Discussion
Ah, right. blimey. Seems he went on to win that class overall:
http://www.yorkdragway.org/results.pl?date=2014-09...
Whatever car SO22 was had a 1/4 mile of 8.7s in round 4 (!) but didn't run in the final.
Hats off to you for the reaction time by the way.
http://www.yorkdragway.org/results.pl?date=2014-09...
Whatever car SO22 was had a 1/4 mile of 8.7s in round 4 (!) but didn't run in the final.
Hats off to you for the reaction time by the way.
Edited by ianwayne on Sunday 21st September 21:28
I've said almost from day one that TVR (in a very un-TVR like way) had published remarkably slow 0-60 times, especially for the 5L (and quite possibly the 4.5 and 4.0 as well).
I have always been convinced that I could beat the 4.1 second 0-60 in my car; at least occasionally.
I have in the past suggested it was poor tyres, a poor track surface, a bad day for the test driver; all three maybe?
But why would they live with that? Surely they would have 'cheated' with tyres better suited to the task and run the test all day long if necessary? It's not like TVR (or any other manufacturer), has ever hesitated to add advantages where possible when searching for marketing statistics.
Your time is a fair bit quicker than I might have expected (your friend Mickey T probably has a lot to do with that
), but even so it more than proves my point I think, (after all a full second is a huge difference); with good tyres, a prevailing wind and a dash of luck, it can be done.
So what was up at TVR?
Why did they only claim 4.1 for the Chimaera and Griffith 500s?
Could it be that the then flagship car, the Cerbera 4.5, for all of it's massive overall performance advantage over our cars, just couldn't do 0-60 better than a 3.9, and TVR couldn't have ours appearing quicker?
That's not a swipe at the Cerbera, but it would make marketing sense.
The ones I drove just didn't feel as quick off the line, though they pulled beyond 60mph in a way I could only dream of in mine.
Or maybe the Cerb owners would take umbrage and say they feel under-rated as well?
I have always been convinced that I could beat the 4.1 second 0-60 in my car; at least occasionally.
I have in the past suggested it was poor tyres, a poor track surface, a bad day for the test driver; all three maybe?
But why would they live with that? Surely they would have 'cheated' with tyres better suited to the task and run the test all day long if necessary? It's not like TVR (or any other manufacturer), has ever hesitated to add advantages where possible when searching for marketing statistics.
Your time is a fair bit quicker than I might have expected (your friend Mickey T probably has a lot to do with that
), but even so it more than proves my point I think, (after all a full second is a huge difference); with good tyres, a prevailing wind and a dash of luck, it can be done.So what was up at TVR?
Why did they only claim 4.1 for the Chimaera and Griffith 500s?
Could it be that the then flagship car, the Cerbera 4.5, for all of it's massive overall performance advantage over our cars, just couldn't do 0-60 better than a 3.9, and TVR couldn't have ours appearing quicker?
That's not a swipe at the Cerbera, but it would make marketing sense.
The ones I drove just didn't feel as quick off the line, though they pulled beyond 60mph in a way I could only dream of in mine.
Or maybe the Cerb owners would take umbrage and say they feel under-rated as well?
QBee said:
7 seconds to 100 mph isn't too shabby either. How much nitrous were you using, Derek?
The usual 100 shot on full throttle and 70 on the button but the bottles were very cold so probably only giving 75%.I also backed off a little on that last run as i knew i was beat. If i had kept my foot in i am sure it would have been another 10
Goaty Bill 2 said:
I've said almost from day one that TVR (in a very un-TVR like way) had published remarkably slow 0-60 times, especially for the 5L (and quite possibly the 4.5 and 4.0 as well).
I have always been convinced that I could beat the 4.1 second 0-60 in my car; at least occasionally.
I have in the past suggested it was poor tyres, a poor track surface, a bad day for the test driver; all three maybe?
But why would they live with that? Surely they would have 'cheated' with tyres better suited to the task and run the test all day long if necessary? It's not like TVR (or any other manufacturer), has ever hesitated to add advantages where possible when searching for marketing statistics.
Your time is a fair bit quicker than I might have expected (your friend Mickey T probably has a lot to do with that), but even so it more than proves my point I think, (after all a full second is a huge difference); with good tyres, a prevailing wind and a dash of luck, it can be done.
So what was up at TVR?
Why did they only claim 4.1 for the Chimaera and Griffith 500s?
Could it be that the then flagship car, the Cerbera 4.5, for all of it's massive overall performance advantage over our cars, just couldn't do 0-60 better than a 3.9, and TVR couldn't have ours appearing quicker?
That's not a swipe at the Cerbera, but it would make marketing sense.
The ones I drove just didn't feel as quick off the line, though they pulled beyond 60mph in a way I could only dream of in mine.
Or maybe the Cerb owners would take umbrage and say they feel under-rated as well?
I havent tested mine, but in regards to what youre saying, my 400 with no cats and lightened flywheel should do better than the 5.0 secs to 62, as stated on wikipedia and other places? I thought the 500s were quoted at 4.5 to 62...I have always been convinced that I could beat the 4.1 second 0-60 in my car; at least occasionally.
I have in the past suggested it was poor tyres, a poor track surface, a bad day for the test driver; all three maybe?
But why would they live with that? Surely they would have 'cheated' with tyres better suited to the task and run the test all day long if necessary? It's not like TVR (or any other manufacturer), has ever hesitated to add advantages where possible when searching for marketing statistics.
Your time is a fair bit quicker than I might have expected (your friend Mickey T probably has a lot to do with that
), but even so it more than proves my point I think, (after all a full second is a huge difference); with good tyres, a prevailing wind and a dash of luck, it can be done.So what was up at TVR?
Why did they only claim 4.1 for the Chimaera and Griffith 500s?
Could it be that the then flagship car, the Cerbera 4.5, for all of it's massive overall performance advantage over our cars, just couldn't do 0-60 better than a 3.9, and TVR couldn't have ours appearing quicker?
That's not a swipe at the Cerbera, but it would make marketing sense.
The ones I drove just didn't feel as quick off the line, though they pulled beyond 60mph in a way I could only dream of in mine.
Or maybe the Cerb owners would take umbrage and say they feel under-rated as well?
OleVix said:
I havent tested mine, but in regards to what youre saying, my 400 with no cats and lightened flywheel should do better than the 5.0 secs to 62, as stated on wikipedia and other places? I thought the 500s were quoted at 4.5 to 62...
Chimaera WikiThough I dispute the top speed figure given there (as a factory claim, not as a fact) for the 500. TVR only claimed 167 mph, not 175, unless it was later updated.
I have some of the original marketing brochures around, and though I can't lay hands on them, I know the 500 was claimed to be 4.1 / 167 in '99.
Chimaera Wiki
Though I dispute the top speed figure given there (as a factory claim, not as a fact) for the 500. TVR only claimed 167 mph, not 175, unless it was later updated.
I have some of the original marketing brochures around, and though I can't lay hands on them, I know the 500 was claimed to be 4.1 / 167 in '99.
[/quote]
167 / 175 - it doesn't really matter does it? I doubt it's just mine which feels decidedly sketchy at the front end over 150 ish.... sketchy enough to back off anyway!
Mines a completely standard 450 with oldish tyres and I reckon 4.5 0-60 is a tad harsh - wiuth new rubber, they must be quicker surely?
macdeb]Let's not forget they said the standard 500 was either 320 or 340 bhp of which it clearly isn't as 285 seems a good benchmark in the real world [220 for 450 said:
. So, how could we believe the stated performance figures? 
Exactly 
and no way would a factory 4 get below 5 seconds 0-60 
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff