Modified Chimaera Club (MCC)

Modified Chimaera Club (MCC)

Author
Discussion

phazed

21,844 posts

203 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
Fly

ClassiChimi

12,424 posts

148 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
Richard 858 said:
Richard 858 said:
What run down/drag/friction conversion factor are we using, 15%, 18% ??
On the assumption we're applying a fairly well accepted figure of 18% then by my calculations that gives me 518bhp & 496ft/lbs. at the flywheel, I'll leave this to Derek / Chilli to confirm before I add myself to the appropriate group.
This lot don't half get me laughing, very amusing biggrin

mart 63

2,068 posts

243 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
Rocker cover badges guysbiglaughsmile[url]





















|http://thumbsnap.com/xhgD7SPX[/url]

Richard 858

1,882 posts

134 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
mart 63 said:
Rocker cover badges guysbiglaughsmile[url]























|http://thumbsnap.com/xhgD7SPX[/url]
I'll have you know that at 6'6" all my attributes are in perfect proportion laugh


Edited by Richard 858 on Friday 6th November 16:59

QBee

20,904 posts

143 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
ClassiChimi said:
This lot don't half get me laughing, very amusing biggrin
I can only look on with awe and wonder at your shiny equipment guys.
Sadly I am a long way from qualifying for the Midget Cock Club.......
.....and even further from qualifying for the Microscopically Midget Cock Club.
I'll just go back to my desk and dream.
getmecoat

Jhonno

5,762 posts

140 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
Richard 858 said:
Jhonno said:
Dominic TVRetto said:
Richard 858 said:
Now giving a potential 468 bhp & 414 ft/lbs at the wheels.

after discussion and to maintain longevity, retain standard drivetrain ... this has now been re-tuned to:

439 bhp & 420 ft/lbs at the wheels.
[amusement]
I love the way "maintain longevity and retain standard drivetrain" the torque figure has been increased laugh
[/amusement]

Dom
That is what I was thinking.. It is torque that kills stuff, not bhp.. So by that measure they have made it worse?!
Sorry for the misleading comment chaps, as I understand it the 468 & 414 figures were the initial readings from the first run with rev limiter set at 6250, this was without fine tuning to balance the bhp & torque figures more evenly. The end result of 439 & 420 is after fine tuning but with rev limiter at 6,000 rpm. Hope this makes sense, if not feel free to shoot it to pieces biggrin
Limiting the revs to 6k will make the engine last a bit longer I guess, again will not do anything to increase longevity of the drive train however.

Maybe it has been tuned for driveabilty..

DangerousDerek

8,655 posts

219 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
Richard 858 said:
Richard 858 said:
What run down/drag/friction conversion factor are we using, 15%, 18% ??
On the assumption we're applying a fairly well accepted figure of 18% then by my calculations that gives me 518bhp & 496ft/lbs. at the flywheel, I'll leave this to Derek / Chilli to confirm before I add myself to the appropriate group.
Am I the only one that believes drivetrain loss is a constant and not a percentage? Why would a more powerful car lose more bhp though the same drivetrain?

NickM450

2,636 posts

199 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
ClassiChimi said:
It doesn't seem fair does it ..... biggrin
Agreed, I think we should start another club, the 300BHP-ishisenoughMCC hehe

phazed

21,844 posts

203 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
My limiter is set for a soft cut at 6k and a full cut at 6250, not that I am going to break anything!

N7GTX

7,823 posts

142 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
DangerousDerek said:
Richard 858 said:
Richard 858 said:
What run down/drag/friction conversion factor are we using, 15%, 18% ??
On the assumption we're applying a fairly well accepted figure of 18% then by my calculations that gives me 518bhp & 496ft/lbs. at the flywheel, I'll leave this to Derek / Chilli to confirm before I add myself to the appropriate group.
Am I the only one that believes drivetrain loss is a constant and not a percentage? Why would a more powerful car lose more bhp though the same drivetrain?
Yes that sounds logical to me. However, after reading up on this it seems that increasing BHP results in greater forces and heat which all increase the losses. This article seems to sum it up in easy to understand language.

http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/mod...

Edited by N7GTX on Friday 6th November 10:13

DangerousDerek

8,655 posts

219 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
N7GTX said:
Yes that sounds logical to me. Have you got a BHP figure in mind?
Sorry i should rephrase that, not a constant just not a linear percentage IYSWIM.
I think the percentage is less on a more powerful engine. Its not that simple to just add a set percentage

N7GTX

7,823 posts

142 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
DangerousDerek said:
Sorry i should rephrase that, not a constant just not a linear percentage IYSWIM.
I think the percentage is less on a more powerful engine. Its not that simple to just add a set percentage
Have amended my post after reading the article. See what you think?

DangerousDerek

8,655 posts

219 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
N7GTX said:
Have amended my post after reading the article. See what you think?
Yeah that smile

ChilliWhizz

Original Poster:

11,990 posts

160 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
Richard 858 said:
Richard 858 said:
What run down/drag/friction conversion factor are we using, 15%, 18% ??
On the assumption we're applying a fairly well accepted figure of 18% then by my calculations that gives me 518bhp & 496ft/lbs. at the flywheel, I'll leave this to Derek / Chilli to confirm before I add myself to the appropriate group.
Mighty impressive Richard biggrin
The simple calculation I have just undertaken in my bonce tells me that your flywheel bhp is indeed somewhere significantly North of 500 bow

So, if the upper limit for the MCC is 500, then clearly you are well in to MMCC territory... However, I am merely the (self appointed) mod for the MCC, and not empowered to make judgements on MMCC membership... Somebody should decide if the MMCC is a completely new and independent club, or if it will simply be an elitist branch of the MCC scratchchin
Such decisions are somewhat above the pay grade of a simple (self appointed) mod.....

Maybe we need to call a board meeting..... Someone should also let the horse power council know....

ClassiChimi

12,424 posts

148 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
I think it's time someone took charge,,, as Peters the only one with a normally aspirated willy within sticking distance of the boys at the top, then I think it's only good and fair he be appointed something,,,,
Mind younChilli does have quite some monster,,,

I think the MMCC is a great creation, it owes its history and general good grace to the MCC,
We all need to aspire,,,,, LS boys must be thinking of 1000hp by now I reckon,,,

The goalposts are a changing but change is good,,,
What would be Holy wrong and untoward would be to see the great wit Chilliwhizz step down,

I realise as I'm only in the ( I'm pushing 300bhp and 340 ft lbs torque isn't that enough ) camp so have to bow down to the great leaders who come to joust on this post, the MMCC,,, the 500 club,,,,
Wow ,, what a place it must be,,,,
It's true though,,,,,
500,,, that's the magic figure,,,
Anything after that is just bonus and testament to the efforts of the group.
Keep the MMCC very close and part of the MCC,,
they naturally lead on from each other,,,,,
What does MMCC Stand for again,,, ??? I'd like to join one day smile

phazed

21,844 posts

203 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
Mean Mothers Cycling Co Op.

phazed

21,844 posts

203 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
ClassiChimi said:
I think it's time someone took charge,,, as Peters the only one with a normally aspirated willy within sticking distance of the boys at the top and he's the fastest N/A RV8 engined TVR on the standing 1/4 mile list staying in front of nearly all FI cars smile
EFA.

DangerousDerek

8,655 posts

219 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
If the MCC is a cool nightclub for TVR modifiers then the MMCC is the VIP area.

ClassiChimi

12,424 posts

148 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
st yeah,,, like back stage Derek,, where all the real sex and drugs happen biggrin
Thanks for correcting that Peter, I knew there was more to it than that wink
I've decided to save money and time, just keep to st tyres,, it's a ball controlling my torque at 4000 revs,
Good tyres and the car would seem slower if safer biglaugh

ChilliWhizz

Original Poster:

11,990 posts

160 months

Friday 6th November 2015
quotequote all
ClassiChimi said:
What would be Holy wrong and untoward would be to see the great wit Chilliwhizz step down,
Alun, your understanding and insightful perception, as always, brings an oasis of calm and sensibility to our desert of thundering monsters and testosterone laden antics... I salute you bow

Should you wish it, I have a jar of my latest chilli jam creation with your name on it, which I would be happy to send to you were I in possession of the address of your drum. Please note my latest creations can be laced with the little blue pill during the creation process, thus ensuring serious willy waving by lunchtime, should you partake of the fiery but fruity stuff for breakfast. I find this a particularly natty way of getting it up when one of my many lady friends is popping over for a bit... of lunch....

Kind regards to all,

Chilli... (self appointed mod of the MCC and custodian of the quickest 5.0 litre Chim on Gods earth.. and probably any other planet for that matter... No, feck it, make that the Galaxy)


Edited by ChilliWhizz on Friday 6th November 17:20