1/4 Mile question - Am I being Stupid??????
#31
Back to first principles...
An explanation could be that the 1st car accelerated 0-80 very very fast, covering lots of distance, after 80, things got slow, and it took ages to get to 90mph (hence higher time). But because it was near the finish line, it got a high 1/4 mile time.
Now the second car took ages to get to say, 0-50, thereby loosing a lot of 1/4 mile time. Then, all of a sudden there is a massive burst of acceleration and it hits 100! But this acceleration was not enough to make up for slow coverage of ground...
...Is that better?!
how can a car that does the quater mile with a terminal speed of 90 mph and 12.68 secs be quicker than a car that does 0-100 in 12.20 secs ie prodrives figures
Now the second car took ages to get to say, 0-50, thereby loosing a lot of 1/4 mile time. Then, all of a sudden there is a massive burst of acceleration and it hits 100! But this acceleration was not enough to make up for slow coverage of ground...
...Is that better?!
#33
Hang on...
Maybe I know what the question is here (always helps). Are you saying that
1. Prodrive say ppp 0-100 is 12.20
2. Johns Prodrive ppp 0-100 is 12.41 secs
Because 1 not = to 2, therefore someone is telling porkies??
Maybe I know what the question is here (always helps). Are you saying that
1. Prodrive say ppp 0-100 is 12.20
2. Johns Prodrive ppp 0-100 is 12.41 secs
Because 1 not = to 2, therefore someone is telling porkies??
#34
akshay yes thats helping m8
paul woodward i think your answer is more like it tho!!!
the point was that mwp who got the 13.68 90 mph says that NO WAY could he get 12.20 0-100 out of his sti 8 so bad starts etc etc dont count here.
I think paul woodward has hit the nail on the head even though in prodrives blurb it states real world situation or something like.
Also my point still stands FORGETTING about the distance involved the following is correct accroding to prodrive
prodrive ppp sti 0-100 = 12.20
5 John Trauty - 12.41/100 0 -100 = 12.41
14 Martin Metcalfe - 13.33/100 0-100 = 13.33
23 Mark Winson-Pear - 13.68/90 0-90 = 13.68
therefore on a 0-100 time the ppp sti would have beaten them all even though mwp has a ppp sti -
my point still is the prodrive figures must be BO@@OX
hawk (not quite so stupid thanx to akshay)
ps i think
paul woodward i think your answer is more like it tho!!!
the point was that mwp who got the 13.68 90 mph says that NO WAY could he get 12.20 0-100 out of his sti 8 so bad starts etc etc dont count here.
I think paul woodward has hit the nail on the head even though in prodrives blurb it states real world situation or something like.
Also my point still stands FORGETTING about the distance involved the following is correct accroding to prodrive
prodrive ppp sti 0-100 = 12.20
5 John Trauty - 12.41/100 0 -100 = 12.41
14 Martin Metcalfe - 13.33/100 0-100 = 13.33
23 Mark Winson-Pear - 13.68/90 0-90 = 13.68
therefore on a 0-100 time the ppp sti would have beaten them all even though mwp has a ppp sti -
my point still is the prodrive figures must be BO@@OX
hawk (not quite so stupid thanx to akshay)
ps i think
#35
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: cambs
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prodrive 13.44, mwp 13.68 (avg nr 14 over 10 runs)... but still if I really was at terminal 90 on the 13.68 then the prodrive 0-100 looks wrong at 12.2 if done in same conditions.
so let me think along the suggested lines ....
lets say i do a 1/4 ml on tarmac with v.little wheelspin and get 13.68 AND i then put on my best slicks and nail it on sheet ice ... would that get me a staggering 0-100 time ?
so let me think along the suggested lines ....
lets say i do a 1/4 ml on tarmac with v.little wheelspin and get 13.68 AND i then put on my best slicks and nail it on sheet ice ... would that get me a staggering 0-100 time ?
#36
akshay I dont know what car john was driving
mwp has an sti 8 i dont know what the others have in essence yes my point is the 1/4 mile figures have variables but the 0-100 is fixed agreed
you have a 0 start then a 100mph finish time distance is irrelevant the time being measured in seconds. Prodrives really really dont add up which is what started me on this thread
mwp has an sti 8 i dont know what the others have in essence yes my point is the 1/4 mile figures have variables but the 0-100 is fixed agreed
you have a 0 start then a 100mph finish time distance is irrelevant the time being measured in seconds. Prodrives really really dont add up which is what started me on this thread
#37
lol @ mwp i believe u m8 honest.
prodrive STI7/8 ppp sti 0-100 = 12.20
5 John Trauty - 12.41/100 0 -100 = 12.41
14 Martin Metcalfe - 13.33/100 0-100 = 13.33
23 Mark Winson-Pear - 13.68/90 0-90 = 13.68 STI8 PPP
What were the other two people driving???
prodrive STI7/8 ppp sti 0-100 = 12.20
5 John Trauty - 12.41/100 0 -100 = 12.41
14 Martin Metcalfe - 13.33/100 0-100 = 13.33
23 Mark Winson-Pear - 13.68/90 0-90 = 13.68 STI8 PPP
What were the other two people driving???
#38
Hawkeye, right - I see what you're saying, i.e. Prodrive seem to have exaggerated their figure for 0-100 times by well over a second!
Maybe their 'real-world' road consists of a downhill slope?
Maybe their 'real-world' road consists of a downhill slope?
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the point was that mwp who got the 13.68 90 mph says that NO WAY could he get 12.20 0-100 out of his sti 8 so bad starts etc etc dont count here
#41
another figure for comparison.... a good friend's FWD nova did a 12.4 @ 119 mph with a 60 foot of 1.8 seconds at the pod, his ECU records a 0-62mph time of 4.77 seconds
If we could see the 60ft. and 1/8 mile times for the scoobs used in the above examples you'd have a better feel if the car had a really good start but bogged down early/late in the run etc. etc.
If we could see the 60ft. and 1/8 mile times for the scoobs used in the above examples you'd have a better feel if the car had a really good start but bogged down early/late in the run etc. etc.
#43
Prior to stipping my car car it would do 0-100mph in about 12.5s. It did a 1/4m of 13.401 @ 104mph.
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
carl the 0-100mph is extrapoloated (spelt as it sounds ) from the 1/4m strip times and accelerometre 1/4m times. My car may well be slightly quicker to 100 but I don't have the guts to suggest so without gods personally endorsed timing gear What would you expect it to be if after 13.401s its doing 104mph?
If I recall a 4wd car in the dry on road tyres will do the 60 foot in about 1.8s. Not sure what a fwd with slicks and a mental driver would do - andy f?
If I recall a 4wd car in the dry on road tyres will do the 60 foot in about 1.8s. Not sure what a fwd with slicks and a mental driver would do - andy f?
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13s! Surely the car can't put on 4mph in 0.4s when above 100mph? Not that it matters anyway without a way to measure its just guess work. I did see a thread that quoted the 1/4 and 0-100 of a type-r as 12.5s and 13.3@104mph so I went with that given my 1/4m is the same
#48
A gear change would be my guess.
0 - 100 and the cars are in 5th and 4th gears for the std and ppp respectively.
But for the 1/4 where, the terminal velocity is higher (eg 110MPH) the ppp has to change up to 5th at say 105MPH. The time to change up loses the large gap.
0 - 100 and the cars are in 5th and 4th gears for the std and ppp respectively.
But for the 1/4 where, the terminal velocity is higher (eg 110MPH) the ppp has to change up to 5th at say 105MPH. The time to change up loses the large gap.
#50
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: cambs
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i still haven't read an explanation that i understand fully.
i guess it really is all bollix until i get my next service and find the next 1/4 mile meet so we can do 0-1/4 + 0-100.
any offers ?
i guess it really is all bollix until i get my next service and find the next 1/4 mile meet so we can do 0-1/4 + 0-100.
any offers ?
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Some say he has frost on his helmet...
Posts: 2,970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can clearly remember changing to fith just before the line, and that was the fstest time-13.04 @ 98 mph. I tried hanging on to 4th at 7k but it was just slower. forgeting the distnace and given the fact that I hooked everything up on my best run, in 13.04 seconds i didn't reach 100 mph therefore:- as hawkeye states how on earth can you get 100 in almost a full second less!
We are concentrating too much on the 1/4mile distance when infact its simply a time thing from 0 to 98mph took 13.04 seconds in what was possibly the only stock STI-PPP in the top ten! maybe I could have got in the 12's with less fuel but without 50 BHP it aint going to happen 12.2 to 100 nah.
Dazza
We are concentrating too much on the 1/4mile distance when infact its simply a time thing from 0 to 98mph took 13.04 seconds in what was possibly the only stock STI-PPP in the top ten! maybe I could have got in the 12's with less fuel but without 50 BHP it aint going to happen 12.2 to 100 nah.
Dazza
#53
dazza has hit the nail on the head why do prodrive state figures tested by themselves when they seem blatantly un-obtainable
i know realise after a loooooong sleep how stupid one of my statements was and hope it has given everyone else as much of a laugh as me!!!!!
my statement still stands i dont think a ppp sti 7 will do 0-100 in 12.2 seconds, even based on prodrives figures of their 1/4 mile they take some 1.7 seconds longer to get to a 1/4 therefore terminal speed was well over 100 mph. however dazza has done 1/4 in 13.04 std car hmmmm discepencies!!!
hawk
i know realise after a loooooong sleep how stupid one of my statements was and hope it has given everyone else as much of a laugh as me!!!!!
my statement still stands i dont think a ppp sti 7 will do 0-100 in 12.2 seconds, even based on prodrives figures of their 1/4 mile they take some 1.7 seconds longer to get to a 1/4 therefore terminal speed was well over 100 mph. however dazza has done 1/4 in 13.04 std car hmmmm discepencies!!!
hawk
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the trap speeds are suspect. The accelerometre, 1/4m information and the old stop watch to an indicated 105mph all indicate that my car did 0-100mph in about 12.5-13s. An STI PPP can probably accelerate fractionally faster than my car therefore it CAN do 0-100 in low 12s.
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Some say he has frost on his helmet...
Posts: 2,970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope sorry sax- i was looking at the speeeeeedo and was sure it was just reaching 100 flatout in 4th... i'll bob up the dual-c now to check!
Dazza
Dazza
#57
It seems bollox to me too....but if they used a raced driver and a thimble of petrol in the car they can get better times than most of the people on here with a full tank,the wife and kids and a set of golf clubs in the boot.
As an example-a friend let me run his car up the strip at Santa Pod and I ran 12.36 to his 12.9.I had 3 runs and didn't know the car/clutch but still knocked the best part of 6/10s off his time.Think what a pro could do.
As an example-a friend let me run his car up the strip at Santa Pod and I ran 12.36 to his 12.9.I had 3 runs and didn't know the car/clutch but still knocked the best part of 6/10s off his time.Think what a pro could do.
#58
I know people who do high 10s, but their terminal speed is around 115 - 120 (not in an Impreza), it depends how you launch their 60 ft times were around 1.5 - 1.6, and hitting the eighth at around 95 MPH, I was always told that the ET was down to torque and the terminal speed down to power.
Do not think you can say that because the ET was X then the terminal speed should be Y.
Do not think you can say that because the ET was X then the terminal speed should be Y.
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but I refuse to believe you can cover 400m in a car in the 10s barrier without exceeding 120mph. Can someone please do the maths/physics to work out if that is even possible?
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the only circumstance I can think where it could happen is a 4wd car with a very short gear box that can do 0-120mph in about 4s and then bounce off the limiter the rest of the way!