rmrmd1956

I've posted my today's results on the other thread

Konstantin

i think you made 7.35 sec with the AP22 and 4WD So both seems to be about the same acurate not?

Konstantin

TB993tt

The settings were out on the AP22, details are on the main 60-130 thread, but I think I had the wrong tilt number setting and /or maybe other settings - this is the problem with the AP22, different tilt (which changes between cars according to suspension used/set up) causes big differences.
The manufacturer states that the AP22 settings should be calibrated by using a proper drag strip or another accurate device.

The AX22 seems fool proof.

Konstantin

I am really not sure but I think the wrong tilt factor will affect teh G number and the HP readings but not the time and teh distance messuring. Again I am not sure 100% on this

Konstantin

TB993tt

It does affect the time and distance readings, I played with the tilt number and it made a big difference to the times.
I think it was Bill S who suggested a standard tilt number for all to use - but of course we all have different suspension so it was alsway going to be flawed.

GuyR

TB,

Great to see some more real data - your car looks really fast (as expected) from those numbers, which are faster than the ones I have posted. I'll go out and do some proper runs in the next day or so. In terms of comparability I think my runs were done on a much warmer day from memory (probably over 20degrees) and yes I do weigh 110kg. A 2wd 996TT should be a fair bit lighter than a 996GT2 (since a 993 GT2 is 170kg lighter than a 996 GT2), so it does not surprise me that your car was similar (well slightly better I admit ) in performance at these speeds. I would expect at higher speeds the situation would be reversed, when the acceleration is determined more by absolute power vs aerodynamics than by power/weight.

You also have very lightweight wheels which reduce significantly the rotational inertia as compared to the ridiculously heavy GT2 wheels, which helps your acceleration times.

What will be great is when we have lots of sets of AX22 data from many cars and I'll overlay them on the same graph to show the variations.

As for the copy and paste, I use <CTRL> PrtScn (ie hold down the Crl button and press the PrtScn button) then paste the picture into Paint (the windows accessory), by using <CTRL> and V. Then save this image as a .JPG file which can be edited smaller if you have the software to do it. Or just send me the data and I'll do it.

rgds

Guy

TB993tt

Guy
I think you got your 996s and 993s mixed up above - anyway you were doubtlessly running heavy (2 up + you've 30kg on me) and my run was done in cold conditions 11DegC

Anyway, here is a 100-200kph which I managed to get to a postable size.

LAT

TB
Question, are you rounding up your numbers for BHP/Tonne, I get 379 & 373 respectivley.

My CTR-2 would come it at 369 BHP / Tonne. It is rated at 580 and car scales in at 1,570 kg with a full tank and no driver.

Are weights posted from a cerified set of scales, mine are, or are they manufacturer numbers.

LAT

Aside, the AX22 is great for calibrating speedometers in all your vehicles, my 530i is 5% fast.

TB993tt

My car was 1450kg for the runs posted +/- 15kg which is 3197lbs so at 541hp gives the 380hp/tonne number (actually yes 379 Guy's was a bit of guess work since we do not know the weight he was running at.
If you added an 80kg driver to yours it would give you 1650kg/3637lbs which at 580hp is 357hp/tonne

There is obviously more to the power/weight numbers than it seems, my engine gives 520hp by 5000rpm and then over 530 from 6-7000rpm - which may give totally different performance than a motor peaking at 541hp then falling off.

Can you give us an update on the CTR - what you are having done and the timescale

LAT

TB, the car is getting brought back to as good as new. New RUF PSS9 rebuilt 580 HP engine with Ti rods and all the usual RUF good stuff. Rebuilding the transmission and all bearings, mounts etc. Car should be ready early next year. I will be making arangements to go up in the spring and then again after that.

I wonder why my car is 120 Kg more than your car. Mine is a narrow body car version with carbon fibre front and rear bumpers, engine lid etc., the only extra weight would be the roll cage.

TB993tt

Very exciting project for you - congrats and enjoy

Without any occupants my car is now actually 170kg lighter than yours, before the weight reduction program (including ditching the 50kg of 2WD) it was 1522kg full of fuel (no occupants) so yes yours does seem on the heavy side - maybe the cage weighs ~30kg and then I know Ruf wheels are on the sturdy side ?
Please keep us posted about your visit dates BTW

LAT

Oh yea, I am replacing the EKS with a regular clutch set up as well. SAAB, the original manufacturer that commissioned the EKS is no longer supporting the system.