio in that gear, you get net torque. Use F=ma with F(net torque)-F(rolling resistance)-F(wind resistance) and you get your acceleration. Use physics equations such as v(final) = v(inital) + a*t and limit this to ensure that you don't exceed that gear's top speed. Use d = v(initial)*t + (1/2)*a*t^2 to get to the quarter mile. I'm just having difficulty on how precise I want this. My initial builds gave too fast of times because I evaluated the system as perfect traction and didn't incorporate shift times.

Peak numbers give good estimators but the area under the torque/power curve tell the whole story. I've given quite a bit of value, even gave pointers at the end of the post. Online calculators just give a rule of thumb, and shouldn't be used in debates.

Let me know when you are more accurate than the 2 input calculator. That's why we race cars. I been using that website for many years, and its always been spot on.

 

[ZaneWayne]

are you sayin the Pre-production cars in the mag tests are real world results?
So far the mag tests are saying its still close enough to be a drivers race.
MT 12.4 @114 base SS---12.9 @ 110 GT fully loaded.
CD 12.3 @116 looks like 2SS --- 13.0@112 looks loaded also (notice how CD can get a better time on a heavier SS, yet slower on the GT)

Sorry but a base GT is gonna be pretty close. Ive been in the staging lanes often enough to know that the 6thgenSS isnt enough to be a game changer.

It's a drivers race of the mustang driver is a stud and the Camaro driver is not, yes. And the heavy Camaro was faster because it had the A8.

Sponsored