Quickest point to point car
Discussion
swerni said:
200Plus Club said:
In actual real world terms I rode my new bike to Whitby in Friday in normal "whitby" traffic on a nice sunny day. With a 4000rpm limit and 72mph top speed as it's still being run in I was the fastest thing on the route. Not one sporty car overtook me because they were generally blocked from a single safe overtake due to constant two way traffic on roads that don't lend themselves to overtaking at peak times.
I got there about half an hour faster as well than cars due to the usual jams.
Discussion ended :-)
Only ends if you're illiterate or stupid,I got there about half an hour faster as well than cars due to the usual jams.
Discussion ended :-)
Title of the thread states "car"
Now go stand in the corner
:-)
av185 said:
Olivera said:
The real figures that I can find are 95ms, so you are only out by a factor of 16.
Maths isn't your forte....is it.
Its all down to software.
And don t confuse PDK with PDK S.
bqf said:
deltashad said:
Bit of a teenager thread.
I used to think nothing would touch my lightly breathed on integrale but it all depends on the road and conditions. in the dry on a tight twisty mountain pass very little can get close to my Elise, only something stupid with no boot and limited body panels is going to get close.
There again other roads with a powerful EVO will kill the elise.
If you're an old bI used to think nothing would touch my lightly breathed on integrale but it all depends on the road and conditions. in the dry on a tight twisty mountain pass very little can get close to my Elise, only something stupid with no boot and limited body panels is going to get close.
There again other roads with a powerful EVO will kill the elise.
d like me, you may have read the magazine 'Fast Lane' - they actually had an issue with the headline 'Quickest car from a to b' and it was a Lancia Delta Integrale....I reckon you win
Had quite a few TVR's including a Griff 500. Current car is a Merc C32 AMG with over 400hp. The quickest point to point car I've ever had was my VX220 Turbo with Exige Bilstein coilovers. That car would defy the laws of Physics every time I drove it. It made every TVR I've ever owned feel like an old boat! I simply don't know how the Lotus engineers made these cars perform these feats of physics defying ability.
Remarkable machines....
Not me but an illustration of it's ability........ Has to be top 3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvxzvXmKKOU
Remarkable machines....
Not me but an illustration of it's ability........ Has to be top 3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvxzvXmKKOU
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Just a clip regarding a Caterham in greasy conditions against the Renault Megane R26R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRLefZIINCo
Indeed - I have struggled to keep up with a Transit in heavy rain in my R400 . On a dry smooth road Sevens are ballistically quick but bumps and standing water turn it from hero to zero. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRLefZIINCo
coppice said:
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Just a clip regarding a Caterham in greasy conditions against the Renault Megane R26R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRLefZIINCo
Indeed - I have struggled to keep up with a Transit in heavy rain in my R400 . On a dry smooth road Sevens are ballistically quick but bumps and standing water turn it from hero to zero. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRLefZIINCo
coppice said:
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Just a clip regarding a Caterham in greasy conditions against the Renault Megane R26R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRLefZIINCo
Indeed - I have struggled to keep up with a Transit in heavy rain in my R400 . On a dry smooth road Sevens are ballistically quick but bumps and standing water turn it from hero to zero. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRLefZIINCo
- The Caterham in the video is a CDX, one of the slowest sevens available, with 135bhp and less than 250bhp/tonne. An R300, even in the wet, would be much faster.
- The Caterham has two inherent disadvantages: not much weight over the rear wheels and a De Dion rear axle. Both of those things give them pretty poor wet weather traction. Other lightweights such as the 2-Eleven, Brooke, BAC Mono etc do not suffer from this problem. I often drove my 2-Eleven in the pouring wet and it was fine; I even once demoed the car to a prospective buyer in a thunderstorm. You have to slow down a lot compared to the dry, yes, and perhaps not quite as much as a softly sprung hatchback on normal road tyres, but you'd still be faster than such a car. FWD only has a traction advantage over FE/RWD under very low accelerations with minimal weight transfer, such as snow or mud from rest - ME/RWD or RE/RWD is obviously always better.
DonkeyApple said:
All these low cars would lose out to one of the fast SUVs like the RRS SVR on public roads. The ability to see that much further and over many obstacles reduces the risk significantly and allows for higher speeds to be retained for longer. Over a section of typical UK B roads the big ugly van will be swifter for less risk than the faster and better handling lower cars. Close the roads and the vans will be thrashed however.
This...Visibility is key to making safe progress.
james_gt3rs said:
Does anyone know why light cars suffer in the wet more than heavier ones? Can't get my head around the physics.
F=M/A is the basic answer. Not enough weight and too large a tyre contact area to generate enough force to overcome the lower friction surface. Front engines, RWD have a general disadvantage anyway in that the mass of the engine isn't over the driving wheels.
Passenger needs to be in the boot when it rains.
On the DCT vs Manual point, I think until you experience how very fast things happen in a car like a 911 turbo or McLaren (my reference point), you can't appreciate why a manual is a limitation. My Boxster Spyder is fast, but not so fast that I can't cope with changing gear myself. The McLaren 12Cs I drove were so fast when unleashed that there was simply no way I'd have kept up if I'd had to shift gear myself. Anyone saying they could is either deluded or currently competing in top level motorsport.
Of course, even if you can keep up with the rate at which you had to change gear, the very act of taking one hand off the wheel adds some complexity, and, unless you employ 'road tester' clutchless, full bore shifts, will take longer.
So, in summary, people who say they would be quicker in a manual when we are talking very fast cars are talking bks. IMO, of course.
Of course, even if you can keep up with the rate at which you had to change gear, the very act of taking one hand off the wheel adds some complexity, and, unless you employ 'road tester' clutchless, full bore shifts, will take longer.
So, in summary, people who say they would be quicker in a manual when we are talking very fast cars are talking b
ks. IMO, of course.Edited by jmcc500 on Thursday 29th September 20:00
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff