Ultimate hp test 100-300kph
11-10-2006, 04:42 PM
#46
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I gotta get into this foray, I go away for a few weeks and look at the fun you are all having....... 
I am sure after I read all the previous posts I may have a contribution, at least a car that will participate in the next vMax if invited.....hint..
I am sure after I read all the previous posts I may have a contribution, at least a car that will participate in the next vMax if invited.....hint..
11-10-2006, 05:05 PM
#47
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I thought the whole purpose of V-max is simply to measure a car's top speed at the end of a fixed length of runway? It's not a measure of peak torque/hp, spread of torque/hp, Octane ratings, gearing, Cd, frontal area, weight or anything else for that matter, all that counts is the mph at the end of the strip, period.
Toby, I think you have an awesome car and I believe that if you get everything right, like gearing, and have everything plugged in and working, your car will easily post 200mph someday soon, but on the above day in question the fact is that you were pipped to the post. However no doubt come your day of revenge leonsamonas and Martyn and others will be there with their equally awesome beasties to give you a good run for your money. But....
.... nomatter what speed anyone does in their car you will still not be able to prove who has the most powerful engine because there are simply too many variables that cannot be fully controlled or measured. Unfortunately (and this is definitely preaching to the converted) until you take everyone's engine out and test them on the same engine dyno under the same controlled conditions you will never find your holy grail, but I'm sure Richard could organise a "group dyno day" at Judd if none of you can live without knowing who's king dick!
Toby, I think you have an awesome car and I believe that if you get everything right, like gearing, and have everything plugged in and working, your car will easily post 200mph someday soon, but on the above day in question the fact is that you were pipped to the post. However no doubt come your day of revenge leonsamonas and Martyn and others will be there with their equally awesome beasties to give you a good run for your money. But....
.... nomatter what speed anyone does in their car you will still not be able to prove who has the most powerful engine because there are simply too many variables that cannot be fully controlled or measured. Unfortunately (and this is definitely preaching to the converted) until you take everyone's engine out and test them on the same engine dyno under the same controlled conditions you will never find your holy grail, but I'm sure Richard could organise a "group dyno day" at Judd if none of you can live without knowing who's king dick!
11-10-2006, 06:07 PM
#48
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oceania
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another great thread -- thanks TB again( and all for contributions) Toby you assert-- taller(presumably longer) gears will accellerate faster- is that what you said? Meant? --- 935Racer dissageed-- I have said in previous thread that my position and experience is in line with 935Racers assertion.
My point/question is this -- are you saying in ultimate accelleration terms using the torque gives the fastest actual accelleration and thus less shifts? I think 935Racer disageed with that-- my view is from praticical experience that quicker lap times are achieved with more suitable ratios thus more gearchanges etc. This may have more to do with the balance than the actual fastest accelleration.Over to TB and 935 Racer!!!
My point/question is this -- are you saying in ultimate accelleration terms using the torque gives the fastest actual accelleration and thus less shifts? I think 935Racer disageed with that-- my view is from praticical experience that quicker lap times are achieved with more suitable ratios thus more gearchanges etc. This may have more to do with the balance than the actual fastest accelleration.Over to TB and 935 Racer!!!
11-10-2006, 06:14 PM
#49
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I don't necessarily agree that the 186mph run is the ultimate test for performance since at those speeds HP and aero-drag are 50-50% in best cases. Now, if you compare two identical cars, then performance can clearly be extrapolated. But this is not the case here.
We have two cars that have quite different aerodynamic attributes and weight.
If one is to look at which combo made a faster run, RUF wins hands down. Which car was faster, RUF, which driver was better, Leon.
Now if we want to try to extrapolate HP from these runs, this is where I think Leon gets maybe confused.
Let us assume RUF and RS have the same HP for a minute:
1) RUF is lighter -- RUF will accelerate faster up to about 4-5th gear for sure
2) RUF is more aerodynamic, RS T has GT2 flares, stock wing, and rain gutters--RUF wins and should have an advantage of 6-7 mph. min.
3) Leon seems to be a better driver off the line--All else equal, RUF wins.
What do I see on the video:
1) Ruf goes first off the line and maintains the same initial advantage all the way to 5th gear. it does not go faster than the RS..... Lighter weight and same acceleration -- means RUF that day has slightly less HP than RS
2) In 5th gear, RUF starts pulling from RS --It is the better aero that comes to play
3) RUF gets a top speed of 5mph only better than RS, this is about what better aerodynamics alone give it, at least. Also RS Tuning hits rev limiter at 193mph and does not accelerate anymore after that of course.
4)RUF has the same acceleration as RS up to 5th, then wins by only 5mph, whereas it should have been more like 7mph just due to aero. RUF seems to have less HP that day.
5) RUF has race fuel, RS has 98 octane. Like for like RUF has less HP that day.
The above clearly tells me that these two cars had the same HP that day, and most likely the RS had a bit more.
By the same token, and knowing pertinently, (Leon can say it is an excuse of course), that TB's car was underperforming by about 40HP that day due to an intercooler sensor being removed, I can safely say that the RUF is nowhere close to the RS in question, *if we strictly want to compare HP*
The second run is clearly not applicable to establish HP. The RUf goes first and in second gear, whereas the RST in third and late. Driver (TB) not understanding the rules, maybe, but that has nothing to do with RUF having more HP.
Leon won, and that's what counts, a well running RS has however substantially more horses however.
Now that Sport Auto credentials are more familiar to you Leon, are you willling to reconsider the numbers posted on the Sport Auto magazine re. the GT2 542PS and the 993TT, as you said earlier?
We have two cars that have quite different aerodynamic attributes and weight.
If one is to look at which combo made a faster run, RUF wins hands down. Which car was faster, RUF, which driver was better, Leon.
Now if we want to try to extrapolate HP from these runs, this is where I think Leon gets maybe confused.
Let us assume RUF and RS have the same HP for a minute:
1) RUF is lighter -- RUF will accelerate faster up to about 4-5th gear for sure
2) RUF is more aerodynamic, RS T has GT2 flares, stock wing, and rain gutters--RUF wins and should have an advantage of 6-7 mph. min.
3) Leon seems to be a better driver off the line--All else equal, RUF wins.
What do I see on the video:
1) Ruf goes first off the line and maintains the same initial advantage all the way to 5th gear. it does not go faster than the RS..... Lighter weight and same acceleration -- means RUF that day has slightly less HP than RS
2) In 5th gear, RUF starts pulling from RS --It is the better aero that comes to play
3) RUF gets a top speed of 5mph only better than RS, this is about what better aerodynamics alone give it, at least. Also RS Tuning hits rev limiter at 193mph and does not accelerate anymore after that of course.
4)RUF has the same acceleration as RS up to 5th, then wins by only 5mph, whereas it should have been more like 7mph just due to aero. RUF seems to have less HP that day.
5) RUF has race fuel, RS has 98 octane. Like for like RUF has less HP that day.
The above clearly tells me that these two cars had the same HP that day, and most likely the RS had a bit more.
By the same token, and knowing pertinently, (Leon can say it is an excuse of course), that TB's car was underperforming by about 40HP that day due to an intercooler sensor being removed, I can safely say that the RUF is nowhere close to the RS in question, *if we strictly want to compare HP*
The second run is clearly not applicable to establish HP. The RUf goes first and in second gear, whereas the RST in third and late. Driver (TB) not understanding the rules, maybe, but that has nothing to do with RUF having more HP.
Leon won, and that's what counts, a well running RS has however substantially more horses however.
Now that Sport Auto credentials are more familiar to you Leon, are you willling to reconsider the numbers posted on the Sport Auto magazine re. the GT2 542PS and the 993TT, as you said earlier?
11-10-2006, 06:34 PM
#50
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by NineMeister
Toby, I think you have an awesome car and I believe that if you get everything right, like gearing, and have everything plugged in and working, your car will easily post 200mph someday soon, but on the above day in question the fact is that you were pipped to the post. However no doubt come your day of revenge leonsamonas and Martyn and others will be there with their equally awesome beasties to give you a good run for your money.
I know you are enjoying throwing some fuel to the fire while you are in there, but the day someone posts a faster acceleration run than TBs, is the day I will applaud such tuner. Let's see some of your turbo cars' numbers..... tuners out there!!!
11-10-2006, 07:06 PM
#51
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
No Jean, I don't enjoy throwing fuel on the fire (unlike many others) and my post was in total agreement with your view on the aerodynamics differences between all the cars in question - although you forgot to mention tyre drag. In context my comment was merely a reply to Toby:
...which implied to me that the agenda was no more than a bragging right about hp, which it is clearly not. If Toby was deadly serious about V-max he would be having standard narrow body 993 arches and quarter panels fitted to the car over winter, but I for one understand why his car has to have the GT2 arches since there is more to life than V-max.
With respect to the performance of 9m cars, you already have a copy of my 993RS running 60-130 in 10.2seconds (12.1 quarter mile) which for a 1280kg Clubsport running a full up rear wing into a 10mph headwind compares reasonably well to the CGT at 10.1 sec (if I have read your figures correctly?). However rest assured that as soon as we manage to test a full 9m turbo upgrade (designed/built/mapped in-house) I'll post you a copy of the datalog even if it fails to meet Toby's excellent yardstick, ok?
Originally Posted by TB993tt
"Hence why I do not believe in this instance the Ruf car had that much more power on that day"
With respect to the performance of 9m cars, you already have a copy of my 993RS running 60-130 in 10.2seconds (12.1 quarter mile) which for a 1280kg Clubsport running a full up rear wing into a 10mph headwind compares reasonably well to the CGT at 10.1 sec (if I have read your figures correctly?). However rest assured that as soon as we manage to test a full 9m turbo upgrade (designed/built/mapped in-house) I'll post you a copy of the datalog even if it fails to meet Toby's excellent yardstick, ok?
11-10-2006, 07:14 PM
#52
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by 935racer
Firstly someone states that a turbo will accelerate faster in a taller gear. Wrong. Its a simple law of physics. Torque accelerates a car and the lower the gear the higher the torque multiplier is and thus there is more torque available at the wheels to accelerate the car. Of course, there will be more gearchanges required and the subsequent loss of time due to each change but I think that an extra gearchange will still give higher average acceleration..
The torque drops after peak torque is not very significant on these engines, while the demultiplication of gears is, which makes a taller gear (Post peak torque) make you accelerate for a longer time, while not reducing by much the torque available to the wheels, you will therefore go faster.
At what RPMs would you shift to go the fastest in straight line?
Track gearing is a totally different ballgame, and needs to consider track specifics, we are not talking about that. Even then, turbo race cars (whic you seem to have?) tend to have taller gearing, not shorter, in the lower 4 gears, while 5-6th are shorter to meet top speed at end of the straight.
Maybe on a different thread we can pick up this interesting debate.
11-10-2006, 07:26 PM
#53
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by NineMeister
No Jean, I don't enjoy throwing fuel on the fire (unlike many others)
Originally Posted by NineMeister
However rest assured that as soon as we manage to test a full 9m turbo upgrade (designed/built/mapped in-house) I'll post you a copy of the datalog even if it fails to meet Toby's excellent yardstick, ok?
11-10-2006, 07:47 PM
#54
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: london, uk
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jean
I don't necessarily agree that the 186mph run is the ultimate test for performance since at those speeds HP and aero-drag are 50-50% in best cases. Now, if you compare two identical cars, then performance can clearly be extrapolated. But this is not the case here.
We have two cars that have quite different aerodynamic attributes and weight.
If one is to look at which combo made a faster run, RUF wins hands down. Which car was faster, RUF, which driver was better, Leon.
Now if we want to try to extrapolate HP from these runs, this is where I think Leon gets maybe confused.
Let us assume RUF and RS have the same HP for a minute:
1) RUF is lighter -- RUF will accelerate faster up to about 4-5th gear for sure
2) RUF is more aerodynamic, RS T has GT2 flares, stock wing, and rain gutters--RUF wins and should have an advantage of 6-7 mph. min.
3) Leon seems to be a better driver off the line--All else equal, RUF wins.
What do I see on the video:
1) Ruf goes first off the line and maintains the same initial advantage all the way to 5th gear. it does not go faster than the RS..... Lighter weight and same acceleration -- means RUF that day has slightly less HP than RS
2) In 5th gear, RUF starts pulling from RS --It is the better aero that comes to play
3) RUF gets a top speed of 5mph only better than RS, this is about what better aerodynamics alone give it, at least. Also RS Tuning hits rev limiter at 193mph and does not accelerate anymore after that of course.
4)RUF has the same acceleration as RS up to 5th, then wins by only 5mph, whereas it should have been more like 7mph just due to aero. RUF seems to have less HP that day.
5) RUF has race fuel, RS has 98 octane. Like for like RUF has less HP that day.
The above clearly tells me that these two cars had the same HP that day, and most likely the RS had a bit more.
By the same token, and knowing pertinently, (Leon can say it is an excuse of course), that TB's car was underperforming by about 40HP that day due to an intercooler sensor being removed, I can safely say that the RUF is nowhere close to the RS in question, *if we strictly want to compare HP*
The second run is clearly not applicable to establish HP. The RUf goes first and in second gear, whereas the RST in third and late. Driver (TB) not understanding the rules, maybe, but that has nothing to do with RUF having more HP.
Leon won, and that's what counts, a well running RS has however substantially more horses however.
Now that Sport Auto credentials are more familiar to you Leon, are you willling to reconsider the numbers posted on the Sport Auto magazine re. the GT2 542PS and the 993TT, as you said earlier?
We have two cars that have quite different aerodynamic attributes and weight.
If one is to look at which combo made a faster run, RUF wins hands down. Which car was faster, RUF, which driver was better, Leon.
Now if we want to try to extrapolate HP from these runs, this is where I think Leon gets maybe confused.
Let us assume RUF and RS have the same HP for a minute:
1) RUF is lighter -- RUF will accelerate faster up to about 4-5th gear for sure
2) RUF is more aerodynamic, RS T has GT2 flares, stock wing, and rain gutters--RUF wins and should have an advantage of 6-7 mph. min.
3) Leon seems to be a better driver off the line--All else equal, RUF wins.
What do I see on the video:
1) Ruf goes first off the line and maintains the same initial advantage all the way to 5th gear. it does not go faster than the RS..... Lighter weight and same acceleration -- means RUF that day has slightly less HP than RS
2) In 5th gear, RUF starts pulling from RS --It is the better aero that comes to play
3) RUF gets a top speed of 5mph only better than RS, this is about what better aerodynamics alone give it, at least. Also RS Tuning hits rev limiter at 193mph and does not accelerate anymore after that of course.
4)RUF has the same acceleration as RS up to 5th, then wins by only 5mph, whereas it should have been more like 7mph just due to aero. RUF seems to have less HP that day.
5) RUF has race fuel, RS has 98 octane. Like for like RUF has less HP that day.
The above clearly tells me that these two cars had the same HP that day, and most likely the RS had a bit more.
By the same token, and knowing pertinently, (Leon can say it is an excuse of course), that TB's car was underperforming by about 40HP that day due to an intercooler sensor being removed, I can safely say that the RUF is nowhere close to the RS in question, *if we strictly want to compare HP*
The second run is clearly not applicable to establish HP. The RUf goes first and in second gear, whereas the RST in third and late. Driver (TB) not understanding the rules, maybe, but that has nothing to do with RUF having more HP.
Leon won, and that's what counts, a well running RS has however substantially more horses however.
Now that Sport Auto credentials are more familiar to you Leon, are you willling to reconsider the numbers posted on the Sport Auto magazine re. the GT2 542PS and the 993TT, as you said earlier?
also i haven't implied anyone has more power only who was quicker..read the text
p.s when u say only 5 mph...at that speed that's a big distance on a 1.4 mile strip...at vmax 5 mph is a gulf when 1 mph usually seperated 5 or 6 cars
11-10-2006, 07:50 PM
#55
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: london, uk
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NineMeister
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I thought the whole purpose of V-max is simply to measure a car's top speed at the end of a fixed length of runway? It's not a measure of peak torque/hp, spread of torque/hp, Octane ratings, gearing, Cd, frontal area, weight or anything else for that matter, all that counts is the mph at the end of the strip, period.
Toby, I think you have an awesome car and I believe that if you get everything right, like gearing, and have everything plugged in and working, your car will easily post 200mph someday soon, but on the above day in question the fact is that you were pipped to the post. However no doubt come your day of revenge leonsamonas and Martyn and others will be there with their equally awesome beasties to give you a good run for your money. But....
Toby, I think you have an awesome car and I believe that if you get everything right, like gearing, and have everything plugged in and working, your car will easily post 200mph someday soon, but on the above day in question the fact is that you were pipped to the post. However no doubt come your day of revenge leonsamonas and Martyn and others will be there with their equally awesome beasties to give you a good run for your money. But....
11-10-2006, 07:52 PM
#56
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: london, uk
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LAT
I gotta get into this foray, I go away for a few weeks and look at the fun you are all having.......
I am sure after I read all the previous posts I may have a contribution, at least a car that will participate in the next vMax if invited.....hint..
I am sure after I read all the previous posts I may have a contribution, at least a car that will participate in the next vMax if invited.....hint..
11-10-2006, 07:54 PM
#57
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Originally Posted by Jean
Yes this is what I was looking for, a turbo car fully built in-house with its performance numbers, not only from you in particular but from many others. Rest assured, it does not matter who has the fastest run, as long as we can properly match HP to performance in real life, that's all.
11-11-2006, 06:58 AM
#58
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not jumping into this great thread, other than to say:
1. Lat we'd love to see you there and also anyone else with the right car. Invites are no problem as Leon, myself and MOD500 are regulars.
2. There's only two groups of results at VMax as I see it a) <200mph b) >200mph 
Guy
1. Lat we'd love to see you there and also anyone else with the right car. Invites are no problem as Leon, myself and MOD500 are regulars.
2. There's only two groups of results at VMax as I see it a) <200mph b) >200mph
Guy
11-11-2006, 07:26 AM
#59
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by leonsamonas
p.s when u say only 5 mph...at that speed that's a big distance on a 1.4 mile strip...at vmax 5 mph is a gulf when 1 mph usually seperated 5 or 6 cars
I will just comment and correct you on the point that is of interest to me, far from, I said he said...
If you jump ahead in the beginning and gain 5mph from the initial few feet, it will take the other car a while to get the distance back, and to do so, he would have to be more powerful. However, he can be carrying more speed than you even being still behind you... Your assumption is incorrect, you wouldn't be so far ahead, if any, not necessarily at least..
It is obvious from the video that you were ahead of him buy a couple of cars throughout the run until you had to slow down. You guys were accelerating at the exact same pace, until end 5th gear where you started pulling thanks to better aerodynamics.
Your car is a true VmAx animal, no doubt about it, but there is more than power to it.
Best
11-11-2006, 08:51 AM
#60
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Red9
Another great thread -- thanks TB again( and all for contributions)
Toby you assert-- taller(presumably longer) gears will accellerate faster- is that what you said? Meant?
Toby you assert-- taller(presumably longer) gears will accellerate faster- is that what you said? Meant?
Originally Posted by Red9
--- 935Racer dissageed-- I have said in previous thread that my position and experience is in line with 935Racers assertion.
My point/question is this -- are you saying in ultimate accelleration terms using the torque gives the fastest actual accelleration and thus less shifts?
My point/question is this -- are you saying in ultimate accelleration terms using the torque gives the fastest actual accelleration and thus less shifts?
Originally Posted by Red9
I think 935Racer disageed with that-- my view is from praticical experience that quicker lap times are achieved with more suitable ratios thus more gearchanges etc. This may have more to do with the balance than the actual fastest accelleration.Over to TB and 935 Racer!!!
If you have a look at this:http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/4484/601301va5.jpg
It is a 60-130 which I did starting in 4th gear instead of third hence saving 1 gearchange - the resultant time was ~7.2s which is about the same as using 3rd - as you know 60mph in 4th is about 3400rpm so I was way out of the real power band - imagine how fast a 60-130 could be achieved with two optimised gears ?
The Red RS Tuning car which is reffered to earlier in the thread has a 5 speed box with long ratios (enough to do 221mph in 5th !) and I am told that is one of thereasons it was so fast accelerating combined with its broad power/torque curve and most importantly the radical aerodynamics.
Edit
A classic lesson in making turbo torque work is the Ruf CTR "Yellowbird" the gear ratios in this were approximately as follows:
@ 7000rpm
1st 47mph
2nd 81mph
3rd 112mph
4th 150mph
5th 193mph
6th 241mph
Far from ideal for a 60-130, but the 100-150 is ferocious
Last edited by TB993tt; 11-11-2006 at 09:56 AM.