| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2009 09:02:16 AM · #1 |
Zoom-Zoom
I'm looking under the couch cushions for
some extra change for this. LOL
Has a wide range of fuel consumpion.
32 gallon tank that *CAN* carry you 620 miles.
But it can also empty the tank in 8 minutes,
assuming the tires don't burn off in that time.
Can burn gas at a one gallon per 15 seconds rate!
I want one. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:08:32 AM · #2 |
| Beautiful, i think i will go place my bid for it now lol. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 10:07:51 AM · #3 |
You'd think it would be faster than that considering it's Weight to HP ratio.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 10:43:28 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 10:44:10 AM · #5 |
| Why did you post this? Now there are more people that I have to try and outbid! |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 10:55:13 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
You'd think it would be faster than that considering it's Weight to HP ratio. |
Weight-to-horsepower is more a measure of how strong the acceleration will be than it is of the ultimate top speed, which is largely a function of aerodynamics when you get to this rarefied level.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 11:14:11 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
You'd think it would be faster than that considering it's Weight to HP ratio. |
Weight-to-horsepower is more a measure of how strong the acceleration will be than it is of the ultimate top speed, which is largely a function of aerodynamics when you get to this rarefied level.
R. |
This is true. But if you take into consideration the weight, HP and the coefficient of drag of this car compared to a Bugatti Veyron it should go way faster by the numbers. It only beat the Bugatti by 2 mph.
Bugatti:
HP- 1001
Weight- 4160
PW ratio- 2.5
Coefficient of Drag- .36
Top speed- 254
Shelby car:
HP-1183
Weight- 2750
PW ratio- 2.14
Coefficient of Drag- .35
Top speed- 256
Message edited by author 2009-03-19 11:18:19.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 11:15:29 AM · #8 |
| Nice ride, to bad they used that crap PPG paint and put the tacky logo on it |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 11:16:18 AM · #9 |
| Hmmm... > $100,000, eh? Guess I better only get two of them... |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 11:18:37 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Hmmm... > $100,000, eh? Guess I better only get two of them... |
When you are not using your second one maybe we could borrow it! |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 11:28:42 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Hmmm... > $100,000, eh? Guess I better only get two of them... |
Sorry, price is already up to $600,000 |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 11:31:18 AM · #12 |
I can just picture the scene in the insurance office LOL.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 11:49:36 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
This is true. But if you take into consideration the weight, HP and the coefficient of drag of this car compared to a Bugatti Veyron it should go way faster by the numbers. It only beat the Bugatti by 2 mph.
Bugatti:
HP- 1001
Weight- 4160
PW ratio- 2.5
Coefficient of Drag- .36
Top speed- 254
Shelby car:
HP-1183
Weight- 2750
PW ratio- 2.14
Coefficient of Drag- .35
Top speed- 256 |
I think at this level, to a certain extent *more* drag is better LOL. In the sense that what you're dealing with is the car wanting to go airborne, and needing aerodynamic downforce to keep it earthbound. I'm no expert on this, mind you, but I'm pretty sure we're reaching a point of diminishing returns where no automobile, no matter how slick and powerful, can go much faster and still be a roadworthy, luxury supercar.
I'm not sure what the power-to-weight ratio is on a F1 car, for example, but I know it has to be greater than this and I don't think *they* have a much higher top speed...
Lemme see if I can find out...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 11:55:09 AM · #14 |
Away from the track, the BAR Honda team used a modified BAR 007 car, which they claim complied with FIA Formula One regulations, to set an unofficial speed record of 413 km/h (257 mph) on a one way straight line run on 6 November 2005 during a shakedown ahead of their Bonneville 400 record attempt. The car was optimised for top speed with only enough downforce to prevent it from leaving the ground. The car, badged as a Honda following their takeover of BAR at the end of 2005, set an FIA ratified record of 400 km/h (249 mph) on a one way run on 21 July 2006 at Bonneville Salt Flats.[12] On this occasion the car did not fully meet FIA Formula One regulations, as it used a moveable aerodynamic rudder for stability control, breaching article 3.15 of the 2006 Formula One technical regulations which states that any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured.
These are 1334-lb vehicles with 1250 horsepower, give or take...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 12:02:52 PM · #15 |
pah what a toy.
i'd rather have this baby instead...
:D |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 12:09:48 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Mephisto:
pah what a toy.
i'd rather have this baby instead...
:D |
I can just picture this pulling up to a red light...... Hey buddy wanna race? |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 12:24:37 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
This is true. But if you take into consideration the weight, HP and the coefficient of drag of this car compared to a Bugatti Veyron it should go way faster by the numbers. It only beat the Bugatti by 2 mph.
Bugatti:
HP- 1001
Weight- 4160
PW ratio- 2.5
Coefficient of Drag- .36
Top speed- 254
Shelby car:
HP-1183
Weight- 2750
PW ratio- 2.14
Coefficient of Drag- .35
Top speed- 256 |
I think at this level, to a certain extent *more* drag is better LOL. In the sense that what you're dealing with is the car wanting to go airborne, and needing aerodynamic downforce to keep it earthbound. I'm no expert on this, mind you, but I'm pretty sure we're reaching a point of diminishing returns where no automobile, no matter how slick and powerful, can go much faster and still be a roadworthy, luxury supercar.
I'm not sure what the power-to-weight ratio is on a F1 car, for example, but I know it has to be greater than this and I don't think *they* have a much higher top speed...
Lemme see if I can find out...
R. |
Don't forget that the wind resistance, as such, is a function of the square of the speed, so 'diminishing returns' is right. Weight (or more correctly, mass) will only be a real factor in acceleration. The final bit of acceleration will be at a point where the wind resistance is a much more significant factor.
Anyway, it's only got a 1 year warranty. I think I'll pass this time.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2009 05:49:39 AM · #18 |
| I think I would want one of these |
|
|
|
03/20/2009 07:53:14 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by joynim:
I think I would want one of these |
That makes me laugh, because they say the vehicle is "clearly before its time"... See Wiki on the Amphicar to see that its "time" actually began in the 60's..
Anyway, I'd rather have this version, definitely :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2009 10:44:02 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
You'd think it would be faster than that considering it's Weight to HP ratio. |
Weight-to-horsepower is more a measure of how strong the acceleration will be than it is of the ultimate top speed, which is largely a function of aerodynamics when you get to this rarefied level.
R. |
I hope I am not breaking down a myth, because it might be the first time that Bear is wrong!
If you remember your physics, there is following relation:
power = force * speed
So if the air resistance would be the same at 100mph than 200mph, you would still need twice the power to maintain that speed. Of course the air resistance also increases with the speed (quadratically actually), so you need roughly 8 times the power to maintain a speed of 200mph compared to 100mph! |
|
|
|
03/20/2009 11:14:30 AM · #21 |
lol I wonder if they will accept my Cruiser as a trade-in.
or I just have to start looking for loose change and collecting cans to be able to bid.
But wow would I just love to have a ride in that car.
Message edited by author 2009-03-20 11:14:48.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2009 11:49:33 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
You'd think it would be faster than that considering it's Weight to HP ratio. |
Weight-to-horsepower is more a measure of how strong the acceleration will be than it is of the ultimate top speed, which is largely a function of aerodynamics when you get to this rarefied level.
R. |
I hope I am not breaking down a myth, because it might be the first time that Bear is wrong!
If you remember your physics, there is following relation:
power = force * speed
So if the air resistance would be the same at 100mph than 200mph, you would still need twice the power to maintain that speed. Of course the air resistance also increases with the speed (quadratically actually), so you need roughly 8 times the power to maintain a speed of 200mph compared to 100mph! |
Not what I meant, sorry :-) You didn't "get me" this time. The key is the phrase "at this rarefied level": I was speaking in response to a query as to why this car wasn't a LOT faster than Bugatti Veyron, since it had a significantly higher power-to-weight ratio *and" better aerodynamics (in the sense of a lower CoD). My point was that when you get up into supercars in the 225+ mph range, the limiting factor is actually *keeping the car on the ground*... So the aerodynamics issue is no longer how slippery the shape is (they are all very slippery) but how efficiently the vehicle generates downforce.
Or sumthin' like that :-)
R.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 12:29:04 AM EDT.
