Robby

Allright.... NOW I just GOTTA.........


Z-Man- I've always respected you & your opinions- you've been around awhile & i know we've talked about this before- never actually been at odds & I'm not at odds w/you now- I DO SEE your points, but.... several things.... first//// Tony K said:
" Z, with all due respect, citing the Insurance Institute for information on speed limits is like citing a medical study commissioned by drug companies. The Insurance Institute is to speed limits as Michael Moore is to George Bush (not trying to get political here; just illustrating a point). Do you honestly think that, if there were a 35% increase in accidents or deaths attributed to raised speed limits, we would still have them 8-9 years later?"

Well... this is a great point. I have an article from 96 IIRC from C&D- "They Say Speed Kills" - it has a lot of input from retired state troopers, etc- evidently, & JUST LIKE YOU said (bout stats being MISrepresented) the states get a certain amount of $$$ for roads, etc, from the fed gov .... this is why Montana put a blanket on their "reasoanble & prudent" limits. anyway, these guys said that often times, their supervisors either MADE them check boxes saying that SPEED was a factor in accidents, even when it was NOT, OR, they checked them AFTER the report was turned in, if the cop refused. It's like this- if one car runs a stop sign & hits another car that had the right of way- one of the cars trunks pops open & BEER comes out- now, NEITHER driver had ANYTHING to drink, BUT, it would be written (by many stats) that alcohol WAS a factor.... go figure. .right? Stats CAN be useful & CAN be useLESS.... Anyway, that said, it is obvious that speed is often a problem, BUT, MORESO b/c people FOLLOW TOO CLOSELY..... nothing to do w/sheer speed....


someone asked how long it takes to stop a car from 100mph- a good stop is ~330ft.... FRom 150mph, a good stop is <750-ft.... A Renntech modded Mercedes stopped shorter from 150mph than any other tested car in a C&D test several years ago @ 693ft or so.... Several Vettes stoppped in the 720's & a 993 stopped ~900..... Vipers even worse- NO ABS... ABS stops shorter b/c the threshold is hit faster- so says the late Don Shroder, who did the tests.... Anyway, the 964's were doing sub 110s from 60mph but the 993 got worse, as did the 966, even worse.... they're ~120ft now.... 951 should do that w/modern tires....

anyway, the air bags & BS that are being thrown in cars today , SOMETIMES save lives- I think we're much better off w/OUT them.... crumple zones are GREAT, as is traction control & ABS- LOVE to be able to defeat BOTH ABS & traction though for certain situations- Audi had a cool ABS in late 80's- you could hit the swtich to turn off & when you'd turn off car, it would AUTOMATICALLY come back ON when you RE-started. Anyway, we've gone WAY TOO FAR w/sh**bags- we'll have right & left ******** AB's if we dont stop the madness.... I don't plan toi EVER have an air bag in MY car, no matter WHERE I live or WHAT year car I own- deleted mine already in Turbo S- I HATE being forced to BUY them.... of course.... I have NO problem w/someone who WANTS to have them, but, most people, at least around HERE, would be MUCH better off w/out them- saving weight will help handliing & stop the car bettter, BUT, more importantly... most people I see around here, don't wear seatbelts when they ahve them... "HEY... I've got air bags... I don't NEED to wear seatbelts...."

Anyway, following too closely will cost far more lives on freeways than speeding ever will... one COULD argue that driving slower would help- well.... if you're gonna ride one's bumper, then, you're right... but.... that's STUPID! Again, not arguing the point that topping your car out everyday is not dangerous.... At 60mph you travel 88ft per second.... you should have at LEAST 2 seconds b.t you & car in front... I'm sure everyone's heard the 2 second rule... well... that # increases exponentially w/speed b/c..... @ 30mph, most good cars can stop close to 30ft... by 60mph, most cars that stop @ 30ft from 30mph, can stop in ~115ft- by 80, that same car will stop in ~200ft.... doing the math.... by 100mph, ,that SAME car will stop in ~325ft & by 150mph, that same car will stop in ~750ft.... Anyone can see the point here....

There was an autobahn wreck ~10yrs ago... during that SAME week, there was a wreck just outside Chatanooga TN which was a PILE-UP due to excessive fog....- BOTH wrecks involved >100 cars- the chatty wreck was ~107 IIRC & the AB was ~102- MORE in the Chatty wreck- BUT....more DEATHS in the AB wreck... very close both ways though.... In ANY event, regardless of speed, BOTH wrecks were caused by following too closely.... you should ALWAYS have enough room b/t you & the car in front of you & ALL cars on BOTH sides of you to get around & manuever for ANY passing you should want or need to do at ANY INSTANT. The front to back distance should be more like 4 or 5 seconds for an avg 80mph drive & the side to side... well... they shouldn't be less than ONE FULL LANE b/t you & ANY car bedide you... the TN Driver's Handbook phrased it as: "////you must maintain a proper safety cushion around your vehicle at ALL TIMES...."


In ANY event.... the 951 is GEAR limited at 167mph at 6400rpm w/STOCK RD tires.... SHOULD hit ~169.x to 170mph at 6500 when the rev limiter kicks in.... to break 170mph, you have to have something done- either remove the rev limiter AND have enough power to do it.... OR dif gearing or RD....

Scott Gomes has said he's hit ~210 in his 951 & he was ~8800rpm IIRC- would have to check math, but, what he said added up....

I've hit ALMOST 160mph & it was still pulling.... DEAD ON by the tack though & have seen as high 29 on the hwy radar signs AFTER breaking 100.... my speedo is DEAD ON... I was getting w/in several hundred rpm's on the 155+ run... I don't do this kind of thing often, nor am I advocating it for street, but.... just adding my #'s.....

NO WAY A Z28 is EVER going to break any 200mph w/out SERIOUS mods... someone said this eariler- not sure who.... NOT trying to be a di** but.... NOW, IF you were saying that the GEAR would ALLOW that speed, then, SURE.... My Integra's short-*** gearing only would give 140mph (139.x) & the fastest I EVER saw was 131 down a BIG HILL.... ~123mph on flat.,.. The Viper GTSR would hit just over 300MPH IF it had the 1500HP to do it... The absolute best bang for $ on a Viper is a shorter (HIGHER numerically) FD- would bring 6th down to ~240mph... MOST cars will not get close to redlining their top gear... MOST 6spds top out in 5th (or even 4th?). gears get so tall that there is no power in the right place & you redline, say, 4th, shift into 5th, accelerate a little more, drag limited, say, several hundrede rpm from redline, then, shift to 6th & the car actualy starts dragging down....

Anyway, just a few points... no arguing w/anyone here.... I respect everyone's opinions, Zoltan's, etc..... just a few points... no more no less.....

Luis de Prat

And that was the original question.

Z-man

Robby: you make some very valid points.

One thing I wish to highlight regarding 'what's the fastest your can can do.' arguement:

In stock form:
The 951S can to ~170 tops.
The 951 is close behind.
The 944S2 can to about 149mph.
The 944S and 944 n/a are around 130 mph top speed.
No matter what your speedos say, a 944n/a will NEVER hit 150 mph in stock form. (And my 944S2 won't reach 160 either!) So the 'how fast can our cars go?' is simple: they go as fast as our gearing allows!

As Robby said, this is all really gear limited. But even if you get the gearing swapped out for a higher top end, then you need to contend with the aerodynamics: you're pushing a pretty large frontal area through the air at high speeds - that friction is going to slow you down!

-Z

Tom R.

Z
so then my Z28 should do 217 at 5700 rpm. and my S2 should top out at about 149. Kewl. cant wait to try it

where is nexoline when we need it?

Luis de Prat

The guy asked how fast you had made it go, not how fast the car could go. Can't you just answer the question without turning the thread into a huge argument?

Z-man

Me, turing the thread into a huge argument? NEVER! Must be another Z-man you're thinking of...

OK: To answer the original question before I got on my soapbox of speed: I've done about 130-ish as indicated on the speedo. Done at the following locations: back straight at Watkins Glen, and Front Straight at Pocono (Bowl configuration), and the front straight at VIR.

Now, I'm off to lunch - gotta get in some street racing up around the Nanuet mall. Goin' for pink slips...
- Z.

Rich Sandor

Umm.. not that I'm admitting to anything, or anything.. but I know for a fact that an 86 951, with stock tranny, and ~265bhp with a raised rev limiter (chips and boost controller and shimmed W/G) can top 167mph. I also just happen to know that the driver felt like the car could go faster still if there had been any highway left in front of him...

So, gearing is the absolute limiter in tops speeds. Followed by rev-limits or redlines, followed by having enough HP to reach the rev limit in top gear - which is tied directly to the aerodynamics of the car.

Weight, is not a factor in top speed, though... that only affects how long it takes you to get to your top speed.

Did I get any of that wrong?

R!

claw

going about 100mph in W.V. at night on an interstate with NO traffic in the a.m.. Came around a gradual curve with a clump of tree's in the middle. When my vision could see past the trees I was on top of about 50 glowing eyes staring back at my headlights. If the deer had bolted, I was dead.

Lesson I learned was you drive as fast as conditions allow. Any faster and your tempting fate.

Rich Sandor

Question is, do conditions (not speed limits) ever allow 170mph? I think, sometimes, they do.

Tony K

So what is it, Z - 35%, or 9%? You keep showing reports and statistics, and then claim that reports and statistics are peoples' opinions. You are very good at finding published material that supports your case. Remember that the *report* you quoted is not the raw data. I see a bunch of percentages in your quotes, no actual numbers, and no explanation of what was taken into account to produce those percentages.

That report is too big for me to download, as are where you actually need to look: Every year, NHTSA publishes a main report called something like Traffic Safety Facts YYYY or something like that. It is about the size of a professional journal, and most academic libraries will have it. In it they report total miles driven, number of drivers on the road, accidents, deaths, type of vehicle, etc. There are reports in there, too, IIRC, but as you said, those can be tailored to reflect someone's opinion (and working for NHTSA doesn't mean that someone is unbiased). FACT: If you look through the 1990s, you will see that through that decade that the total number of deaths went down slightly every year, and the number of deaths per mile went down every year, on top of the fact that the number of vehicles per mile of highway increased overall, and the number of miles driven per year by people increased overall.

If you are so bent on the truth, go look it up. I'm at work - don't have time to look for and download ten .pdf files that take about 20 minutes each. Look at the number of "deaths per million miles of vehicle travel". That is widely regarded as the best indicator of highway safety, as it takes into account the fact that the number of vehicles on the road increases every year, and the number of miles people drive increases every year.

As far as the report you quoted, what doesn't make sense about it is that, if there was such a huge jump in fatalities in states that raised speed limits, *and* states that didn't continued their previous trend (as your quote says), then there would be an increase nationally in deaths per mile, and there was not. There would have had to been a sudden drop in states that did not raise their speed limits to maintain the national figures.

One example of what to consider: States in the southeast raised their speed limits on rural highways to 65 and 70 mph. They also experienced booms in population, with sprawling metropolitan areas and serious traffic problems. Look at the growth in Atlanta and Charlotte, for example, in the 1990s. Think all that suburban congestion might have contributed to increased accidents and fatalities?

For what it's worth, IIRC (but don't quote me, but hey you'll call this opinion anyway), the number of highway deaths annually across the nation has been in the 40-45k range in the last 15 years or so, steadily but slightly declining through the 1990s. The number of deaths per mile has been something like 1.5 - 2 deaths per million miles driven, and has pretty much been on the decline for a long time.

You can say that I am making those numbers up, and it it my opinion, but in that case, please provide your sources whenever you claim what the top speed, acceleration time, gear ratio, lap time, etc. of a Porsche is. The numbers above are pretty well-known - "common knowledge" among people who are into it.

I love how when people argue on the internet, they will adamantly search google to support their claim, but when directed to a specific source that might say otherwise, they insist on someone else placing it under their nose. So much for searching for truth. (Remember - I'm not looking anything up. I'm lazy, have work to do, and did all of my looking up a few years ago....go find it for yourself).

If you are so big into "speed kills," then perhaps you should try a different hobby, like model railroading. (But be careful, because electricity is dangerous! Electricity kills!) I know it's good to play devil's advocate, but enough is enough - you are acting more like a crusader than the "voice of reason" that a few people on here have politely called you.

Okay Z. I'm done. Visit the library (unless you have a really good internet connection), give some honest, serious, legitimate attention to what I said rather than storming to your keyboard to try to shoot me down. Try to look at both sides just for a moment. Look it up for yourself -- again, "deaths per million miles traveled" above all else -- and then report to all of rennlist what your omniscient verdict is.

And you may have the last word on this, because I know you really want it.

Peace,

theedge

When the conditions are being one of the last people off the Albion ferry... Er.... Uh.....

So, lousy weather we've been having eh Rich?

Tony K

By the way, Z, please don't take any of this personally. I respect you and everything you have to say, too.

Z-man

No worries, Tony. I liken this more to a debate than a flame war or personal attack.

Earlier today, I found some raw stats at NHTSA, but didn't post them here. Maybe I'll go back later today. (But I gotta work to! )

However, if you did have some sources that can substantiate your argument, it would certainly help prove your point... So far, everything that I've come across backs up the view that fatalities associated with speeding and raised speed limits have increased.

Peace,
-Z.

claw

Sure they can, they even had to stop a race at Summit Point when a deer got past the fence and onto the track. So much for a safe place to speed.....just lucky to have seen it before it became venison and the driver hamburger. Our hoods are perfect ramps for certain objects straight into the windshield.

My only point is, if you can't "see" all the factors that could impact your progress when you are at speed, you have much less time to react.

nickhance

Into the red in 5th, indicated 170mph.