Obviously, at some point in the continuum of power and weight there are tipping points, which will give one car or another an advantage in a particular corner or combination of corners and straights. There's nothing magical about any particular ratio.

But think about an extreme example. Think about a 6614-pound H2 Hummer with a big turbocharged 1500 hp motor vs. a 90 hp twin 250 cc shifter kart that weighs 400 pounds. Is there any road course in the world where the Hummer would keep up?

 

What's with you and the dog theme? Do you have some insecurity issues going on there?


And as for this whole conversation, there are too many variables to draw a solid conclusion based on anything posted here. If you take race teams, you have to compare drivers, team/support strength (money cant have anything to do with winning races can it?) etc. And comparing across platforms is useless altogether as there are too many other variations to take into consideration. So in your over simplified world, then yeah, maybe that will hold true if you're looking for ways to support your theory.

 

I agree, there is an acceptable range, but we are still leaving out tons of things.

For example cars that rely largely on mechanical grip (street,gt cars) vs cars that rely almost soley on aero grip (open wheel, sports racers) will have different results. And the amount of DF being run, considering all the same) can have a huge affect on which of the aero dependant cars would win and where. But in the case of a 200 hp 1100 lb car vs a 500 hp 2750 lb car, that 2750 lb car will need a ton of straights to make of for the difference in braking distance, cornering and exit speeds.

Also torque #'s need to be taken into consideration as they will provide key information in accleration figures. So this is a much more complicated discussion that has even been grazed in this topic.

 

Wow, way to try to divert & baffle us with bull****. Translation: you can't prove your claim, but aren't willing to admit it.

Ask your buddy Mike Vick about what insecurities are behind the dog thing, not me.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackOlsen

Obviously, at some point in the continuum of power and weight there are tipping points, which will give one car or another an advantage in a particular corner or combination of corners and straights. There's nothing magical about any particular ratio.

But think about an extreme example. Think about a 6614-pound H2 Hummer with a big turbocharged 1500 hp motor vs. a 90 hp twin 250 cc shifter kart that weighs 400 pounds. Is there any road course in the world where the Hummer would keep up?

If you went to a super speedway Daytona oval, or one of those high speed test tracks where cornering is relatively less important the Hummer would likely be able to attain a higher max MPH IMHO.

But like you point out there are tipping points where hp/wt ratio's are optimized in the real world of sports cars with optimized suspension and tires. The highest hp does not always win out nor does the light weight in the real world with equal hp/wt ratio. But more hp in general with more weight seems, in general, to be the way to go when your talk about differences of 10-40 hp and the associated wt to maintain the same ratio. This is all in relatively small increments when you maintain a ratio. For a 14.5 ratio we are talking about 145 lbs. for 10 HP. So add 290 pounds and be able to get 20 more HP at many tracks is probably going to help over come inherent aerodynamic drag. And yes I did stay at Holiday Inn Express last night. My .02

 

I would hope after all the HP/torque discussion you are refering to torque AT the rear wheels, after being multiplied by the gear box.
After all, acceleration, (at any given speed) will be proportioal to Power!
(acceleration=power/(mass x velocity)

Power will dictate the torque at the rear wheels, as engine torque alone is only an indiction of a different shaped HP curve. generally, the big torque, low reving engines have flatter HP curve, while the contrary could be equalized by the use of close ratio gear boxes.

mk

 

No, NASA only accounts for a broader HP curve, as would be indicated by a higher numerical torque value than HP. however, there are execeptions to using that as a overall indicator of an advantage. (as i mentioned earlier)

gearing, is only a fine tuning element. Far too much credit is given to the changes made in this area. again, the spacing of the gears is far more critical, dumb luck would make most gear boxes of any final drive ratio, perfect for any particular track.

Mk

 

In most cases, the lighter car with equal HP /weights will win, even on the longer tracks. The main reason for this is usually the lighter car is smaller and has less aerodynamic drag. If it proportionally smaller, it will then have braking and cornering advantages, as well as the same acceleration at any speed.

want proof. Look at VIR, Road america, Mosport, etc, where the porsche has beaten the vipers/vets, with less raw HP. Generally, in speedGT the porsche seems to have an advantage everywhere, but they are constantly fine tuning the performanc packages to keep things even.

mk

 

Disagree.

Again, refer to my previous example in this thread. E46 M3, which is better aerodynamically than my E36 M3 (by a lot), with exact same hp/lb ratio (lots more weight but also lots more HP), same suspension, same type of tires, and same driver, will be 1.5-2 seconds faster at a track with longer straightaways like TWS, with the difference mainly in the latter half of the long straights. The higher HP is better able to overcome aero drag at high speeds, and thus makes up lots of time on the straights.

Whereas on a very technical track like Barber or MSR, the reverse would likely be true.

 

I already validated your point. We are talking about a car that is BETTER aerodynamically, as you say below. Generally, a lighter car will be smaller and have better aero, in your case, you are right, as this is not the case. It is also a rare case and an example.

I've already given some ball park numbers of how much "HP" loss the aero would cost, dealing with the HP/drag ratios of two cars. Say one has 200lbs of drag at 150mph and the other has 175lbs of drag. Like a .32 cd vs .28 cd comparison. (or equal size change in frontal area.) If that is the case (or some mix of those two factors), then, the effect would be like 6ftlbs on the engine. If one has a lot more hp than the other. (320rwhp vs 285rwhp) then you can see that the effect is more on the lower hp M3, as far as percentage goes. (2% HP loss vs 3% HP loss)

What is the HP difference of the E46 vs E36? what i have seen, in "stockish" form, its like 285 on a euro M3 for a well tuned e36 to 320 for the same kind of mods on an e46. close?

as far as a tighter track, say like Sears, it might be a wash. I understand the e46 has some things in the chassis that might be viewed as an advantage in areas of handling. certainly they are not identical cars, but they are similar.

Now, the other angle would be if there is same HP/weight ration, but one car has the greater HP (and weight) it could put more aero downforce pressure, at no cost to the acceleration, thus increasing handling abilities and even straight line speed, due to faster exit speeds.

a lot of factors as was mentioned.

mk

 

Academic Watson , Academic ...............................

 

Again, in my example, the heavier car is better aerodynamically, rather than the lighter car. I am not certain that this is all that rare of an example, however. Modern cars are generally heavier, more powerful, and better aerodynaically then their predecessors. This actually common, rather than rare.

In my example, I estimate his car at ~350bhp and mine at ~255bhp.


And, as usual, Wayne's World pipes in and adds zero value.

 

Who's diverting? You're the one going on and on about Vick when he doesnt have anything to do with this conversation, section, or forum in general.


What does mike vick have to do with anything we are talking about here? Are you an attention *****? If not then explain why you keep bringing it up.

No one has proven anything, I made a statement on my opinion, and didnt call anyone else right or wrong, but your groupie mentality led you to challenge my statement, so if you are going to do that, the onus would then be on you to prove me wrong IMO. Which you havent done.

In fact, you seem intent on making this a personal thing, which I dont too much care for. Maybe your attention whoring will get you some chuckles from some other guys, unfortunately, I'm not one of them.

Good day.

 

Wow, Des....over-react much?

I didn't realize you were so sensitive and brittle.

I thought you NFL guys were tough.

 

You seem to like to rag on people, by race, situation, or whatever it may be. I'm not brittle, but you seem to be overcompensating for something. And that doesnt sit very well with me. You are going on ignore so I personally dont have to look at your dribble anymore.