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?!

 

You may also find that the Prodrive figures were obtained by a professional driver, who knackered the clutch and had 50 attempts to get the perfect launch.

 

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??

 

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

 

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 ?

 

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

 

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???

 

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?

 

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hallaluyah?? (cant speel for sh@t)


and yes maybe their real world is downhill, does make you think though doesnt it.

hawk

 

Ok that is a bull**** time V terminal IMHO. My fwd saxo VTS was getting terminals of 89/90mph and about 15.3 for the 1/4m. If the 1/4m time is 13.68 then the terminal should be about 8-10mph faster for an AWD car and about 15-20mph faster for a fwd car. Given that we know this is an AWD car the only logical explanation is that the time or terminal is wrong or that for some reason the car was going like a train (i.e. set to do better than 13.6s) but then the driver hit the brakes at the end and shed a good 10mph One this is for sure, I'll be amazed if an AWD car can do 13.6s and only be doing 90mph when it crosses the line!!

 

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.

 

Er, a 60 foot time off 1.8s is about what I was getting on my best runs at crail with a 4wd??? I can only assume he was running slicks here

 

Ignore the distance for a minute. What you're saying here is that your car took 12.5s to reach 100mph, but 13.4 to reach 104mph. So that last 4 mph took nearly a second

 

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?

 

I guess I'd expect the 0-100 time to be around 13 seconds.

 

Didnt prodrive tell you ?

They use 50 shot of nitrous in all their cars i'm sure it's in the small print

 

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

 

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.

 

8+ppp has the 4th to 5th problem nr the line. i tried both and my fastest time was in 5th.

 

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 don't have any prodrive stickers.

maybe that's the problem ?

 

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

 

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

 

anybody do the 1/4 in a standard STI8 and if so what times did they get???

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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!