David_Wallis

Christian, no that was stevens..

Harveys is the sti 6 silver wagon.. ok?

David

ChristianR

iTrader: (1)

I have recorded a lower 1/4 figure in my subaru. This was timed with a blitz power meter id. I have been waiting to use Andy's AP22 (since end of jan), but Andy seems to be using it a lot at the mo (fair enough! it is his after all!! ).

Does anyone else have one I can borrow? As I would prefer to post the result with the same equipment used.

David_Wallis

Andy.F

Just to show how misleading times can be

#28 C86 Tim Whiteside Subaru Impreza 15.03 112

From TOTB - 15 seconds to get to 112mph vs 12 seconds to 116 hmmm

5 Type R

Where in general are these 1/4 mile figures coming from?
If its in-car equipment, surely these should be taken with a pinch of salt???? Not knocking anyones kit but we are talking about very very fine data arent we??

Surely as Santa Pod is the countries leading strip, this is where figures should be taken from? If its good enough for Europes top fuel dragsters its good enough for a road car.

I know of a number of friends from various clubs that have gained over half a second and more on their 1/4s by going elsewhere around the UK away from the pod

I certainly remember going to GTi International at Crowthorne all those years ago and seeing Golfs year in year out doing 1/4 times that they would never in a million years achieve at the pod.

Anyone that can do high 11's in a scoob running around 350horses is doing extremely well...IMO

5 Type R

When I said gained half a second , I obviously meant lost ...............= faster time

ChristianR

iTrader: (1)

5 Type R > if you want to pay for me to bring my car over, I will quite happily go to santa pod!

5 Type R

Christian......

Touchy Touchy............

I was under the impression that you brought the car over from time to time for mapping and work anyway.......... Why not coinside it with one of the very many RWYB days at the pod????

ChristianR

iTrader: (1)

5 Type R > nothing touchy about my reply?? As I shouldn't need anymore work on the car for the time being. So it doesn't seem likely that I will spend over 1k to come over and go to the santa pod

Andy.F

Tim, I know you were not trying, nobody ever does I'm sure Harvey also had to preserve his car to drive home from his day at Elvington

Floyd

iTrader: (9)

Andy, there's trying and then there's 'I must must must win (banzai style)red mist' trying. I think Tim was the former.

F

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I suspect so as IIRC the 15.03 from TOTB was 500m not a 1/4 ;-)


Haven't you lot got anything better to do

Rannoch

PS Will not be running at Well Lane - will keep my car for the road thank you

Andy.F

Trout

We've missed you where have you been ? Why you no go to WL5 ?

I was only comparing the time to get up to speed on that post, not distance ..................... but now that you mention it Harvey was doing 116mph 100mtrs before Tim had reached 112mph..... Good start Harv !!

R19KET

Andy,

"but now that you mention it Harvey was doing 116mph 100mtrs before Tim had reached 112mph..... Good start Harv !!"

Which means that Tim had 100m LESS to get from "112mph", to 166mph !!! Good finish Tim

Mark.

Andy.F

lol ! Could somebody clever work out who would have crossed the line first ?

David_Wallis

Ive got a video of tims launches.. its a bit too long to post.. anyone tell me how to use adobe to shorten it a bit?

David

Tim W

iTrader: (1)

Oh, I've never seen them David! Got anywhere you can put them so I can download them myself

Andy.F

Apparently the 'stills' show your launches just as well Tim

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Hypoluxa : If you want to measure performance you will need to take into account the weight of my wagon, the gearing, the head wind on the day and aerodynmic differences from what is an every day road car against whatever you wish to compare it with. As you pointed out Force = Mass x Accn.

I run at Elvington to see what I can do, the result of my mods and any improvement and not to beat Craigs time or anybody elses. To get optimum results I would not have started with a wagon and simply changing the gear box would result in a substantial reduction in the quarter mile time but thats not what this car is for.

I have no idea what VF Hybrid Craig was running and I am not saying my turbo is better than his, so please dont make that inference. As Craig has correctly pointed out his achievement some considerable time ago on his stated 350bhp 12.2 secs 116mph is a bit of a landmark, and in terms of quarter mile running more of a result than my 450bhp 12.28 secs 116mph.

Incidentally, I ran my car at Well Lane with the VF28 turbo and some slight modifications of my own and recorded 377bhp and the Well Lane figure on Friday after a lot more development work was 479bhp. I am not claiming any accuracy to either results just giving a comparison and I think the VF 28 performance was exceptional and in part this was due to all the other preparatory work done to that time.

Similarly, Tim set an outstanding result at 116mph at Elvington last year and I expect several of us to better that this year but it was still a landmark result at the time.

I am still developing the car and enjoying doing it. If the fastest quarter mile or highest top speed were my objectives I would be running different gearing, but I want an all round every day road car capable of covering long distances in a relaxed manner eg. The Shell station at Uxbridge 2.45pm yesterday to my back yard by 5.50pm.

I am happy to share my information on this board to the benefit of all but inevitably with such a wide audience and private agendas, a minority of pundits will read into it things that are not there.

Jack : I do not like to contradict you but the car has not been built for top speed runs but as I said earlier, long distance relaxed cruising. Current gearing would take me to 192mph in 5th if I had the power. Pavlo might be able to work out what power that would need to be but I guess on a wagon it will be more than 550bhp and maybe even a good bit more. To get a higher top speed I would need to fit shorter diffs and gear for around 180mph. Similarly, to get a faster quarter mile my gearing is not ideally suited but it is great for the open road. Third is not long enough to reach the quarter so I have a gear change and all that entails before 4th comes on song just as I cross the quarter lights, so I guess with the power, a longer second and third would drop the quarter times. An alternative would be a shorter third so that I am well into the power in 4th by the quarter but none of this is going to happen because that is not what the car is about.

I look forward to the new range of Ion Products because all your power claims to date have been exceeded and I am very pleased that I opted for your headers and turbo at a time when a big powered Scooby was only 360 - 380 bhp.

R19KET

Harvey,

That's some really usefull info. We now have as a comparison,

1) Power Engineering 440bhp/375ftlbs 321bhp ATW's 4th gear

2) G-Force 450bhp/? 350bhp ATW's 3rd gear

3) Well Lane 479bhp/? ?

I believe these are correct, but I'm sure you'll let me know if I've made an error.

The main surprise, is that PE came out the lowest, given that it's generally considered to exagerate power figures.

Mark.

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Like I said I will tabulate all the info and check it is correct and post it when available. Well Lane P.A.W. =342 in 4th. All torque figures were similar and there are other interesting observations.

harvey

iTrader: (48)

So Alan are you bringing a VF hybrid turbo from Lateral Performance to W.L.V??????? A few peoples are watching this space.
We want to see if they have anything to offer after this extended development period.

hypoluxa

Harvey: With regard to the turbos I was infering that some VF hybrids do give 'genuine power' in the right circumstances.

What I was trying to point out and didn't, is how a 1/4mile terminal speed can't lie, but rolling roads as we know can and do frequently.

If we take Craig's 360, and your 460? we have a difference of 100bhp. Now with regard to the 1/4 times and more importantly the identical terminal speeds, I think you would agree that a bigger boot and 3.9 diffs (is that right?) as opposed to 4.1s will not cancel out a 25% difference in power. If that was the case I think there would be a big rush for 4.4s Headwinds will play a significant part in top speed runs but don't factor greatly with the far lower average speeds in the 1/4. The time here is not the important factor as its easy to gain or lose 0.5s through good starts & gear changes while the terminal stays fairly constant (Obviously ignoring duff runs).

I am presuming that neither of you set out to break things, but also that neither of you drove like a numpty, which is presuming a lot in Craig's case if Sundays display in the art of traction control and gearchange are anything to go by

At the end of the day we are comparing a STi5 saloon against a STi 6 wagon which both crossed the line with a best speed of 116mph. Power at the wheels has to be very similar between the 2 cars. The 360 at John Nobles could be just as inaccurate/accurate as the 479 at Well Lane.

I went to the RSOC day at Santa Pod yesterday, some interesting power claims but I didn't see a Cossie exceed 112mph. You would have caused quite a stir Harvey

Quickest of the day was a long pointy thing @ 156mph. ND EVO7 ran 10.98 @ 136mph. Quickest Scoob was 106mph iirc.

harvey

iTrader: (48)

I am not aware of any proven VF Hybrids producing 400bhp.
I cannot comment on the accuracy of Craig's 360bhp and I am impressed by his 12.2 time.
Most people will accept my car has around 450bhp. When it ran at Elvington and did 12.28secs on 30th March it was about 15bhp less. (Prior to mapping by Bob Rawle following filter and induction tract changes) It will run again on 27th April and I hope to make interesting observations on any changes in performance.
With around 75bhp more than Craig, there are very valid reasons why my time was slower by .08 secs. In order these are gearing, weight and head wind. Aerodynamics may play a part too but if it does it will be relativly small.
Andy Forrest has a little less power than me but his car is lighter and lower geared and he has alredy done 11.8secs I understand.
There is probably a lot more to come out of my car by altering the gearing than adding another 50bhp but I have no wish to do that as it would take away from the long distance cruising ability which is what I set off to enhance in the first place.

Adam M

I am sure there was a discussion recently stating that a longer final drive was actually better for quarter miles.

Can somone with some knowledge please step up and explain which is better to have over a quarter mile, 4.44 or 3.9?

Adam M

doesnt bob run a VF hybrid at over 400bhp?

iON Performance

Adam M - Ideally in the 1/4mi, you'd want to have the 4.44 vs. the 3.9 This is because it'll allow you to be in your power band for much more of the time. This is why many people fit the 4.44 for drag cars. With a taller geared car, each gear takes longer to go through, however before reaching the full 1/4mi, one last shift is needed otherwise there are not enough revs to complete the run in either 3rd or 4th. One that's geared shorter will allow you to be in 5th by the time you go through the traps.

Generally one of the only ways to even our the difference in gear ratios is a higher rev limit on the vehicle with the 3.9 If the rev-limit was brought closer to 10K rpm, then the run theoretically can be finished in that same gear without making one last gear change.

WREXY

4.44 would be better on a car with say 500hp, but really, you have to get the gearing right so as you cross the line in 4th gear or whichever closest gear is 1 to 1 with the diff ratio at top revs to get the full potential hp from the car for the quarter mile.

So a car with say 100bhp would not gain from 4.44s cos the car would hit top speed from say halfway down the track and would not gain any more speed to get a better time. It would need a higher final drive.

A car with 500hp would be crossing the line halfway through 3rd with lets say 3.50 diff gears, so it would not be getting it's full potential. It needs a lower final drive, but you have to get the full revs right in the gear that is closest to 1 to 1 with the diff.

Cheers,

Wrexy.

Adam M

edited this because I did misread.

Jack, I appreciate the whole thing about having the opportunity to use fifth, but that means you have more gear changes. You say you need to grab fifth because you run out of revs, but you have done the same with the the lower final drive car. Same number of gear changes. How can you say emphatically that 4.44 is better? doesnt it depend on your terminal velocity as to which allows you ovr the run to stay in the power band longest?


It also seems a little contradictory because you say a shorter geared car allows you to stay in the power band for longer, whereas I would have thought that with each sweep of the revs, a longer geared car per gear will let you stay in the power band for longer.

Still a little confused here.

edited - crap spelling plus thought of something extra!

[Edited by Adam M - 4/15/2003 10:28:24 AM]

WREXY

Let me try and word this better.

The ideal ratios are the ones where they let you just cross the line at max revs in the gear, (of the gearbox,) that is even with the diff gears i.e. 1.0 to 1.0.

Does it make sense?

Cheers,

Wrexy.



[Edited by WREXY - 4/15/2003 10:44:15 AM]