0 to 60 times, kit car owner delusion??!

[FuryCossieSteve]

Why is it that almost every time I see a kit car for sale on ebay or PH I see ridiculous, unproven and most likely unattainable 0 to 60mph times quoted?

Seriously, do people really think their 180bhp (car engined) 7 style car can do 0 to 60 in 3.1 seconds??? I think even a 180bhp BEC would struggle?

I see one CEC on PH atm that quotes 3.4 secs with 200bhp and 180ftlbs and yet is another very well set up car, track proven and with a well accomplished track-experienced driver quoting a more sensible 3.5 secs with 50bhp more at 250bhp and 190ftlbs (and that I know is a very quick car, full of nice top line equipment to enable it to do that kind of time). A full 50bhp less (nowhere near the level of track equipment) and yet faster? I seriously doubt that!!

I once saw a guy selling a 7 type car on ebay quote 2.6 seconds for pities sake!! I'd love to see him do it! Even if he could get the whole (less than 230bhp) down that would be a road going car world record most likely!!! Or not far off. Here are some real world times figures from just recently, not sure if I can post a link, but here goes....... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/2716549/Gone-i...

My Cossie Fury (around 320bhp and about the same in torque I believe - must check!) must be around 1.5 seconds then???

Edited by FuryCossieSteve on Sunday 9th August 21:32

[FuryCossieSteve]

Megaflow said:

Because they're bell ends...

I had a Westfield with a proven 155bhp on Northampton Motorsports rollers, weighed ~560kg, and according tho the inbuilt acceleration timer in the digit ash, would do 0-60 in 4.6, being really brutal with it, you could probably drop that to 4.4/4.5, but there is no way on earth it was going any faster than that.

I'm actually quite impressed with a real world figure of 4.6secs at 277bhp/tonne tbh. It seems to me that you reach a point where to get it a worthwhile amount lower requires a huge increase in power and a lot of £££!

I saw a guy selling a properly sorted Cosworth Turbo Westie with 505bhp, launch control, flatshifter and all the kit, it was officially timed at 3.2secs. 1.4 secs quicker than your Westie but it took more than 3 times the power plus all sorts of expensive trick kit to do it!

Not as quick as all those on ebay with 200bhp who can do it faster of course!!

[FuryCossieSteve]

stargazer30 said:

But more importantly, if they constantly obsess about 0-60 times they've missed the point anyway.

Exactly!

[FuryCossieSteve]

browse said:

The twin engined Tiger Z100 does sub-3 second 0-60 on Fifth Gear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phQfA5-DL1I

Yes I believe someone got it down to 2.8 now? I recall seeing that Fifth Gear and Tiff broke the damn thing!! I don't think any of those times have been recognised by Guinness though have they?

Edited by FuryCossieSteve on Sunday 9th August 23:16

[FuryCossieSteve]

Huff said:

Looking forward to that, Jeff; your car looked (and sounded!) the mutts last year, and ran well.

Which raises a really good response to the OP - have a look at Jeff's car to see what it takes to actually deliver the numbers posted (much less those talked-bout in pubs). The average overpowered kit won't get close, let alone a poor BEC conversion.

Newbie here, how do I get to look at jeffs car pls?

[FuryCossieSteve]

jeffw said:

I did this the other day, Stowe circuit - Silverstone on cold tyres at the start of a sprint.



This is from the datalogger using GPS speed. Car is my Phoenix with 400BHP in 620Kg. Warm tyres would be a large difference as would traction control. Car has a Quaife Sequential. I have some electronics (flatshifter/traction control) which will also help. My next event is the Brighton Speed Trials so will be interesting to see if I can get into the 10sec 1/4 mile.
[

Edited by jeffw on Monday 10th August 16:03

Impressive jeff. I can't see my 320/330bhp Cossie getting near that tbh but now my new R888s have arrived I may give it a try sometime. Personally in this day and age of fast kits and track days I think the 0 to 60 time has less relevance and should be usurped by the 0 to 100mph time!! More relevant today in the real world, as is the standing 1/4 mile time

[FuryCossieSteve]

Olivera said:

Low 3s? That's less than most bikes and you have double the weight?

Dunno about double the weight (A 2008~ Hayabusa is 265+kg wet weight, with 197bhp, power to weight 743/tonne!) but what I'd like to know is what car do you have that is 350kg?? Is it an Atom maybe? I know you said MOST bikes Olivera btw!

Not saying this applies to you mikeveal but that is another area I find kit owners get very wrong, the weight of their cars. It all seems to be in an attempt to kid themselves on their power to weight ratio it seems to me.

I've seen my car quoted at various times as either 320 or 330bhp and from 650 to 670kg. Well that varies the PTW ratio from 477bhp/tonne to 507/tonne. Methinks someone has been keen to break the magic 500 maybe? Later this year I will get both figures accurately done and put that one to bed for good! (in cold weather of course so I get a better bhp - it's a turbo!! hahahahaha!!)

[FuryCossieSteve]

jeffw said:

I think that with the following

Warm tyres
flatshifter and launch control
drag strip

& no mechanical sensibilities and an endless clutch/driveshaft/transmission budget

I might be able to get into the very low 3 secs 0-60, under that would be hard. I believe the car would run 6 sec 0-100MPH and maybe 10sec 1/4 mile.

2 sec 0-60 would be very difficult.

Can't fault your positive attitude there jeff but people spend ££tens of thousands to knock off tenths of a second, knocking off the amounts you are hoping for would be a miracle tbh. Taking 1.17 seconds off any 0 to 100 time is asking a LOT! You certainly have a very, very fast little car there though dude!

Let us know how you get on via this thread would you please??

[FuryCossieSteve]

alspeed said:

Most of the 0-60 times quoted in forums are based on peoples distorted perception of how quick they are going or the results taken from a variety of mickey mouse timing methods.

I've done a few run what you brung events at York raceway, where they have had the 0-60 times recorded along side the normal drag times, reaction, 60ft 1/4 mile ET etc

Its a bit of an eye opener really, cars that you would naturally expect to do well simply dont

Not much road legal stuff drops below 4 seconds, 3 second cars are rare, the problem is not power or even power to weight ratio, its traction or rather lack of traction.

Think the best road going car I've seen at York was a twin engined 4 wheel drive golf which IIRC did a genuine 2.8 secs. It bloody looked fast too, simply hooking up and taking off the line with very little loss of

traction.

Yep, totally agree. Watch the really quick stuff off the line at the Goodwood hillclimb and the difference is very noticeable. A small squeak from the tyres and they are gone!

[FuryCossieSteve]

mikeveal - love that Skunk man! Mental bit of kit by the look of it!

jeffw - great action picture and sounds a properly sorted bit of kit you have there.

Just put my new r888's on the Fury today, hope to try and do a heat cycle 2moro if rain stays off. They have totally changed the look and 'stance' of the car especially at the rear. Let's hope they change the handling too!

[FuryCossieSteve]

jeffw said:

Sorry, missed all the replies.

There are lots of videos on youtube of my car...dyno run

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXN1vPWLs04

this one was from last years BST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65hR2i8E0ng

This was pre-sequential and was actually 130mph at the line. Since then the car has a Quaife 60G helical 6 speed sequential with a Geartronics Easyshift which should reduce this somewhat (and I need to learn how to tyre warm !). I have a traction control system which I'm fitting and a paddleshift which is a winter upgrade.

Yeah that is a PROPER bit of kit you have there! Nicely off the line too jeff. And your power/torque curves on the dyno screen look really good too!!!!

It revs really well doesnt it!

[FuryCossieSteve]

jeffw said:

Its had a lot of money spent on it.

Currently I have a set of double adjustable Protech shocks that I'm fitting, then the indycar anti-roll bar needs to go on. I've got to make a new splitter and sort the rear diffuser. Then figure out why the traction control system isn't playing. After that I need to buy some pneumatic bits so I can get my Xoomspeed paddleshift system working.

Then over the winter I probable need to change the flywheel from 215mm to 184mm with a two-plate clutch (lower interia) and get a roll-cage fitted for MSA regs

So....no, not finished just yet !

I was hankering after a Radical SR8 so if someone made me an offer which was in the mid-£20Ks I'd probable sell it, otherwise it gets upgraded every year

Edited by jeffw on Thursday 13th August 06:36

If I had that kinda dosh jeff I'd defo consider buying it but I wish I had the know-how (and space, tools etc) to do the kind of things you have done to it. I'd build my own I think.

[FuryCossieSteve]

RemaL said:

Many owners are delusional on the BHP scale as well as times to 60. I had a mates performance 0-60 box a few years ago. I know My tiger will do it under 5 seconds but most of the time I would fk up a gear change or spin the wheels.

Also re the BHP. I have a mate who has just bought a lovely Westy, with 180BHP (unsure if at the wheels or crank) but I think it was sold as having 180RWD BHP.
WTF: It has the same 2ltr Zetec as mine, pretty much identical set up and ECU, but running twin 40's instead of my twin 45's

I've had my on a dyno a few times after mods etc... and have approx 145BHP at the rear wheels. So maybe 10-15BHP at the crank.

I wonder where they get another 35BHP from the same black top Zetec. No engine mods in both. maybe one of the Ebay BHP increasing fan belts, or Putting Super unleaded in

Yeah that is true too! I've seen my car quoted anything between 300 and 330 bhp. I guess it can vary on air temp a little but I plan to get it dyno'd sometime so I know myself the true figure. I suspect it'll be closer to 300 than 330 tho!! I'm not sure on the torque so that will be interesting to know but it is quite high I think.

And that's another thing (that I am not going to start!!) bhp or torque, the old chestnut, which is more important/useful? Does anyone even really understand torque!! I read various threads on it a while back and I still didnt really get it! I do know more torque means you can pull more easily with less gear changes (if you need/want to) A lot of people bang on about BEC's having no torque but they still seem to flippin shift ok dont they!

[FuryCossieSteve]

So ultimately what you (I!) want is a car with a lot of torque that revs like a bike!! That would mean it would have massive bhp then? A Mike Tyson engine!

Sounds like an electric car/bike to me!! Huge torque right from zero revs? I saw a video of a new electric super bike (cant recall the make but was one of the big manufacturers, I'm sure it's on youtube) being test ridden and it was just stupidly quick!! The rider was pretty much freaking out with excitement! No nice noises tho

[FuryCossieSteve]

mikeveal said:

The grip that you get from a tyre is independent of the tyre size. Its counter intuitive, but true. As you increase the size of the contact patch you decrease the weight per unit of area and the net result is that grip stays the same.

I'm not disputing what you have said Mike as it seems to make logical sense to me, but why in that case do high performance car manufacturers bother with wider tyres? And come to that why do F1 cars have such wide ones too? I have just changed my rears from 195's to 215s and I definitely seem to have more grip both off the line (in a straight line) and on the corners. How is this so?

Am I right in saying that grip at the end of the day is just in fact friction? Bigger patch equals more friction but less weight per unit of area equals less friction hence it all balances out? I still don't get why all cars dont just use 175s in that case though (ignoring rubber compound differences of course) and why wider tyres DO seem to give you more grip!

[FuryCossieSteve]

jeffw said:

Its had a lot of money spent on it.

Currently I have a set of double adjustable Protech shocks that I'm fitting, then the indycar anti-roll bar needs to go on. I've got to make a new splitter and sort the rear diffuser. Then figure out why the traction control system isn't playing. After that I need to buy some pneumatic bits so I can get my Xoomspeed paddleshift system working.

Then over the winter I probable need to change the flywheel from 215mm to 184mm with a two-plate clutch (lower interia) and get a roll-cage fitted for MSA regs

So....no, not finished just yet !

I was hankering after a Radical SR8 so if someone made me an offer which was in the mid-£20Ks I'd probable sell it, otherwise it gets upgraded every year

Edited by jeffw on Thursday 13th August 06:36

Just watched you on youtube go round Combe at the Dick Mayo sprint. I missed going to that. You were quick!! I am there on Monday at my 1st ever track day. Will be taking it a bit easier than you did!

[FuryCossieSteve]

mikeveal said:

Damned if I fully understand fully it. Counter intuitive it really is, but the maths does stack up.

Wider tyres have a different shape as well as a different size of contact patch.

Depending on the tyre pressure and the rigidity of the tyre structure, tyre width may not dominate the size of the contact patch. Eg a highly inflated stiff wide tyre may have a smaller contact patch than a lightly inflated floppy narrow one.

Clearly there will be less wear with a wider tyre. Given the same rigidity and inflation (as a narrower tyre), you will get a larger contact patch with less weight/area.

You'd also expect a larger contact patch to deal better with a loose surface, by averaging out the grip across the entire surface patch.

Probably there's a bunch of complicated stuff related to the shape of the patch and cornering slip angles too.

Some answers here:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29903/w...

Physics - I should have paid more attention at school!!!

[FuryCossieSteve]

Crippo said:

The main problem with 0-60 times is the ability to deliver a consistent time. I've had some very fast cars and I have never, ever, done a brutal 0-60mph launch.
Its also rather irrelevant as the main use for high acceleration is overtaking.
In this regard a 50 - 100 time might be more appropriate, or if you're on track you may need enough power to push towards 130mph. In my experience most super fast, super light kit cars that give stratospheric 0-60 times simply don't have the Kahuna's to push much past 110mph. As areo dynamic drag increases exponentially the amount of power required to give good acceleration past 100mph is quite significant and the weight of the vehicle starts to become irrelevant.

I was thinking the exact same thing Crispin. How many times if ever do you do a 0 to 60 in the real world? Never most likely! On the road and for defo on track a fast 40 to 80 or 50 to 120 is far more useful to have I'd say? I'm hoping the better aerodynamics of a Fury will come in handy against all the 7s on my track day!!

[FuryCossieSteve]

Surely the truth of the matter is that 0 to 60 has been around for decades, in fact from a time when some cars could barely do more than 60!

So therefore now cars are MUCH faster, isnt 0 to 100(mph) simply the new 0 to 60?

Even the standing 1/4 mile will no doubt one day be replaced by the standing 1/2 km!!

God help us all. I am still getting used to petrol prices in pence per litre for pities sakes!

[FuryCossieSteve]

AdiT said:

Steve, in the spirit of "new fangled stuff" I guess you're going to post your RR results in kw and Nm?

In case you misunderstood my meaning, definitely not! I am NOT in favour of the new fangled measurements. Give me mph, mpg, lbs/ft and bhp any day. I am 55 years of age btw, I still remember there being 240 pence to the £1!!!!!