3.09 ring & pinion
11-15-2005, 03:06 PM
#301
Range Master
Pepsie Lite
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Pepsie Lite
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by m21sniper
Yep, it is "TOO MUCH".
Are you trying to tell us that acceleration ceases INSTANTANEOUSLY at the depression of the clutch?
Because as you know, it takes time for external factors(wind, rolling resistance, etc) to overcome the acceleration and subsequently cause decelleration.
It is not instantaneous. The time involved is small, but it is not instantaneous.
If i'm on the throttle and accelerating at 1g, and push in the clutch, if it was truly instantaneous and complete decelleration i would be slammed into the windshield with 1g of instantaneous decelleration force(because the car will(you alledge) instantaneously decelerate, but my body will not).
OBVIOUSLY that doesn't happen...
Are you trying to tell us that acceleration ceases INSTANTANEOUSLY at the depression of the clutch?
Because as you know, it takes time for external factors(wind, rolling resistance, etc) to overcome the acceleration and subsequently cause decelleration.
It is not instantaneous. The time involved is small, but it is not instantaneous.
If i'm on the throttle and accelerating at 1g, and push in the clutch, if it was truly instantaneous and complete decelleration i would be slammed into the windshield with 1g of instantaneous decelleration force(because the car will(you alledge) instantaneously decelerate, but my body will not).
OBVIOUSLY that doesn't happen...
11-15-2005, 03:12 PM
#303
Originally Posted by Gretch
With boost, and 220, first gear is wasted anyway.....got to a higher ratio and you can write off second gear too.....
With my foot on the floor, from a standing start, I cannot shift fast enough to get out of first gear, without hitting the rev limiter......For a flat out drag race from a standing start, I would start in second gear, give up a bit on the launch and more than make it up by having to shift only once on my way through 100 mph.....
leverage is for small hp motors......
With my foot on the floor, from a standing start, I cannot shift fast enough to get out of first gear, without hitting the rev limiter......For a flat out drag race from a standing start, I would start in second gear, give up a bit on the launch and more than make it up by having to shift only once on my way through 100 mph.....
leverage is for small hp motors......
Try that with some 15" high profiles(say 275/60/15), and you'd find that the lower gears would work a lot better for you.
Low profile tires flat out suck for drag racing, which is why you never see any purpose built drag car running low profiles. Sidewall can't flex.
BTW, almost all the big block muscle cars from the sixties-seventies were running a 3.56 or lower rear end ratio.(some as low as 4.56- back then a 3.23 was considered a 'highway gear'). The much discussed Buick GNs came stock with a 3.73 ring and pinion.
11-15-2005, 03:14 PM
#304
Range Master
Pepsie Lite
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Pepsie Lite
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I have a problem with your interpretation of it............there is sooooooo very much wrong with a lot of the conclusions you draw (tied to a few bits of fact) that it is way to large a job to go and correct it all.
Let's just say, that you have destroyed your credibility with your bull**** view of physics....and leave it at that. Don't bother to try and convince me....I have heard enough, you are full of it. I see it as my duty to the rest of the listers to call you on it.
Otherwise, have a nice day.
Let's just say, that you have destroyed your credibility with your bull**** view of physics....and leave it at that. Don't bother to try and convince me....I have heard enough, you are full of it. I see it as my duty to the rest of the listers to call you on it.
Otherwise, have a nice day.
11-15-2005, 03:17 PM
#305
So it is your opinion that if the object you are in that is accelerating at 1g suddenly stops accelerating that you will too?
You won't.(hit a pole at sixty for a clear demonstration of this).
Deceleration is not instantaneous, but gradual(even if you hit a pole), as external forces overcome the momentum of the object in motion.
Objects in motion.........
Nice string of blah, blah, blah in lieu of any sort of a decent counter-argument though.
PS: I am the only one in this whole thread that has admitted to using the wrong terminology and not 'knowing it all' so far as i saw.
You won't.(hit a pole at sixty for a clear demonstration of this).
Deceleration is not instantaneous, but gradual(even if you hit a pole), as external forces overcome the momentum of the object in motion.
Objects in motion.........
Nice string of blah, blah, blah in lieu of any sort of a decent counter-argument though.
PS: I am the only one in this whole thread that has admitted to using the wrong terminology and not 'knowing it all' so far as i saw.
11-15-2005, 03:19 PM
#306
Originally Posted by heinrich
Well it's been very yucky but strangely today we have sunshine! It's about 45 degrees.
11-15-2005, 03:22 PM
#307
Range Master
Pepsie Lite
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Pepsie Lite
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
response point by point, but it is the last one, so save yer breath (fingers)...
Originally Posted by m21sniper
I would opine that you just have lousy tires for drag racing(running 17" low profiles aint you?)
correct.....did I imply otherwise......
Try that with some 15" high profiles(say 275/60/15), and you'd find that the lower gears would work a lot better for you.
no reason to...the car is not designed for drag racing and I don't use it that way, however my post was intended to speak to the amount of hp the SC install results in and it's usability given the other parameters of the running gear.
Low profile tires flat out suck for drag racing, which is why you never see any purpose built drag car running low profiles. Sidewall can't flex.
Tell me something I don't already know.....since you clearly are the smartest guy in the room.....
BTW, almost all the big block muscle cars from the sixties-seventies were running a 3.56 or lower rear end ratio.(some as low as 4.56- back then a 3.23 was considered a 'highway gear'). The much discussed Buick GNs came stock with a 3.73 ring and pinion.
Right, and NOGAF 'cause not a one of those cars was designed to go 170 MPH......
correct.....did I imply otherwise......
Try that with some 15" high profiles(say 275/60/15), and you'd find that the lower gears would work a lot better for you.
no reason to...the car is not designed for drag racing and I don't use it that way, however my post was intended to speak to the amount of hp the SC install results in and it's usability given the other parameters of the running gear.
Low profile tires flat out suck for drag racing, which is why you never see any purpose built drag car running low profiles. Sidewall can't flex.
Tell me something I don't already know.....since you clearly are the smartest guy in the room.....
BTW, almost all the big block muscle cars from the sixties-seventies were running a 3.56 or lower rear end ratio.(some as low as 4.56- back then a 3.23 was considered a 'highway gear'). The much discussed Buick GNs came stock with a 3.73 ring and pinion.
Right, and NOGAF 'cause not a one of those cars was designed to go 170 MPH......
11-15-2005, 03:33 PM
#308
"correct.....did I imply otherwise......"
You implied that 3.09 gears would be wasted for your app, and that is simply not the case if you make the other neccesary changes.
"no reason to...the car is not designed for drag racing"
Well this thread is all about drag racing, and that is the stated motivation behind those seeking 3.09 gears.
So what are you going on about?
"and I don't use it that way, however my post was intended to speak to the amount of hp the SC install results in and it's usability given the other parameters of the running gear."
Dude, a SCd 928 is hardly the end all of power. There are a lot of guys running double and triple the power as your car WITH lower gears that are turning some truly impressive ETs. As i said before, if 4.56s(or whatever) can be made to work in a 67 Mustang and propel it into the 9's, they can be made to work in a 928. All about making the other needed changes.(drag shocks, high profile tires, etc).
"Tell me something I don't already know.....since you clearly are the smartest guy in the room....."
To the contrary, i'm the ONLY guy involved in this discussion that has ADMITTED to using the wrong terminology and not 'knowing it all'.
So i'd say you're barking up the wrong tree. I would say mark and his 'let me educate you all' nonsense wins the 'smartest guy distinction'.
"Right, and NOGAF 'cause not a one of those cars was designed to go 170 MPH......"
Are you kidding me? Some of the top door slammer modified drag cars from that era would exceed 170mph in a 1/4 mile!!!
Ever heard of the AC cobra? That one would easily exceed 150mph.
They were available with as low as a 4.11:1 final drive IIRC. How bout the Mustang Shelby GT350 and 500? Both of those would hit 150+ and were available with very low gears as well.
PS...chipped, an otherwise stock GN will exceed 160mph with a 3.73:1 ring and pinion.
You implied that 3.09 gears would be wasted for your app, and that is simply not the case if you make the other neccesary changes.
"no reason to...the car is not designed for drag racing"
Well this thread is all about drag racing, and that is the stated motivation behind those seeking 3.09 gears.
So what are you going on about?
"and I don't use it that way, however my post was intended to speak to the amount of hp the SC install results in and it's usability given the other parameters of the running gear."
Dude, a SCd 928 is hardly the end all of power. There are a lot of guys running double and triple the power as your car WITH lower gears that are turning some truly impressive ETs. As i said before, if 4.56s(or whatever) can be made to work in a 67 Mustang and propel it into the 9's, they can be made to work in a 928. All about making the other needed changes.(drag shocks, high profile tires, etc).
"Tell me something I don't already know.....since you clearly are the smartest guy in the room....."
To the contrary, i'm the ONLY guy involved in this discussion that has ADMITTED to using the wrong terminology and not 'knowing it all'.
So i'd say you're barking up the wrong tree. I would say mark and his 'let me educate you all' nonsense wins the 'smartest guy distinction'.
"Right, and NOGAF 'cause not a one of those cars was designed to go 170 MPH......"
Are you kidding me? Some of the top door slammer modified drag cars from that era would exceed 170mph in a 1/4 mile!!!
Ever heard of the AC cobra? That one would easily exceed 150mph.
They were available with as low as a 4.11:1 final drive IIRC. How bout the Mustang Shelby GT350 and 500? Both of those would hit 150+ and were available with very low gears as well.
PS...chipped, an otherwise stock GN will exceed 160mph with a 3.73:1 ring and pinion.
11-15-2005, 03:34 PM
#309
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by heinrich
Glen why are you bumping this crap thread?
"Overcoming momentum" and slowing down is the _definition_ of deceleration.
11-15-2005, 03:40 PM
#310
I agree with that definition.
The only thing i take exception to is your statement that it is instantaneous. It is not.
It takes time(albeit normally very little) to overcome momentum and accelerative forces.
For a typical rifle bullet it takes several feet from the muzzle(ever wondered why chronographs are set up six feet from the muzzle when measuring muzzle velocity?) before air resistance overcomes the rapidly dissipating expanding gas column and imparts decelleration on the projectile. Further, the BC(or CD to use a car term) of the projectile determines at what rate it decelerates, as does atmospheric density.
So in the end, decelleration is decidedly not instantaneous, even if you hit a pole.
It is incremental and gradual.
A car with big fat tires driving into a 5kt headwind will decelerate much more quickly than one with skinnies(hence serious drag cars running skinnies) and no wind at all.
The only thing i take exception to is your statement that it is instantaneous. It is not.
It takes time(albeit normally very little) to overcome momentum and accelerative forces.
For a typical rifle bullet it takes several feet from the muzzle(ever wondered why chronographs are set up six feet from the muzzle when measuring muzzle velocity?) before air resistance overcomes the rapidly dissipating expanding gas column and imparts decelleration on the projectile. Further, the BC(or CD to use a car term) of the projectile determines at what rate it decelerates, as does atmospheric density.
So in the end, decelleration is decidedly not instantaneous, even if you hit a pole.
It is incremental and gradual.
A car with big fat tires driving into a 5kt headwind will decelerate much more quickly than one with skinnies(hence serious drag cars running skinnies) and no wind at all.
11-15-2005, 04:04 PM
#311
Captain Obvious
Super User
Super User
Originally Posted by m21sniper
So it is your opinion that if the object you are in that is accelerating at 1g suddenly stops accelerating that you will too?
You won't.(hit a pole at sixty for a clear demonstration of this).
Deceleration is not instantaneous, but gradual(even if you hit a pole), as external forces overcome the momentum of the object in motion.
Objects in motion.........
Nice string of blah, blah, blah in lieu of any sort of a decent counter-argument though.
PS: I am the only one in this whole thread that has admitted to using the wrong terminology and not 'knowing it all' so far as i saw.
You won't.(hit a pole at sixty for a clear demonstration of this).
Deceleration is not instantaneous, but gradual(even if you hit a pole), as external forces overcome the momentum of the object in motion.
Objects in motion.........
Nice string of blah, blah, blah in lieu of any sort of a decent counter-argument though.
PS: I am the only one in this whole thread that has admitted to using the wrong terminology and not 'knowing it all' so far as i saw.
Stopping of acceleration doesn’t mean you come to a stop. It means that your stop increasing your velocity. Think about it for a sec. If your throw a stone, it will start to decelerate as soon as it leaves your hand. It’s the same thing that happens when you push in the clutch. Deceleration is the same as negative acceleration. When you are accelerating, you are experiencing positive Gs and when you are deceleration you are experiencing negative Gs, right? Therefore, as soon as the clutch goes in your are starting gradually to pull negative Gs.
11-15-2005, 04:13 PM
#312
Rennlist Member
yes, as long as the mass behind the projectile is moving at a faster rate, then it can accelerate passed the mussel. however, this point doesnt equate to what happens in autos . clutch put in, accleration stops.
Period
no force, no acceleration.
why dont you tell us the different speeds through and out of a bullet out of a gun. that would be interesting
Mk
Period
no force, no acceleration.
why dont you tell us the different speeds through and out of a bullet out of a gun. that would be interesting
Mk
Originally Posted by m21sniper
Let me give you some advice, don't argue external ballistics with an ex-sniper.
A projectile does momentarily continue to accelerate beyond the muzzle for a few milliseconds until the wind resistance overcomes the expanding pressure wave that follows the projectile out of the bore.
A projectile does momentarily continue to accelerate beyond the muzzle for a few milliseconds until the wind resistance overcomes the expanding pressure wave that follows the projectile out of the bore.
11-15-2005, 04:25 PM
#313
Rennlist Member
beautiful
MSniper, clear now??
Mk
MSniper, clear now??
Mk
Originally Posted by Imo000
Snipe, others are correct in this case. Let me explain:
Stopping of acceleration doesn’t mean you come to a stop. It means that your stop increasing your velocity. Think about it for a sec. If your throw a stone, it will start to decelerate as soon as it leaves your hand. It’s the same thing that happens when you push in the clutch. Deceleration is the same as negative acceleration. When you are accelerating, you are experiencing positive Gs and when you are deceleration you are experiencing negative Gs, right? Therefore, as soon as the clutch goes in your are starting gradually to pull negative Gs.
Stopping of acceleration doesn’t mean you come to a stop. It means that your stop increasing your velocity. Think about it for a sec. If your throw a stone, it will start to decelerate as soon as it leaves your hand. It’s the same thing that happens when you push in the clutch. Deceleration is the same as negative acceleration. When you are accelerating, you are experiencing positive Gs and when you are deceleration you are experiencing negative Gs, right? Therefore, as soon as the clutch goes in your are starting gradually to pull negative Gs.
11-15-2005, 04:41 PM
#315
Three Wheelin'
[QUOTE=m21sniper]
M21,
You gotta get a grip here. With a 3.09 vs a 2.2 you'd use more of the gears in a 0.25 mile run just as you say. But they aren't more closely spaced. It's a simple math thing. Count the teeth on the tranny gears. Changing the diff teeth doesn't change the tranny gear teeth to make each gear change closer. Now, if you are re-difining tranny gear spacing as in shifting more times in a given distance, well, sure. Use a 12:1 final drive and you'd be through all 5 gears in a few feet, but the transmission gear ratio change is still the same.
Acceleration of a car does cease immediately as soon as the clutch is depressed. You've removed the force that causes acceleration. It's just a fact and not even open for discussion. Your analogy of being slammed against the windshield assumes that in addition to no more acceleration, you also have instant 1 G deceleration. No one said that happens with clutch disengagement. The car is only not accelerating for a tenth second, that's all. The velocity doesn't change much, but it does slow slightly during that tenth second. A car isn't a bullet that continues to be propelled a short distance from the barrel end by the continuing gas flow from the barrel.
Originally Posted by mark kibort
1. Putting a 3.09 ring and pinion vs a stock 2.2, doesn’t make the gears closer together"
Wrong, oh so very, very wrong.
For the racing we'd be doing, the 3.09 car would effectively be a 4 speed, the 2.2 a 3 speed.
Yet somehow, 4 gears aren't more closely spaced than three?
LOL.......WOW.
Wrong, oh so very, very wrong.
For the racing we'd be doing, the 3.09 car would effectively be a 4 speed, the 2.2 a 3 speed.
Yet somehow, 4 gears aren't more closely spaced than three?
LOL.......WOW.
You gotta get a grip here. With a 3.09 vs a 2.2 you'd use more of the gears in a 0.25 mile run just as you say. But they aren't more closely spaced. It's a simple math thing. Count the teeth on the tranny gears. Changing the diff teeth doesn't change the tranny gear teeth to make each gear change closer. Now, if you are re-difining tranny gear spacing as in shifting more times in a given distance, well, sure. Use a 12:1 final drive and you'd be through all 5 gears in a few feet, but the transmission gear ratio change is still the same.
Acceleration of a car does cease immediately as soon as the clutch is depressed. You've removed the force that causes acceleration. It's just a fact and not even open for discussion. Your analogy of being slammed against the windshield assumes that in addition to no more acceleration, you also have instant 1 G deceleration. No one said that happens with clutch disengagement. The car is only not accelerating for a tenth second, that's all. The velocity doesn't change much, but it does slow slightly during that tenth second. A car isn't a bullet that continues to be propelled a short distance from the barrel end by the continuing gas flow from the barrel.