Crown

Board: Porsche Language: English Region: Worldwide Share/Save/Bookmark Close

Forum - Thread


    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    the next time i will do that and i advice you to do it:
    1- 1 passenger
    2- 1/4 tank
    3- cold weather (under 15*c)
    4- smooth road
    5- not againest the wind
    6- hard use in the same test day ( hight speed
    7- very fast shifting <------------------------------------
    8- shifing on 8,350 rpm <----------------------------------
    9- low humidity
    10-all that just for fun
    11-sorry for my bad english

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Nice results. I think you also need to do several runs in both directions and average the results. Also was the elevation significant?

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    Quote:
    iia said:
    Quote:
    hugo said:
    yes,but we are talking about 0-300,not 0-100 as per the a/m


    You can just add 0-100 of ~4 sec into 100-300 run to get the result of 0-300.


    Please tell me he realises that -what sort of posters are we getting on here



    Someone might oversight. Someone think he is a better poster.

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    What fuel octan are you using CGT?

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    ha said:
    What fuel octan are you using CGT?



    98

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    iia said:
    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    Quote:
    iia said:
    Quote:
    hugo said:
    yes,but we are talking about 0-300,not 0-100 as per the a/m


    You can just add 0-100 of ~4 sec into 100-300 run to get the result of 0-300.


    Please tell me he realises that -what sort of posters are we getting on here



    Someone might oversight. Someone think he is a better poster.



    firstly,sorry but due to the way you express youself in English it is difficult to understand what you are trying to say,but that might just be an oversight on my part...
    secondly,if you do a "proper" 0-300(meaning, not 100-300 @ whatever seconds + 4 sec)you are most likely to find the cgt does not better 32 sec

    as to the real importance of all this,i agree not much and there are other more relevant parameters to evaluate performance

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    hugo said:
    Quote:
    iia said:
    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    Quote:
    iia said:
    Quote:
    hugo said:
    yes,but we are talking about 0-300,not 0-100 as per the a/m


    You can just add 0-100 of ~4 sec into 100-300 run to get the result of 0-300.


    Please tell me he realises that -what sort of posters are we getting on here



    Someone might oversight. Someone think he is a better poster.



    firstly,sorry but due to the way you express youself in English it is difficult to understand what you are trying to say,but that might just be an oversight on my part...
    secondly,if you do a "proper" 0-300(meaning, not 100-300 @ whatever seconds + 4 sec)you are most likely to find the cgt does not better 32 sec

    as to the real importance of all this,i agree not much and there are other more relevant parameters to evaluate performance



    Why wouldn't it better 32 seconds? Are you saying that it needs 8 seconds to reach 100 km/h? His time is accurate.

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    hugo said:
    ,if you do a "proper" 0-300(meaning, not 100-300 @ whatever seconds + 4 sec)you are most likely to find the cgt does not better 32 sec



    So you DID mean what you said before ?

    Can you explain why you believe a 0-300kph will be more accurate than a 100-300kph (starting in 2nd gear) and adding ~4s

    Not only has CGT1178 shown us the Driftbox proof with slope data but he has taken the trouble to video it If you time the video you will see that the numbers look about right (allowing for speedo error)
    So unless one wants to get into various conspiracy theories CGT1178 has proven his numbers

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    Quote:
    hugo said:
    ,if you do a "proper" 0-300(meaning, not 100-300 @ whatever seconds + 4 sec)you are most likely to find the cgt does not better 32 sec



    So you DID mean what you said before ?

    Can you explain why you believe a 0-300kph will be more accurate than a 100-300kph (starting in 2nd gear) and adding ~4s

    Not only has CGT1178 shown us the Driftbox proof with slope data but he has taken the trouble to video it If you time the video you will see that the numbers look about right (allowing for speedo error)
    So unless one wants to get into various conspiracy theories CGT1178 has proven his numbers



    ×2

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    TB993tt and Crash thank you ..

    when i will change my tyries i will try my cgt from 0 to 300(it`s not promise) .. my tyries now is bad

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    when i try any car from zero the number from 100-200 will be better than when i try it from 2nd gear .
    i tryed that with my 997TT

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    Not only has CGT1178 shown us the Driftbox proof with slope data but he has taken the trouble to video it If you time the video you will see that the numbers look about right (allowing for speedo error)
    So unless one wants to get into various conspiracy theories CGT1178 has proven his numbers



    Agreed, the video is particularly useful. Also, the data provided seems pretty reliable Seems that some CGT can do 0-300 below 30s.

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    hugo said:
    Quote:
    iia said:
    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    Quote:
    iia said:
    Quote:
    hugo said:
    yes,but we are talking about 0-300,not 0-100 as per the a/m


    You can just add 0-100 of ~4 sec into 100-300 run to get the result of 0-300.


    Please tell me he realises that -what sort of posters are we getting on here



    Someone might oversight. Someone think he is a better poster.



    firstly,sorry but due to the way you express youself in English it is difficult to understand what you are trying to say,but that might just be an oversight on my part...



    Sorry, my english is bad. I just think you might be oversight.

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Hey CGT, have you seen this... www.fvd.us

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    yes i saw it before but i dont like to touch my car ..

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    CGT1178 said:
    yes i saw it before but i dont like to touch my car ..



    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    CGT is one car which feels like it doesn't need more power, it can activate the TC all the way through second gear in the dry !

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    TB993TT, I cannot see very well the graphs, but is your 200-300kph run about 5 seconds slower than this one?

    Despite that your runs I assume are made at much lower temperatures than in Kuwait as well, and they were two drivers on board, so one of the two cars is out of the 5% tolerance spec. There is a good 200+ HP there difference from 200-300kph in that case (ca. 5seconds). I don't have the answer, but in view of such delta, one needs to look further I think.

    As far as rolling resistence, it is not very important, and it is linear vs. speed, unlike aerodynamic drag, so what you see above 200kph is the same as below 200kph, keeping aside all other factors such as tire expansion, heat, etc which should not be too far off between both cars.

    Without getting too deep into physics, you can quite accurately calculate the impact of rolling resistence as follows:

    Power to overcome rolling resistance = Weight (lbs.) x RR coefficient x mph / 375

    The coefficient of drag for VERY smooth asphalt is 10 and for very rough asphalt is 22, data is widely available.
    Poor asphalt: Power (BHP)= 3200 x 0.022 x 186mph/375= 34.94 Bhp
    Good asphalt: Power= 3200 x 0.010 x 186/376 - 15.8 Bhp

    This is to the wheels. Allow for 15% more to the flywheel due to parasitic losses and friction. As you can see the difference is not very important. This really has me confused.

    All of the above, provided I am reading the right numbers of course!

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    The 200-300 difference is about 3.7s and the 100-200 difference is about 1.2s -total 100-300 is ~5s

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    The 200-300 difference is about 3.7s and the 100-200 difference is about 1.2s -total 100-300 is ~5s


    Not as much as I thought then, but you are still outrun substantially by a heavier CGT running in hotter temperatures, and these are naturally aspirated engines..

    The loss does not seem to be in shifting, since you both shift almost exactly as fast. A better scale (-0.2G to 0.8G) on the acceleration line might have shown how big is the spread in longitudinal Gs between both cars and help clarify.

    What I am trying to get to is that in my opinion this is not a rolling resistence, or shifting problem. (Your) slope also is not an important factor, the other run's slope is not seen here.

    I am repeating myself, but I fail to see any other reason for this spread than one of the cars being out of spec, specially when the best time belongs to the car running in worse conditions. Your car's runs seem to be consistent with magazine tests.

    Interesting!

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    wheres the VIDEO!?!? i wanna SEE!!!!



    PLEASEEEE!!!

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    CGT is one car which feels like it doesn't need more power, it can activate the TC all the way through second gear in the dry !


    I agree with you 100% but to some people its never enough. I guess CGT, yourself & I are prety content.

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    GT2ETR said:
    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    The 200-300 difference is about 3.7s and the 100-200 difference is about 1.2s -total 100-300 is ~5s


    Not as much as I thought then, but you are still outrun substantially by a heavier CGT running in hotter temperatures, and these are naturally aspirated engines..

    The loss does not seem to be in shifting, since you both shift almost exactly as fast. A better scale (-0.2G to 0.8G) on the acceleration line might have shown how big is the spread in longitudinal Gs between both cars and help clarify.

    What I am trying to get to is that in my opinion this is not a rolling resistence, or shifting problem. (Your) slope also is not an important factor, the other run's slope is not seen here.

    I am repeating myself, but I fail to see any other reason for this spread than one of the cars being out of spec, specially when the best time belongs to the car running in worse conditions. Your car's runs seem to be consistent with magazine tests.

    Interesting!



    I can't disagree with any of what you say above. I am presuming that the "height" is the line shown below which looks pretty level:

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Where's the Video ?

    Re: CGT 100-300 km/h .. as i promised

    Quote:
    BiTurbo said:
    Where's the Video ?



    PLEASE THE VIDEOOOOO

     
    Edit

    Forum

    Board Subject Last post Rating Views Replies
    Porsche Sticky The moment I've been waiting for... 5/18/22 6:36 PM
    Pilot
     
     
     
     
     
    587698 1306
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: New Porsche 911 Turbo S (2020) 6/8/22 4:41 PM
    Topspeed
    225452 1180
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA (Part II) 7/2/22 8:22 PM
    JoeRockhead
    116636 1058
    Porsche Sticky Welcome to Rennteam: Cars and Coffee... (photos) 7/2/22 7:50 PM
    Boxster Coupe GTS
    111290 408
    Porsche Sticky Porsche Taycan Turbo S - Short Review 1/3/22 7:55 AM
    Rossi
    91997 531
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Cayman GT4 RS (2021) 1/15/22 10:41 PM
    watt
    32032 1
    Porsche Cayman GT4 10/5/21 7:04 PM
    Topspeed
    515209 3587
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 GT2 RS (2017) 9/28/21 3:25 AM
    WhoopsyM
    430592 3507
    McLaren McLaren on a winning streak 2/1/22 10:14 PM
    SSO.
    427429 3954
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 991.2 GT3 RS (2018) 11/17/21 5:18 PM
    Rossi
    391242 3256
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 R (2016) 2/1/22 9:49 AM
    RCA
    374831 2655
    Porsche 992 GT3 6/28/22 3:43 PM
    Grant
    359696 3664
    Porsche OFFICIAL: The new Porsche 992 – a design icon and high-tech sports car 9/29/21 1:59 AM
    watt
    291945 1587
    Porsche Donor vehicle for Singer Vehicle Design 2/10/22 9:08 PM
    Topspeed
    139160 772
    Porsche Welcome to the new Taycan Forum! 7/1/22 4:24 PM
    WhoopsyM
    138200 1411
    AMG AMG GT R 3/13/22 8:52 PM
    spudgun
    112062 834
    McLaren F1 7/10/21 7:43 AM
    BiTurbo
    111813 209
    Lambo Aventador and SV 5/20/22 5:24 PM
    Topspeed
    109434 710
    Others Tesla 2 the new thread 6/30/22 6:47 PM
    WhoopsyM
    95946 1716
    Porsche GT4RS 6/18/22 5:42 PM
    Grant
    87454 979
    Motor Sp. [2021] Formula 1 4/19/22 10:08 PM
    Leawood911
    76904 1590
    Others Bugatti Chiron 4/12/22 9:24 PM
    blueflame
    75798 520
    Ferrari Ferrari 812 Superfast 6/12/22 5:09 PM
    watt
    71577 535
    BMW M BMW M2 Rumors 2/28/22 7:42 PM
    Topspeed
    62836 409
    Porsche Red Nipples 991.2 GT3 Touring on tour 7/2/22 7:22 PM
    blueflame
    55949 481
    Lambo Urus (SUV) 6/7/22 1:20 PM
    Topspeed
    54884 593
    Porsche Dave and Gnil @ Nürburgring Nordschleife 5/19/22 11:01 PM
    Grant
    54813 721
    Others Corvette C8 11/8/21 8:04 PM
    Topspeed
    50477 442
    Others Toyota Yaris GR 4/13/22 8:33 PM
    Grant
    27361 640
    Motor Sp. [2022] Formula 1 7/2/22 4:00 PM
    watt
    25994 972
    218 items found, displaying 1 to 30.