Ultimate hp test 100-300kph
11-10-2006, 04:16 AM
#32
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, right. That is interesting. As per my post after the event, we did two runs and there was essentially nothing in it both times. I guess you missed the gear on the main straight when I went ahead a little then?
Another thing for me is that your black beast will be hitting the scales at 250 kg lighter than mine all up. Given the chasm of difference in performance of yours between July and September, the only difference being 102 race fuel and me with lower drag and Secan I/C, I am very interested in how much difference the go-go juice makes. I appreciate you have restored 6th gear to the stock ratio, but you were so far ahead by 4th this last time, this fact is nearly academic! Did RUF mention what benefit the 102 would confer, and also did they mention how it might affect engine longevity or integrity long term?
All the above not withstanding, hats off to you and the LW RUF, 198 is amazing. Just I am trying to ascertain exactly what the subtle differences between the cars were, given the discrepancy I saw between the 2 v-max days.
Kind Regards
Martyn.
Another thing for me is that your black beast will be hitting the scales at 250 kg lighter than mine all up. Given the chasm of difference in performance of yours between July and September, the only difference being 102 race fuel and me with lower drag and Secan I/C, I am very interested in how much difference the go-go juice makes. I appreciate you have restored 6th gear to the stock ratio, but you were so far ahead by 4th this last time, this fact is nearly academic! Did RUF mention what benefit the 102 would confer, and also did they mention how it might affect engine longevity or integrity long term?
All the above not withstanding, hats off to you and the LW RUF, 198 is amazing. Just I am trying to ascertain exactly what the subtle differences between the cars were, given the discrepancy I saw between the 2 v-max days.
Kind Regards
Martyn.
11-10-2006, 04:23 AM
#33
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: london, uk
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MOD500
Ah, right. That is interesting. As per my post after the event, we did two runs and there was essentially nothing in it both times. I guess you missed the gear on the main straight when I went ahead a little then?
Another thing for me is that your black beast will be hitting the scales at 250 kg lighter than mine all up. Given the chasm of difference in performance of yours between July and September, the only difference being 102 race fuel and me with lower drag and Secan I/C, I am very interested in how much difference the go-go juice makes. I appreciate you have restored 6th gear to the stock ratio, but you were so far ahead by 4th this last time, this fact is nearly academic! Did RUF mention what benefit the 102 would confer, and also did they mention how it might affect engine longevity or integrity long term?
All the above not withstanding, hats off to you and the LW RUF, 198 is amazing. Just I am trying to ascertain exactly what the subtle differences between the cars were, given the discrepancy I saw between the 2 v-max days.
Kind Regards
Martyn.
Another thing for me is that your black beast will be hitting the scales at 250 kg lighter than mine all up. Given the chasm of difference in performance of yours between July and September, the only difference being 102 race fuel and me with lower drag and Secan I/C, I am very interested in how much difference the go-go juice makes. I appreciate you have restored 6th gear to the stock ratio, but you were so far ahead by 4th this last time, this fact is nearly academic! Did RUF mention what benefit the 102 would confer, and also did they mention how it might affect engine longevity or integrity long term?
All the above not withstanding, hats off to you and the LW RUF, 198 is amazing. Just I am trying to ascertain exactly what the subtle differences between the cars were, given the discrepancy I saw between the 2 v-max days.
Kind Regards
Martyn.
11-10-2006, 04:40 AM
#34
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might be stating the obvious, but if it makes no difference to the engine's performace AND is not good for the motor, why use it?
I appreciate your long top cog hampered your laser speed in July.
Have a good w/e all.
Martyn.
I appreciate your long top cog hampered your laser speed in July.
Have a good w/e all.
Martyn.
11-10-2006, 05:44 AM
#35
Intermediate
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not have experience of gearchange times using a syncro box. However, when using a dog box the average gearchange time is around 0.15 seconds. This is on an "H" pattern change, not a sequential. I would expect the latter to be faster. The data I have clearly shows that the car accelarates much faster when using the "correct" gear than when allowing a taller gear to do all the work. The 0.15 second gearchange time is a small drop in the overall time saved. However, I will accept it depends on the shape of the torque curve and as our engines tend to be a little rev happy we do not get the flatest response!
I have been thinking about the 5 mph difference between the two cars as tested on the Vmax run. To go another 5 mph at 200 mph, or thereabouts, takes a LOT more power. However, if the CdA of the two cars differred by a very small amount the result would indicate one car was a lot more powerful than the other. This is the problem with high speed runs as there is SO much more involved than pure horsepower!
I am lucky enough (??) to have tested many intercoolers. There are two or three important factors that describe an intercoolers efficiency. The first is the temperature drop, obviously, and then there is the flow rate and the pressure drop. All of these are interlinked and all are important to us! There are different cores, different tanks and even different entry and exit points and all these effect the overall performance. Added to this there is the packaging and weight issues so its a complicated probelm. I have found some suprising results. Cores from commercial applications can be at least as good as so called motorsport products (and are available at a fraction of the price!) and well designed end tanks are pretty easy to manufacture these days with CFD programs available to run on home PC's. My advice would be to buy the best you can but if the budget does not stretch to Secan type levels then dont worry too much as equivalent performance can be had at much lower prices if you are prepared to do a little head scratching!
So, how much power do people think it will take to run to 200 mph? My car has the longitudinal drag coefficient of a parachute and at Spa on the up hill Kemmel Straight we see 189 mph but this takes 635 bhp! As you would expect we have to trim the car aerodynamically to get these speeds but I think we could see 195 with the same sort of power if the straight was a lot longer! The trouble is that the engine is pulling over 8000 rpm so there is not a lot left! I could change the gearing but then I would loose time over the rest of the lap so its all a compromise.
When is the next Vmax in the UK? I might come along for a look see!
Richard.
I have been thinking about the 5 mph difference between the two cars as tested on the Vmax run. To go another 5 mph at 200 mph, or thereabouts, takes a LOT more power. However, if the CdA of the two cars differred by a very small amount the result would indicate one car was a lot more powerful than the other. This is the problem with high speed runs as there is SO much more involved than pure horsepower!
I am lucky enough (??) to have tested many intercoolers. There are two or three important factors that describe an intercoolers efficiency. The first is the temperature drop, obviously, and then there is the flow rate and the pressure drop. All of these are interlinked and all are important to us! There are different cores, different tanks and even different entry and exit points and all these effect the overall performance. Added to this there is the packaging and weight issues so its a complicated probelm. I have found some suprising results. Cores from commercial applications can be at least as good as so called motorsport products (and are available at a fraction of the price!) and well designed end tanks are pretty easy to manufacture these days with CFD programs available to run on home PC's. My advice would be to buy the best you can but if the budget does not stretch to Secan type levels then dont worry too much as equivalent performance can be had at much lower prices if you are prepared to do a little head scratching!
So, how much power do people think it will take to run to 200 mph? My car has the longitudinal drag coefficient of a parachute and at Spa on the up hill Kemmel Straight we see 189 mph but this takes 635 bhp! As you would expect we have to trim the car aerodynamically to get these speeds but I think we could see 195 with the same sort of power if the straight was a lot longer! The trouble is that the engine is pulling over 8000 rpm so there is not a lot left! I could change the gearing but then I would loose time over the rest of the lap so its all a compromise.
When is the next Vmax in the UK? I might come along for a look see!
Richard.
11-10-2006, 06:36 AM
#37
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: london, uk
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by leonsamonas
ruf claim it makes no difference at all, and it's not good for the engine, the taller 6th really affected my terminal speed in july
personally i beg to differ, i think the stuff is amazing and you can feel the responsiveness immediately. Since it's is engineered specifically i don't beleive it's doing my engine any harm. I'd reccommend it to anyone
especially our type of engines...
11-10-2006, 06:38 AM
#39
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: london, uk
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 935racer
I do not have experience of gearchange times using a syncro box. However, when using a dog box the average gearchange time is around 0.15 seconds. This is on an "H" pattern change, not a sequential. I would expect the latter to be faster. The data I have clearly shows that the car accelarates much faster when using the "correct" gear than when allowing a taller gear to do all the work. The 0.15 second gearchange time is a small drop in the overall time saved. However, I will accept it depends on the shape of the torque curve and as our engines tend to be a little rev happy we do not get the flatest response!
I have been thinking about the 5 mph difference between the two cars as tested on the Vmax run. To go another 5 mph at 200 mph, or thereabouts, takes a LOT more power. However, if the CdA of the two cars differred by a very small amount the result would indicate one car was a lot more powerful than the other. This is the problem with high speed runs as there is SO much more involved than pure horsepower!
I am lucky enough (??) to have tested many intercoolers. There are two or three important factors that describe an intercoolers efficiency. The first is the temperature drop, obviously, and then there is the flow rate and the pressure drop. All of these are interlinked and all are important to us! There are different cores, different tanks and even different entry and exit points and all these effect the overall performance. Added to this there is the packaging and weight issues so its a complicated probelm. I have found some suprising results. Cores from commercial applications can be at least as good as so called motorsport products (and are available at a fraction of the price!) and well designed end tanks are pretty easy to manufacture these days with CFD programs available to run on home PC's. My advice would be to buy the best you can but if the budget does not stretch to Secan type levels then dont worry too much as equivalent performance can be had at much lower prices if you are prepared to do a little head scratching!
So, how much power do people think it will take to run to 200 mph? My car has the longitudinal drag coefficient of a parachute and at Spa on the up hill Kemmel Straight we see 189 mph but this takes 635 bhp! As you would expect we have to trim the car aerodynamically to get these speeds but I think we could see 195 with the same sort of power if the straight was a lot longer! The trouble is that the engine is pulling over 8000 rpm so there is not a lot left! I could change the gearing but then I would loose time over the rest of the lap so its all a compromise.
When is the next Vmax in the UK? I might come along for a look see!
Richard.
I have been thinking about the 5 mph difference between the two cars as tested on the Vmax run. To go another 5 mph at 200 mph, or thereabouts, takes a LOT more power. However, if the CdA of the two cars differred by a very small amount the result would indicate one car was a lot more powerful than the other. This is the problem with high speed runs as there is SO much more involved than pure horsepower!
I am lucky enough (??) to have tested many intercoolers. There are two or three important factors that describe an intercoolers efficiency. The first is the temperature drop, obviously, and then there is the flow rate and the pressure drop. All of these are interlinked and all are important to us! There are different cores, different tanks and even different entry and exit points and all these effect the overall performance. Added to this there is the packaging and weight issues so its a complicated probelm. I have found some suprising results. Cores from commercial applications can be at least as good as so called motorsport products (and are available at a fraction of the price!) and well designed end tanks are pretty easy to manufacture these days with CFD programs available to run on home PC's. My advice would be to buy the best you can but if the budget does not stretch to Secan type levels then dont worry too much as equivalent performance can be had at much lower prices if you are prepared to do a little head scratching!
So, how much power do people think it will take to run to 200 mph? My car has the longitudinal drag coefficient of a parachute and at Spa on the up hill Kemmel Straight we see 189 mph but this takes 635 bhp! As you would expect we have to trim the car aerodynamically to get these speeds but I think we could see 195 with the same sort of power if the straight was a lot longer! The trouble is that the engine is pulling over 8000 rpm so there is not a lot left! I could change the gearing but then I would loose time over the rest of the lap so its all a compromise.
When is the next Vmax in the UK? I might come along for a look see!
Richard.
11-10-2006, 06:52 AM
#40
Not Forgotten
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 1,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bb993tt
Don't suppose this is available at my local petrol station in W1? 
So far you can buy it at these stations
BP Ultimate 102 unleaded is now available at the following further BP retail sites:
Bryon Connect
407 High Road (A406 North Circular), North Finchley, London, N12 0AP
Premier Connect
99 Chaseside, Southgate, London, N14 5BU
All Saints Self Serve
Commercial Road, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO1 4BU
Chicheley Park Connect
Tickford Street, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, MK16 9BD
Newbury Centre Filling Station
758 Eastern Avenue (A12), Newbury Park, Illford, Essex, IG2 7HU
Newham Way Service Station
Newham Way, (A13 Westbound), Canning Town, London, E16 1QX
Tudor Filling Station
London Road (A20), Allington, Maidstone, Kent, ME16 OHE
Wavendon Gate Connect
Newport Road, Wavendon, Milton Keynes, MK7 7AG
It's £2.50 a litre though
11-10-2006, 09:31 AM
#42
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
If someone do not know who "sport Auto is " then he is not even worh to reply.
Sport Auto is THE magazine. They use 2D as datarecording calibrating by a 2D guy. If you do not know what 2D is then you probably do not know what F1 is or who Michael Shumacher is.
You can NOT messure more acuratelly today. This si the max you can do and this si what Sport Auto does.
Think before you reply and if you do not know better you do NOT reply.
RS tuning makes NOT the most power on a 911 (they have no cluw about other cars or Porsche but know the 911 engine very well) but tehy make teh most reliably HP that you can use for over. Anything else will lose power during a Pro race.
Top speed tests on an airport are not races. You can make more powerthan RStuning but not for long time. There are not many who know where the limit is. there are at leats 10 others who can make teh same power but this engine will not survive a race and for sure not 100000 km.
102 Octane makes not a lot more HP but more Torque. The car accelarate fatser but do not has a much higher top speed than before.
If 102 is no beter than 98 octane then one should believe 95 octane gas is as good as 98 octane. do you believe this?
The more the better for a turbo engine -> less knocking.
especcialy the 996 engines take a big advandage of higher octane. the older one do not, unless the ECU programming is a lot different.
the 996 Gt or TT will has more top speed with the Same Hp compared to a 993 TT. better Cd and less drag.
a100-200 or to 300 km/h test says it all. look at the corvete data. which is it faster till 200 but slower till 3000 comared to 480 hp 997 TT..
Konstantin
Sport Auto is THE magazine. They use 2D as datarecording calibrating by a 2D guy. If you do not know what 2D is then you probably do not know what F1 is or who Michael Shumacher is.
You can NOT messure more acuratelly today. This si the max you can do and this si what Sport Auto does.
Think before you reply and if you do not know better you do NOT reply.
RS tuning makes NOT the most power on a 911 (they have no cluw about other cars or Porsche but know the 911 engine very well) but tehy make teh most reliably HP that you can use for over. Anything else will lose power during a Pro race.
Top speed tests on an airport are not races. You can make more powerthan RStuning but not for long time. There are not many who know where the limit is. there are at leats 10 others who can make teh same power but this engine will not survive a race and for sure not 100000 km.
102 Octane makes not a lot more HP but more Torque. The car accelarate fatser but do not has a much higher top speed than before.
If 102 is no beter than 98 octane then one should believe 95 octane gas is as good as 98 octane. do you believe this?
The more the better for a turbo engine -> less knocking.
especcialy the 996 engines take a big advandage of higher octane. the older one do not, unless the ECU programming is a lot different.
the 996 Gt or TT will has more top speed with the Same Hp compared to a 993 TT. better Cd and less drag.
a100-200 or to 300 km/h test says it all. look at the corvete data. which is it faster till 200 but slower till 3000 comared to 480 hp 997 TT..
Konstantin
11-10-2006, 01:10 PM
#43
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
And the poster above me knows a thing or two about performance and data measurements, he does it professionally for some of the most succesful Porsche teams and drivers in the world
I am sure he can also tell us if Porsche and RS Tuning underrate their engines or simply rate them properly.
For more info, Sport Auto are the organisers of the German Tuner GP and certainly "the" reference when it comes to benchmarking performance of our cars.
I am sure he can also tell us if Porsche and RS Tuning underrate their engines or simply rate them properly.
For more info, Sport Auto are the organisers of the German Tuner GP and certainly "the" reference when it comes to benchmarking performance of our cars.
11-10-2006, 01:14 PM
#44
Drifting
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: WEST SIDE OF MPLS, MN
Posts: 2,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes,
I must agree, a dummy like my loves listening to guys like Konstantin.
He lives it, breathes it, and loves it, and has for a long time.
BTW for old time sake Konstantin, please post your high speed run in your very
rare Porsche--Now that thing flies!!!
Marty K.
I must agree, a dummy like my loves listening to guys like Konstantin.
He lives it, breathes it, and loves it, and has for a long time.
BTW for old time sake Konstantin, please post your high speed run in your very
rare Porsche--Now that thing flies!!!
Marty K.
11-10-2006, 03:24 PM
#45
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by 935racer
I have been thinking about the 5 mph difference between the two cars as tested on the Vmax run. To go another 5 mph at 200 mph, or thereabouts, takes a LOT more power. However, if the CdA of the two cars differred by a very small amount the result would indicate one car was a lot more powerful than the other. This is the problem with high speed runs as there is SO much more involved than pure horsepower!
.
.
The bit above, the aerodynamic stuff is very interesting and something there is very little data on. Leon's Ruf does seeem very well "aeroed" , mine probably loses out by virtue of GT2 style arches.
What you seem to have missed tho' is that my car and MODs are limited to around 193-5mph by the stock gearing, see the chart above so if the power has fallen off slightly by the read line, we were probably there or thereabouts the rev limit at 193mph
A slightly higher top gear which took advantage of top speed being achieved at peak power (as opposed to near 7000rpm) may well have allowed higher top speeds - Hence why I do not believe in this instance the Ruf car had that much more power on that day - does that make any sense ?