Soarer cont'd from page 20 (12+8)
05 February 2003, 01:07 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pepper,
You are right, a few people here dont believe that his car is as fast from a certain speed to another as a Lamborghini Diablo.
So what? A lot of people dont believe that my Evo is faster than a Porsche Turbo. And a lot of people used to believe that the earth is a disc. So what? Believe what you want. Just dont reply to every single post that Mycroft is full of shït, a tw@t, a lyer or whatever. I am telling you: we really got your point, everybody on SN knows what you think of him, really, everybody does. There is no point in repeating it over and over again. You've said it for a month now! I'm sure there's better thing you can do than saying the same stuff over and over again on SN when you dont even have a scooby and no one knows who you are. See what I mean?
[Edited by Claudius - 5/2/2003 1:09:20 AM]
You are right, a few people here dont believe that his car is as fast from a certain speed to another as a Lamborghini Diablo.
So what? A lot of people dont believe that my Evo is faster than a Porsche Turbo. And a lot of people used to believe that the earth is a disc. So what? Believe what you want. Just dont reply to every single post that Mycroft is full of shït, a tw@t, a lyer or whatever. I am telling you: we really got your point, everybody on SN knows what you think of him, really, everybody does. There is no point in repeating it over and over again. You've said it for a month now! I'm sure there's better thing you can do than saying the same stuff over and over again on SN when you dont even have a scooby and no one knows who you are. See what I mean?
[Edited by Claudius - 5/2/2003 1:09:20 AM]
05 February 2003, 01:13 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the torque converter actually gives your car more torque when you accelerate out of a stop. Modern torque converters can multiply the torque of the engine by two to three times
3 times more torque... than what? Than what's available at the crankshaft?
How is it physically possible to convert a given amount of energy to more without adding anything? Or is there something added?
Off to the URL, thanks, not that bad after all. Easy to understand
LOL[Edited by Claudius - 5/2/2003 1:14:38 AM]
05 February 2003, 09:54 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mycoft,
Your thinking would only have any truth if the torque delivery of a IC engine was linear.
If an engine developed 150lbft at 2000 rpm and 300lbft at 4000rpm then a torque converter would double (minus losses)the effective torque if it spun up by 2000rpm.
Petrol engines are not like that, we have agreed that torque is within 90% of maximum when over 2500rpm on most modern engines. There for spinning up to increase RPM from say 3500 to 4500 has little effect, then you add in the TC losses.
The ratio between the engine output and the wheels does not change enen though the engine revs are different in relation to the gearbox.
Example.
Engine output 100lbft at 3000rpm with gearbox ratio of 1:1. 100lbft hits the wheels.
In the same gear with torque convertor spinning the engine to 4000rpm.
Engine output 100lbft at 4000rpm with gearbox ratio of 1:1.
100lbft (minus TC losses)hits the wheels.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/2/2003 10:00:43 AM]
Your thinking would only have any truth if the torque delivery of a IC engine was linear.
If an engine developed 150lbft at 2000 rpm and 300lbft at 4000rpm then a torque converter would double (minus losses)the effective torque if it spun up by 2000rpm.
Petrol engines are not like that, we have agreed that torque is within 90% of maximum when over 2500rpm on most modern engines. There for spinning up to increase RPM from say 3500 to 4500 has little effect, then you add in the TC losses.
The ratio between the engine output and the wheels does not change enen though the engine revs are different in relation to the gearbox.
Example.
Engine output 100lbft at 3000rpm with gearbox ratio of 1:1. 100lbft hits the wheels.
In the same gear with torque convertor spinning the engine to 4000rpm.
Engine output 100lbft at 4000rpm with gearbox ratio of 1:1.
100lbft (minus TC losses)hits the wheels.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/2/2003 10:00:43 AM]
05 February 2003, 11:45 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The things I do for you guys...
OK, this is an extract from the Bosch Automotive Handbook 4th Edition, issued by the SAE..ISBN 1-56091-918-3.. I have chosen this book because according to Newbury Library, it is the most commonly available SAE Standard Book on the shelves of the Libraries in the UK.
Extract from Page 564 and 565[inc illustrations] .
The quoted section is headed:-
AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS.
Load-sensitive automatic transmissions perform the drive engagement and ratio selection [shifting] operations with no additional driver input. The drive take-up elementfor starting off is always a hydrodynamic torque converter. Power losses in the automatic transmission are inherently larger than those in its manual counterpart. However, this fact is more than balanced by shift programs designed to maintain the engine in the maximum economy range. The components are:- hydrodynamic torque converter [always employed with passenger-car transmissions, whilecommercial vehicles generally use the Trilok design]; for starting off, torque multiplication and absorption of harmonic vibrations....
it continues in a similar vein...
On page 334 of the same book, there are illustrations and formulae which, [unusually] are correct for formulating how to derive the torque figures...
I could cite more than dozen further books to put you right on these simple matters...
Even the trusty old net supports all I have written here...
The next 'idiocy' that will be forthcoming is when I mention that there are in a 4speed auto 5 speed ranges.... not 4... and you are gonna be really stuffed by that I expect...
If you want more reading on the Foettinger... then I will happily post a reading list for you to learn...
I think you really should go back to school guys...
Lee, you may like Autos' but you sure don't understand the underlying principles...
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/2/2003 11:50:55 AM]
OK, this is an extract from the Bosch Automotive Handbook 4th Edition, issued by the SAE..ISBN 1-56091-918-3.. I have chosen this book because according to Newbury Library, it is the most commonly available SAE Standard Book on the shelves of the Libraries in the UK.
Extract from Page 564 and 565[inc illustrations] .
The quoted section is headed:-
AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS.
Load-sensitive automatic transmissions perform the drive engagement and ratio selection [shifting] operations with no additional driver input. The drive take-up elementfor starting off is always a hydrodynamic torque converter. Power losses in the automatic transmission are inherently larger than those in its manual counterpart. However, this fact is more than balanced by shift programs designed to maintain the engine in the maximum economy range. The components are:- hydrodynamic torque converter [always employed with passenger-car transmissions, whilecommercial vehicles generally use the Trilok design]; for starting off, torque multiplication and absorption of harmonic vibrations....
it continues in a similar vein...
On page 334 of the same book, there are illustrations and formulae which, [unusually] are correct for formulating how to derive the torque figures...
I could cite more than dozen further books to put you right on these simple matters...
Even the trusty old net supports all I have written here...
The next 'idiocy' that will be forthcoming is when I mention that there are in a 4speed auto 5 speed ranges.... not 4... and you are gonna be really stuffed by that I expect...
If you want more reading on the Foettinger... then I will happily post a reading list for you to learn...
I think you really should go back to school guys...
Lee, you may like Autos' but you sure don't understand the underlying principles...
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/2/2003 11:50:55 AM]
05 February 2003, 03:32 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets get back to the car in Mycrofts example then. No torque figures are quoted so I'll use 300lbft and all figure quoted are to make it easy to understand.
Manual and Auto examples shall use Myrofts 3:1 1st gear ratio.
So Pulling away.
The engine is turning at 600rpm and so is the input to the coupling. The output of the coupling and input of the gearbox are at 0rpm. Release the brakes and the car will creep (In most situations) as a small amount of torque is transmitted through the coupling but at this speed the coupling is designed to slip to allow you to stop in gear.
It is actually rather a lot of torque, to overcome the inertia you need a lot, the reason the car moves forward is simply the torque conversion of gearing... one side of the Foettinger is spinning faster than the other... that is gearing as far fluid dynamics are concerned... so although at 600rpm the cars engine is kining only [say] 50lb of torque by using the Foettinger to reduce the gearing and thereby the torque to the wheels 300lbs is apparent at wheels... try taking of with just tickover in first... don't rev the motor and you will stall, you have insufficient torque to overcome the inertia, up the revs to 800 for the manual to allow for 'take-down' of the Auto'box... you will stall remember you set the car to tickover at 800rpm don't touch the throttle and use the clutch to take off, you will stall... you will have only 70lb of torque. [800rpm remember]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Auto.
We have just kicked down and the TC is allowing 1000rpm of slip. the engine is at 4500rpm and is delivering 300lbft of torque.But due to undergearing the engine is now not running in 1:1 , Top, it is running at 4500:3500 or 1.28:1...an intermediate 'gear' below Top. The input output of the Foettinger side of the gearbox is turning at 3500rpm and is recieving around 275lbft of torque through the coupling, 25lbft losses. where from?, the centre sprag will result in no losses different to a normal box!
So the input Output of the Foettinger shaft of the gearbox is turning at 3500rpm with 275lbft 300ftlbs of torque acting on it. Except that now the gearing has been lowered to 1.28:1 and therefore until both sides of the Foetiinger 'equalise' there will be for a short time 385ftlbs decreasing to 300ftlbs as the sprag re-engages as it locks.
Your example [corrected by me] is littered with errors...
Manual
We have the same ratio's and are at the same speed so the input shaft on the gearbox is at 3500rpm so the engine, with no clutch slip, has to be turning at 3500rpm. The engine is producing 300lbft of torque and all this is transmitted to the gearbox input shaft.
So the input shaft of the gearbox is turning at 3500rpm with 300lbft of torque acting on it.
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/2/2003 4:02:10 PM]
Manual and Auto examples shall use Myrofts 3:1 1st gear ratio.
So Pulling away.
The engine is turning at 600rpm and so is the input to the coupling. The output of the coupling and input of the gearbox are at 0rpm. Release the brakes and the car will creep (In most situations) as a small amount of torque is transmitted through the coupling but at this speed the coupling is designed to slip to allow you to stop in gear.
It is actually rather a lot of torque, to overcome the inertia you need a lot, the reason the car moves forward is simply the torque conversion of gearing... one side of the Foettinger is spinning faster than the other... that is gearing as far fluid dynamics are concerned... so although at 600rpm the cars engine is kining only [say] 50lb of torque by using the Foettinger to reduce the gearing and thereby the torque to the wheels 300lbs is apparent at wheels... try taking of with just tickover in first... don't rev the motor and you will stall, you have insufficient torque to overcome the inertia, up the revs to 800 for the manual to allow for 'take-down' of the Auto'box... you will stall remember you set the car to tickover at 800rpm don't touch the throttle and use the clutch to take off, you will stall... you will have only 70lb of torque. [800rpm remember]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Auto.
We have just kicked down and the TC is allowing 1000rpm of slip. the engine is at 4500rpm and is delivering 300lbft of torque.But due to undergearing the engine is now not running in 1:1 , Top, it is running at 4500:3500 or 1.28:1...an intermediate 'gear' below Top. The input output of the Foettinger side of the gearbox is turning at 3500rpm and is recieving around 275lbft of torque through the coupling, 25lbft losses. where from?, the centre sprag will result in no losses different to a normal box!
So the input Output of the Foettinger shaft of the gearbox is turning at 3500rpm with 275lbft 300ftlbs of torque acting on it. Except that now the gearing has been lowered to 1.28:1 and therefore until both sides of the Foetiinger 'equalise' there will be for a short time 385ftlbs decreasing to 300ftlbs as the sprag re-engages as it locks.
Your example [corrected by me] is littered with errors...
Manual
We have the same ratio's and are at the same speed so the input shaft on the gearbox is at 3500rpm so the engine, with no clutch slip, has to be turning at 3500rpm. The engine is producing 300lbft of torque and all this is transmitted to the gearbox input shaft.
So the input shaft of the gearbox is turning at 3500rpm with 300lbft of torque acting on it.
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/2/2003 4:02:10 PM]
05 February 2003, 03:40 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This leads on to the other great benefit of the Auto 'box Turbo combo... the auto box allows the turbos to spool, as they need simply more exhaust volume to produce more puff, so that jump in revs has an additional benefit for the Turbo'd car... instead of the road speed dictating the spool up... the auto'box has let them have their head...
This double whammy is entirely missing on the NA/Auto'box combo...
Until you have driven this combo when set-up for performance you really have no concept of how shattering the performance is.
I spent 2 years on this work [on and off] it works like nothing else out there... Supercharged Autos' work quite well vbut the real free revving turbo motor is the PERFECT companion to an Auto'box...
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/2/2003 3:47:51 PM]
This double whammy is entirely missing on the NA/Auto'box combo...
Until you have driven this combo when set-up for performance you really have no concept of how shattering the performance is.
I spent 2 years on this work [on and off] it works like nothing else out there... Supercharged Autos' work quite well vbut the real free revving turbo motor is the PERFECT companion to an Auto'box...
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/2/2003 3:47:51 PM]
Trending Topics
05 February 2003, 04:31 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main discourse has been somewhat wasteful... the points could have been covered in about 20 posts... on an intelligent and thinking forum this is the case.
The longer it takes for the understanding to sink in, the worse it reflects on the forum members.
Pepper is doing a great job of making you look like fools... in that it has taken almost 400 posts to just explain some simple 'A' level fluid dynamics.
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/2/2003 4:36:49 PM]
The longer it takes for the understanding to sink in, the worse it reflects on the forum members.
Pepper is doing a great job of making you look like fools... in that it has taken almost 400 posts to just explain some simple 'A' level fluid dynamics.
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/2/2003 4:36:49 PM]
05 February 2003, 07:11 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The torque convertor lifts the engine speed in relation to the gearbox. If the torque is the same at the speed point it lifts from and too there is no difference in torque reaching the box.
If you have found a way do do that please inform the Nobel people.
The Foettinger acts as a torque multiplier... ''it does what it says on the tin''... it multiplies the torque!...
###
lag isn't a major issue.
###
Since when?
###
Who's to say he isn't in the right gear when your up his ****?
###
most people 'out there' would never guess what my car is capable of... until they are dispatched... that is why they are usually in the wrong gear... and not many people will drive an 'Itarion Starion' down the Motorway at 80mph in 3rd, just in case a Toyota Soarer happens along.
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/2/2003 7:13:07 PM]
If you have found a way do do that please inform the Nobel people.
The Foettinger acts as a torque multiplier... ''it does what it says on the tin''... it multiplies the torque!...
###
lag isn't a major issue.
###
Since when?
###
Who's to say he isn't in the right gear when your up his ****?
###
most people 'out there' would never guess what my car is capable of... until they are dispatched... that is why they are usually in the wrong gear... and not many people will drive an 'Itarion Starion' down the Motorway at 80mph in 3rd, just in case a Toyota Soarer happens along.
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/2/2003 7:13:07 PM]
05 February 2003, 07:33 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
###
No it doesn't that would break the law of physics. It lifts the rpm of the power source in relation to the driven unit.
It only increases "multiplies" the torque if the increase in rpm results in an increase in torque.
###
It does not break any laws of Physics... every time you change gear you do the same thing, in 1st you have more torque at the wheels than in 5th... that is not breaking the laws of physics that is conforming to them, just as the Foettinger is doing...
###
So you can only beat the Diablo if its in the wrong gear.
###
No, I beat him in the manner I described, he makes 'his move' and I 'make mine', the whole thing is tilted slightly in his favour, and I still have to back off...
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/2/2003 7:34:05 PM]
No it doesn't that would break the law of physics. It lifts the rpm of the power source in relation to the driven unit.
It only increases "multiplies" the torque if the increase in rpm results in an increase in torque.
###
It does not break any laws of Physics... every time you change gear you do the same thing, in 1st you have more torque at the wheels than in 5th... that is not breaking the laws of physics that is conforming to them, just as the Foettinger is doing...
###
So you can only beat the Diablo if its in the wrong gear.
###
No, I beat him in the manner I described, he makes 'his move' and I 'make mine', the whole thing is tilted slightly in his favour, and I still have to back off...
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/2/2003 7:34:05 PM]
05 February 2003, 10:19 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it was 26.7mph/1000 and with 5000rpm and the same speed it is 16.0mph/1000 and the change in ratio and the subsequent torque multiplying stems from this... no 'changes' or 'suspension' of the ''laws'' of physics... just simple mechanics.
Even if the "Super Mycroft Wizzo" torque convertor worked in that way.
The guy in the manual drops from 5th 26.7mph/1000rpm to 3rd 16mph/1000rpm. The average enthusiast driver can do this in 500 milliseconds without crashing the box.
He has the same power and torque in the same car and has the same effective gearing.
He leaves you for dead as he has no torque convertor losses.
The end, Goodbye.
Please answer Pepper's post.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/2/2003 10:22:38 PM]
05 March 2003, 01:05 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no 'sides' in this sort of thing... I infuriate Claudius as much as all the rest of you...
Yes the 'rebound/rebound rate' was a classic... always read thoroughly they say in exams... be doubly cautious around me... PMSL
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/3/2003 1:10:12 AM]
Yes the 'rebound/rebound rate' was a classic... always read thoroughly they say in exams... be doubly cautious around me... PMSL
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/3/2003 1:10:12 AM]
05 March 2003, 01:15 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must have been reading up on this as that is [although wrong] a bloody good stab... impressed... fvcking impressed if you were devoid of knowledge before all this fun started.
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/3/2003 1:16:05 AM]
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/3/2003 1:16:05 AM]
05 March 2003, 01:20 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
###
I believe that Pepper is dead... I have not seen a single post from him for ages... perhaps he got bored and just stopped posting his drivel... this place is better off for not having him around tho.
###
how come Claudius just replied to me then?
LOL
[Edited by Redkop - 5/3/2003 7:43:51 AM]
I believe that Pepper is dead... I have not seen a single post from him for ages... perhaps he got bored and just stopped posting his drivel... this place is better off for not having him around tho.
###
how come Claudius just replied to me then?
LOL
[Edited by Redkop - 5/3/2003 7:43:51 AM]
05 March 2003, 01:25 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL
Didn't realise there was an ignore feature on this BBS - oh....its just more BS, what a shock!
And what "input" did you need from him anyway - or is that "secret", like his "mods"?
[Edited by Redkop - 5/3/2003 7:48:42 AM]
Didn't realise there was an ignore feature on this BBS - oh....its just more BS, what a shock!
And what "input" did you need from him anyway - or is that "secret", like his "mods"?
[Edited by Redkop - 5/3/2003 7:48:42 AM]
05 March 2003, 05:30 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are somethings we can't agree on so lets leave them aside for a while.
We agree that you can't get more torque that isn't there in the first place.
We agree that the only way to increase torque at the wheels is to do it through gearing. The only gearing that matters is overall gearing including diffs wheel and trye sizes, everything.
So at 80mph in our test car we want to be at 4000rpm when we put our foot down. The designers have given us a good spread of ratio's and we have a gear at 20mph per 1000rpm.
Our Auto and Petrol cars are both the same and are both geared at 20mph/1000rpm including any torque convertor involvement.
Our drivers put their foots down and the manual pulls away.
WHY?
Both cars have the same engine output and the same gearing but the manual doesn't have any torque convertor losses.
Does anyone not agree with this statement?
We have not even mentioned that 99% of Auto's are heavier than their manual models.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/3/2003 5:33:28 AM]
We agree that you can't get more torque that isn't there in the first place.
We agree that the only way to increase torque at the wheels is to do it through gearing. The only gearing that matters is overall gearing including diffs wheel and trye sizes, everything.
So at 80mph in our test car we want to be at 4000rpm when we put our foot down. The designers have given us a good spread of ratio's and we have a gear at 20mph per 1000rpm.
Our Auto and Petrol cars are both the same and are both geared at 20mph/1000rpm including any torque convertor involvement.
Our drivers put their foots down and the manual pulls away.
WHY?
Both cars have the same engine output and the same gearing but the manual doesn't have any torque convertor losses.
Does anyone not agree with this statement?
We have not even mentioned that 99% of Auto's are heavier than their manual models.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/3/2003 5:33:28 AM]
05 March 2003, 09:50 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mik,
I may be wrong but I don't know of any auto that will allow 3000rpm of slip at 3000rpm then progressivly lockup. Your principle may be correct but nothing on that scale. Most TC's will allow a percentage slip which coninues to the redline then the box changes up. Full lock up is available on most boxes, in high gears, but its a mechanical lock that removes the torque convertor from the drivetrain completely.
Assuming the Auto only takes 500milliseconds to kickdown/slip etc and spool up the turbo the Diablo driver could have knocked it down to a similar ratio himself. Are we saying the Auto only wins when the manual is left in a higher gear.
Autocar did a test on gear change times to see if SMG boxes were faster. A normal gearbox changed quickly by a good driver takes around 500milliseconds. A race driver crashing a normal road gearbox can do it in about 250 milliseconds. Hardly a massive advantage to the auto and the N/A engine doesn't have to spool up.
A good close ratio manual will let you stay within 2000rpm of the red line anyway without any TC losses.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/3/2003 10:03:52 AM]
I may be wrong but I don't know of any auto that will allow 3000rpm of slip at 3000rpm then progressivly lockup. Your principle may be correct but nothing on that scale. Most TC's will allow a percentage slip which coninues to the redline then the box changes up. Full lock up is available on most boxes, in high gears, but its a mechanical lock that removes the torque convertor from the drivetrain completely.
Assuming the Auto only takes 500milliseconds to kickdown/slip etc and spool up the turbo the Diablo driver could have knocked it down to a similar ratio himself. Are we saying the Auto only wins when the manual is left in a higher gear.
Autocar did a test on gear change times to see if SMG boxes were faster. A normal gearbox changed quickly by a good driver takes around 500milliseconds. A race driver crashing a normal road gearbox can do it in about 250 milliseconds. Hardly a massive advantage to the auto and the N/A engine doesn't have to spool up.
A good close ratio manual will let you stay within 2000rpm of the red line anyway without any TC losses.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/3/2003 10:03:52 AM]
05 March 2003, 01:17 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Lee,
I'm with you. Using Mycroft's figures.
Bottom line is that Mycroft can accelerate better by using lower gearing.
That's both a stunning revelation, and mightily impressive
Since a diablo can alter gearing via a manual stick thingy (name eludes me) with minimal losses, the only way Mycroft can out accerlerate one is with better torque to weight & power to weight ratios over that specific speed range. Most specifically better torque-at-the-wheels to weight ratio over that speed range (ignoring CdA and other losses)
Since Mycroft's outputs are a secret.....who knows?
BUT
A Macca F1 has
627bhp @ 7.5krpm
479lbs.ft @ 4-7krpm
Since it's 1137kg, this is 550bhp/tonne.
In 2nd gear the Macca manages 30-70 in 2.7secs.
Now.....
Let's say Mycroft's car is 1600kg.
Since the slushbox takes .3secs to allow the engine to spool up to 6000rpm, that's 0.3secs off his "true" 30-70 time.
Which puts it in the realms of the MaccaF1......serious performance then.
So a 1600kg car will need approx 880bhp to manage this feat (ignoring the losses the Torque convertor brings.....it'll actually therefore need a dod more than this.
Since the engine is singing at 6000rpm , it'll be producing 770lbs.ft at this point.
Not perfect calculations....but they can't be that far off eh Mycroft? You must have one serious Soarer......
[Edited by mik - 5/3/2003 1:19:13 PM]
I'm with you. Using Mycroft's figures.
Bottom line is that Mycroft can accelerate better by using lower gearing.
That's both a stunning revelation, and mightily impressive
Since a diablo can alter gearing via a manual stick thingy (name eludes me) with minimal losses, the only way Mycroft can out accerlerate one is with better torque to weight & power to weight ratios over that specific speed range. Most specifically better torque-at-the-wheels to weight ratio over that speed range (ignoring CdA and other losses)
Since Mycroft's outputs are a secret.....who knows?
BUT
A Macca F1 has
627bhp @ 7.5krpm
479lbs.ft @ 4-7krpm
Since it's 1137kg, this is 550bhp/tonne.
In 2nd gear the Macca manages 30-70 in 2.7secs.
Now.....
Let's say Mycroft's car is 1600kg.
Since the slushbox takes .3secs to allow the engine to spool up to 6000rpm, that's 0.3secs off his "true" 30-70 time.
Which puts it in the realms of the MaccaF1......serious performance then.
So a 1600kg car will need approx 880bhp to manage this feat (ignoring the losses the Torque convertor brings.....it'll actually therefore need a dod more than this.
Since the engine is singing at 6000rpm , it'll be producing 770lbs.ft at this point.
Not perfect calculations....but they can't be that far off eh Mycroft? You must have one serious Soarer......
[Edited by mik - 5/3/2003 1:19:13 PM]
05 March 2003, 02:34 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To highlight just how faulted such things are the German Auto-bild(?) magazine tested the F1 (6ltr. BMW motor) against an Auto'boxed 5.6ltr. Schnitzer 750i saloon (480hp), doing this 30-70 (50-120kp/h) test in real world produced these times...
F1...
Best on the day (last run) 4.0secs,
Worst (excluding complete drive loss, missed gear)(also first attempt) 4.7sec...
Schnitzer 750...
4.0-4.1secs everytime without a dropped cog...
Compare...
the power
the weight
the driveability
F1...
Best on the day (last run) 4.0secs,
Worst (excluding complete drive loss, missed gear)(also first attempt) 4.7sec...
Schnitzer 750...
4.0-4.1secs everytime without a dropped cog...
Compare...
the power
the weight
the driveability
Autocar tested the F1 30-70mph at 2.1 seconds.
As for fexibilty, driveability and spread of torque it recorded a 50-70mph time in top gear 30mph/1000rpm of 3.7seconds which is only 0.3 of a second slower than a BMW 745 V8 auto in full kickdown mode.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/3/2003 2:36:33 PM]
05 March 2003, 03:04 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll save you hunting..
Lambo!
Had a 'full on' with one today, bright yellow P reg LAN***P.
Best fun for ages, picked him up at M4/A34 going south, he came up behind me after trouncing an M3 bumbandit, he sat on my tail and I gunned her onto 130, the road cleared and we went for broke, last one to 170+ is a sissy, he just 'had' me by about 20 yards (when traffic dragged us back to 90/100) but it was not that whoosh past just a gentle progress over the next mile or so, the Lambo was howling like a banshee, fan-f**King-tastic, when the mundaneo-car had pulled over (Diablos are a daunting sight in the rear view mirror), we nailed it equally, I wanted to see how his 5(?) Gears faired against my kick-down from 90mph, I gained on him!!! And this happened 3 times and on each occasion I gained on him convincingly, I saw 178 on the Speedo (reality 172ish) and we were nearing Winchester by this time, the filf have a 'favourite' spot near here and I flashed him to slow him for the possibility, but I think he panicked and undertook a Focus whilst doing 160, the Focus was doing 80! I won't do that (just ‘in case’ and the possibility of the filf over the crest) but apart from that slightly silly move, he drove well and fast, it was exhilarating beyond explanation 5+ miles at 170+ is just a gas, I was only going to Newbury so I had to turn around at the A303 junction, and go back for my 12 o'clock appointment for which I was late! All this on 320+hp. Diablos.... 370hp and they are history...yyyyyeeeeessssssss....
MPH = Metres per hour
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/3/2003 3:05:49 PM]
Lambo!
Had a 'full on' with one today, bright yellow P reg LAN***P.
Best fun for ages, picked him up at M4/A34 going south, he came up behind me after trouncing an M3 bumbandit, he sat on my tail and I gunned her onto 130, the road cleared and we went for broke, last one to 170+ is a sissy, he just 'had' me by about 20 yards (when traffic dragged us back to 90/100) but it was not that whoosh past just a gentle progress over the next mile or so, the Lambo was howling like a banshee, fan-f**King-tastic, when the mundaneo-car had pulled over (Diablos are a daunting sight in the rear view mirror), we nailed it equally, I wanted to see how his 5(?) Gears faired against my kick-down from 90mph, I gained on him!!! And this happened 3 times and on each occasion I gained on him convincingly, I saw 178 on the Speedo (reality 172ish) and we were nearing Winchester by this time, the filf have a 'favourite' spot near here and I flashed him to slow him for the possibility, but I think he panicked and undertook a Focus whilst doing 160, the Focus was doing 80! I won't do that (just ‘in case’ and the possibility of the filf over the crest) but apart from that slightly silly move, he drove well and fast, it was exhilarating beyond explanation 5+ miles at 170+ is just a gas, I was only going to Newbury so I had to turn around at the A303 junction, and go back for my 12 o'clock appointment for which I was late! All this on 320+hp. Diablos.... 370hp and they are history...yyyyyeeeeessssssss....
MPH = Metres per hour
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/3/2003 3:05:49 PM]
05 March 2003, 03:17 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The XKR is a good motor... in the real World a difficult motor for anything to better... but the supercharger although good actually slows the RPM/C it is not like the Turbocharger in that respect, my DB7 had a Supercharged 3.2 and it too was slow in that department...
The Jags Converter is a 'conventional' design and has a stall rate of just 2500rpm... in the States (where there are a lot of XKRs') the fave mod is one of the TC's from the companies over there... just the simple 'Level Ten' TC and speedshifter ECU reduces the 30-70 time to 3.2secs... no other mods at all... and that is with the sluggish and power-sapping Supercharger...
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/3/2003 3:19:01 PM]
The Jags Converter is a 'conventional' design and has a stall rate of just 2500rpm... in the States (where there are a lot of XKRs') the fave mod is one of the TC's from the companies over there... just the simple 'Level Ten' TC and speedshifter ECU reduces the 30-70 time to 3.2secs... no other mods at all... and that is with the sluggish and power-sapping Supercharger...
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/3/2003 3:19:01 PM]
05 March 2003, 06:40 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So by changing the gearbox electronics and coupling properties with no increase in power.
We make the 1600kg 370bhp XKR faster than a 200mph Ferrari 550 Maranello 0-100mph.
We have also made it as fast as the fastest Porsche 996(911), the GT2 30-70mph
Damn, all these manufacturers are so stupid. Why spend all that money on power when mods to an auto gearbox can do this. Even make it faster than the manual which has no losses. This unit must be about 150% efficient.
Just imagine what the 1100kg Focus WRC or Impreza WRC could do with 350bhp and 500lbft with one of those fitted instead of the £50000 sequential manual. I'm going to e-mail Malcom Wilson and David Lapworth straight away.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/3/2003 6:42:50 PM]
We make the 1600kg 370bhp XKR faster than a 200mph Ferrari 550 Maranello 0-100mph.
We have also made it as fast as the fastest Porsche 996(911), the GT2 30-70mph
Damn, all these manufacturers are so stupid. Why spend all that money on power when mods to an auto gearbox can do this. Even make it faster than the manual which has no losses. This unit must be about 150% efficient.
Just imagine what the 1100kg Focus WRC or Impreza WRC could do with 350bhp and 500lbft with one of those fitted instead of the £50000 sequential manual. I'm going to e-mail Malcom Wilson and David Lapworth straight away.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/3/2003 6:42:50 PM]
05 March 2003, 06:54 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
###
So by changing the gearbox electronics and coupling properties with no increase in power.
We make the 1600kg 370bhp XKR faster than a 200mph Ferrari 550 Maranello 0-100mph.
We have also made it as fast as the fastest Porsche 996(911), the GT2 30-70mph
###
On the road when pitted against those cars... I would say that the XKR would need a few tweaks to the suspension but otherwise yeah, the car would give those others mentioned a bloody nose in so many circumstances.
###
Damn, all these manufacturers are so stupid. Why spend all that money on power when mods to an auto gearbox can do this. Even make it faster than the manual which has no losses.
###
The downsides of the mods really limits the cars appeal, so the Manufacturers do not do the sort of thing I have done... it doesn't make financial sense to make a 370hp Auto for 'tearaways' like me... I have lots of money and usually those who have such wealth don't like to play the games I do...
?SUGGESTION? Business Studies nightschool... you seem particularly lacking in common sense... try the Marketing side...
This unit must be about 150% efficient.
No, but if you believe that you get 100% efficiency from a manual then you are dumber than even your posts to date would suggest...
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/3/2003 6:59:16 PM]
So by changing the gearbox electronics and coupling properties with no increase in power.
We make the 1600kg 370bhp XKR faster than a 200mph Ferrari 550 Maranello 0-100mph.
We have also made it as fast as the fastest Porsche 996(911), the GT2 30-70mph
###
On the road when pitted against those cars... I would say that the XKR would need a few tweaks to the suspension but otherwise yeah, the car would give those others mentioned a bloody nose in so many circumstances.
###
Damn, all these manufacturers are so stupid. Why spend all that money on power when mods to an auto gearbox can do this. Even make it faster than the manual which has no losses.
###
The downsides of the mods really limits the cars appeal, so the Manufacturers do not do the sort of thing I have done... it doesn't make financial sense to make a 370hp Auto for 'tearaways' like me... I have lots of money and usually those who have such wealth don't like to play the games I do...
?SUGGESTION? Business Studies nightschool... you seem particularly lacking in common sense... try the Marketing side...
This unit must be about 150% efficient.
No, but if you believe that you get 100% efficiency from a manual then you are dumber than even your posts to date would suggest...
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/3/2003 6:59:16 PM]
05 March 2003, 08:44 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Mycroft is saying truly is BS of the highest order.
I'm by no means technical, but have followed this thread with interest and read the various links referred to - and even *I* understand what Lee says, and that what Mycroft says doesn't make sense! Unless of course the "secret component" really is magic, ie "abracadabara" style...!
What a crock of sh!te.
Sorry Redkop, but I do feel that this is a valid post for this thread.
[Edited by Pepper - 5/3/2003 8:45:13 PM]
I'm by no means technical, but have followed this thread with interest and read the various links referred to - and even *I* understand what Lee says, and that what Mycroft says doesn't make sense! Unless of course the "secret component" really is magic, ie "abracadabara" style...!
What a crock of sh!te.
Sorry Redkop, but I do feel that this is a valid post for this thread.
[Edited by Pepper - 5/3/2003 8:45:13 PM]