Crown

Quote:
Crash said:
Please, correct me if I missed anything.

Quote:
TB993tt said:

Quote:
Crash said:
Please, correct me if I missed anything.

Er....you missed my graph above !

We have done this and between 100 and 300kph one car was 1.7s quicker.
By the end of the run this amounted to 130m.
the horizontal axis on the graph is distance in km and vertical speed in mph
You don't have to keep keyboard speculating -we have DONE this for you !

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
TB993tt said:

Quote:
Crash said:
Please, correct me if I missed anything.

Er....you missed my graph above !

We have done this and between 100 and 300kph one car was 1.7s quicker.
By the end of the run this amounted to 130m.
the horizontal axis on the graph is distance in km and vertical speed in mph
You don't have to keep keyboard speculating -we have DONE this for you !

I did not miss your graph, but your interpretation seems to be incorrect. Tell me, how can there be 130 metres of distance between you two when the total time difference is only 1.7 seconds?

What I can see from your graph is only that your car was at around 180 mph when Guy reached 185 mph - that will NOT equate 130 metres of distance between you two.

EDIT: Those 130 metres seem to simply indicate that your car reached 300 km/h 130 metres later than Guy's GT2. That DOES NOT equate to a 130 metres difference between you two.

Did you do the run side-by-side or are you extrapolating your data from the numbers on two different runs? At this moment my keyboard seems much more accurate than your claims.

Quote:
MKSGR said:

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
TB993tt said:

Quote:
Crash said:
Please, correct me if I missed anything.

Er....you missed my graph above !

We have done this and between 100 and 300kph one car was 1.7s quicker.
By the end of the run this amounted to 130m.
the horizontal axis on the graph is distance in km and vertical speed in mph
You don't have to keep keyboard speculating -we have DONE this for you !

I did not miss your graph, but your interpretation seems to be incorrect. Tell me, how can there be 130 metres of distance between you two when the total time difference is only 1.7 seconds?

What I can see from your graph is only that your car was at around 180 mph when Guy reached 185 mph - that will NOT equate 130 metres of distance between you two.

EDIT: Those 130 metres seem to simply indicate that your car reached 300 km/h 130 metres later than Guy's GT2. That DOES NOT equate to a 130 metres difference between you two.

Did you do the run side-by-side or are you extrapolating your data from the numbers on two different runs? At this moment my keyboard seems much more accurate than your claims.

Crash is 100% correct. The question is not after which distance each car reaches 300kph. The question is: how far behind is the slower car (compared to the faster car) when the slower car reaches 300kph. The answer is a m figure much smaller than the figure you derived on the basis of the above chart.

Quote:
MKSGR said:

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
TB993tt said:

Quote:
Crash said:
Please, correct me if I missed anything.

Er....you missed my graph above !

We have done this and between 100 and 300kph one car was 1.7s quicker.
By the end of the run this amounted to 130m.
the horizontal axis on the graph is distance in km and vertical speed in mph
You don't have to keep keyboard speculating -we have DONE this for you !

I did not miss your graph, but your interpretation seems to be incorrect. Tell me, how can there be 130 metres of distance between you two when the total time difference is only 1.7 seconds?

What I can see from your graph is only that your car was at around 180 mph when Guy reached 185 mph - that will NOT equate 130 metres of distance between you two.

EDIT: Those 130 metres seem to simply indicate that your car reached 300 km/h 130 metres later than Guy's GT2. That DOES NOT equate to a 130 metres difference between you two.

Did you do the run side-by-side or are you extrapolating your data from the numbers on two different runs? At this moment my keyboard seems much more accurate than your claims.

Crash is 100% correct. The question is not after which distance each car reaches 300kph. The question is: how far behind is the slower car (compared to the faster car) when the slower car reaches 300kph. The answer is a m figure much smaller than the figure you derived on the basis of the above chart.

Quote:
Crash said:GT2ETR, you don't understand. What Markus has stated is completely correct. A car travelling at 300 km/h is covering 83,1 metres per second, thus your 166,2 m difference speculation. However, there is a huge problem with such speculation. First of all, your deduction demands that the first car is doing 300 km/h while the other vehicle is standing still - things just don't work this way.

Quote:
Crash said:....a distance of 30 metres (around 5 car lengths) seems conceivable to me and Ruf are most likely telling the truth...........Please, correct me if I missed anything.

Quote:
aah986 said:

Quote:
MKSGR said:

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
TB993tt said:

Quote:
Crash said:
Please, correct me if I missed anything.

Er....you missed my graph above !

We have done this and between 100 and 300kph one car was 1.7s quicker.
By the end of the run this amounted to 130m.
the horizontal axis on the graph is distance in km and vertical speed in mph
You don't have to keep keyboard speculating -we have DONE this for you !

I did not miss your graph, but your interpretation seems to be incorrect. Tell me, how can there be 130 metres of distance between you two when the total time difference is only 1.7 seconds?

What I can see from your graph is only that your car was at around 180 mph when Guy reached 185 mph - that will NOT equate 130 metres of distance between you two.

EDIT: Those 130 metres seem to simply indicate that your car reached 300 km/h 130 metres later than Guy's GT2. That DOES NOT equate to a 130 metres difference between you two.

Did you do the run side-by-side or are you extrapolating your data from the numbers on two different runs? At this moment my keyboard seems much more accurate than your claims.

Crash is 100% correct. The question is not after which distance each car reaches 300kph. The question is: how far behind is the slower car (compared to the faster car) when the slower car reaches 300kph. The answer is a m figure much smaller than the figure you derived on the basis of the above chart.

Here is a way to calculate that distance:
car A: 0-300km/h in 25 sec
car B: 0-300km/h in 23 sec

300km/h= 83.33 m/s

to calculate the distance traveled by car A:
D=(VF+V0) X T/2
D= 83.33 X 25/2= 1041.62 meters traveled

for car B:
D= 83.33 X 23/2= 958.29 meters traveled

The question is how far is car B, when the slower car A hits 300km/h at 25 seconds? to get that, you need the acceleration of the faster car B which is the following:
a= (Vf-V0)/T which is= 83.33/23= 3.623 m/s2
so, between 23s and 25 seconds, the faster car was accelerating at a rate of 3.62m/s2 which means in 2 seconds its speed went from 83.33m/s to 90.57m/s.
the distance that car B traveled by 25 seconds is:
D=90.57 x 25/2= 1132.12 meters.

so assuming constant acceleration for car B, AT 25 SEC. into the race, car A is at 300km/h and traveled 1041.62 meters and car B is now doing 326km/h and is at 1132.12 meters which is 90.5 meters ahead (that's a bit more than a few car lenghts).
What do you think?

Quote:
GT2ETR said:

Quote:
Crash said:GT2ETR, you don't understand. What Markus has stated is completely correct. A car travelling at 300 km/h is covering 83,1 metres per second, thus your 166,2 m difference speculation. However, there is a huge problem with such speculation. First of all, your deduction demands that the first car is doing 300 km/h while the other vehicle is standing still - things just don't work this way.

Crash, I will not comment on style and will keep this technical.

You and Markus are missing the point. When RUF says that by shortening 6th gear you will gain 2 seconds on a 0-300kph run, they are wrong, and if it was HP Lieb, with all my respects, he is wrong too.

Markus subsequently changed to say that the 2 seconds was as a result of changing ALL the gears, that stands a slight chance of being more accurate, but nevertheless very unlikely too.

Don't get too involved in theory, other than Speed = distance/time, and that will not change!! Standing still or not, 2 runs with different cars, at different times on different roads, all of this does not matter, Speed = distance/time. That distance will vary somewhat depending on the acceleration rate of both cars between speeds, but will not change much!

TB993TT has posted a graph showing two cars running up to 300kph with a time difference of less than 2 seconds, and a distance of over 100 meters, this should be proof enough for you, regardless if the runs were made at the same time or not, that is totally irrelevant, physics are physics!

In case this is not enough for you and Markus to believe, I can post another 10 graphs showing cars running from standstill to 160kph, or 200kph, or rolling starts from 100-200kph etc, and you will see that the physics prevail!

Here are some FYI:

Car A: 0-160kph in 7.47s- Distance: 162 meters
Car B: 0-160kph in 9.63s- Distance: 256 meters
Difference: 94 meters in 2.16 seconds at 160kph.

Car A: 100-200kph: 5.6 s- 246 meters
Car B: 100-200kph: 6.4 s- 274 meters
Difference: 28 meters in 0.8 seconds at 200kph

Car A: 100-250kph: 12.1 s- 634 meters
Car B: 100-250kph: 15.7s- 782 meters
Difference: 148 meters in 3.6 seconds at 250kph

Let me know if you would like me to post any of the data above.

I can also get entangled with you on formulas and exact acceleration rates of the RT12 in the last 100kph (200-300kph) etc.. but I do not see the point, if you are not willing to accept all the proof and data presented to you, there is not much one can do to convince you.

Quote:
Crash said:....a distance of 30 metres (around 5 car lengths) seems conceivable to me and Ruf are most likely telling the truth...........Please, correct me if I missed anything.

No, it is not possible, and I hope the correction came from the data posted above.

If all the above is not enough, I strongly suggest you get in your cars and do some real life tests with data at hand.

Quote:
GT2ETR said:

Quote:
Crash said:GT2ETR, you don't understand. What Markus has stated is completely correct. A car travelling at 300 km/h is covering 83,1 metres per second, thus your 166,2 m difference speculation. However, there is a huge problem with such speculation. First of all, your deduction demands that the first car is doing 300 km/h while the other vehicle is standing still - things just don't work this way.

Crash, I will not comment on style and will keep this technical.

You and Markus are missing the point. When RUF says that by shortening 6th gear you will gain 2 seconds on a 0-300kph run, they are wrong, and if it was HP Lieb, with all my respects, he is wrong too.

Markus subsequently changed to say that the 2 seconds was as a result of changing ALL the gears, that stands a slight chance of being more accurate, but nevertheless very unlikely too.

Don't get too involved in theory, other than Speed = distance/time, and that will not change!! Standing still or not, 2 runs with different cars, at different times on different roads, all of this does not matter, Speed = distance/time. That distance will vary somewhat depending on the acceleration rate of both cars between speeds, but will not change much!

TB993TT has posted a graph showing two cars running up to 300kph with a time difference of less than 2 seconds, and a distance of over 100 meters, this should be proof enough for you, regardless if the runs were made at the same time or not, that is totally irrelevant, physics are physics!

In case this is not enough for you and Markus to believe, I can post another 10 graphs showing cars running from standstill to 160kph, or 200kph, or rolling starts from 100-200kph etc, and you will see that the physics prevail!

Here are some FYI:

Car A: 0-160kph in 7.47s- Distance: 162 meters
Car B: 0-160kph in 9.63s- Distance: 256 meters
Difference: 94 meters in 2.16 seconds at 160kph.

Car A: 100-200kph: 5.6 s- 246 meters
Car B: 100-200kph: 6.4 s- 274 meters
Difference: 28 meters in 0.8 seconds at 200kph

Car A: 100-250kph: 12.1 s- 634 meters
Car B: 100-250kph: 15.7s- 782 meters
Difference: 148 meters in 3.6 seconds at 250kph

Let me know if you would like me to post any of the data above.

I can also get entangled with you on formulas and exact acceleration rates of the RT12 in the last 100kph (200-300kph) etc.. but I do not see the point, if you are not willing to accept all the proof and data presented to you, there is not much one can do to convince you.

Quote:
Crash said:....a distance of 30 metres (around 5 car lengths) seems conceivable to me and Ruf are most likely telling the truth...........Please, correct me if I missed anything.

No, it is not possible, and I hope the correction came from the data posted above.

If all the above is not enough, I strongly suggest you get in your cars and do some real life tests with data at hand.

Quote:
Crash said:
Personally, I would like Markus to get the 0-200, 0-250 and 0-300 km/h data for the cars, which would make it much easier.

Quote:
aah986 said:

Quote:
MKSGR said:

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
TB993tt said:

Quote:
Crash said:
Please, correct me if I missed anything.

Er....you missed my graph above !

We have done this and between 100 and 300kph one car was 1.7s quicker.
By the end of the run this amounted to 130m.
the horizontal axis on the graph is distance in km and vertical speed in mph
You don't have to keep keyboard speculating -we have DONE this for you !

I did not miss your graph, but your interpretation seems to be incorrect. Tell me, how can there be 130 metres of distance between you two when the total time difference is only 1.7 seconds?

What I can see from your graph is only that your car was at around 180 mph when Guy reached 185 mph - that will NOT equate 130 metres of distance between you two.

EDIT: Those 130 metres seem to simply indicate that your car reached 300 km/h 130 metres later than Guy's GT2. That DOES NOT equate to a 130 metres difference between you two.

Did you do the run side-by-side or are you extrapolating your data from the numbers on two different runs? At this moment my keyboard seems much more accurate than your claims.

Crash is 100% correct. The question is not after which distance each car reaches 300kph. The question is: how far behind is the slower car (compared to the faster car) when the slower car reaches 300kph. The answer is a m figure much smaller than the figure you derived on the basis of the above chart.

Here is a way to calculate that distance:
car A: 0-300km/h in 25 sec
car B: 0-300km/h in 23 sec

300km/h= 83.33 m/s

to calculate the distance traveled by car A:
D=(VF+V0) X T/2
D= 83.33 X 25/2= 1041.62 meters traveled

for car B:
D= 83.33 X 23/2= 958.29 meters traveled

The question is how far is car B, when the slower car A hits 300km/h at 25 seconds? to get that, you need the acceleration of the faster car B which is the following:
a= (Vf-V0)/T which is= 83.33/23= 3.623 m/s2
so, between 23s and 25 seconds, the faster car was accelerating at a rate of 3.62m/s2 which means in 2 seconds its speed went from 83.33m/s to 90.57m/s.
the distance that car B traveled by 25 seconds is:
D=90.57 x 25/2= 1132.12 meters.

so assuming constant acceleration for car B, AT 25 SEC. into the race, car A is at 300km/h and traveled 1041.62 meters and car B is now doing 326km/h and is at 1132.12 meters which is 90.5 meters ahead (that's a bit more than a few car lenghts).
What do you think?

Quote:
Crash said:
IMO the acceleration difference between the two cars only becomes truly evident at above 200 km/h, so I took this as an example (I would really like to get all the acceleration data through thedifferent speed ranges so we can make a more accurate calculation):

Rt12 SHORT:
10.0 s 0-200 km/h
22.0 s 0-300 km/h

Rt12 STANDARD:
10.0 s 0-250 km/h
24.0 s 0-300 km/h

Results?

830,976 m for the shorty and 807,36 m for the standard (in the time it takes the shorty version to reach 300 km/h from 250). Not a huge difference, is it?

Quote:
Crash said:
In any case, physics support what Ruf have told Markus - 30 metres does roughly correspond with 5 car lengths.

Quote:
MKSGR said:

Quote:
Crash said:
In any case, physics support what Ruf have told Markus - 30 metres does roughly correspond with 5 car lengths.

Actually, Ruf told me the 2s. I calculated the 30m...

Quote:
MKSGR said:

Quote:
Crash said:
IMO the acceleration difference between the two cars only becomes truly evident at above 200 km/h, so I took this as an example (I would really like to get all the acceleration data through thedifferent speed ranges so we can make a more accurate calculation):

Rt12 SHORT:
10.0 s 0-200 km/h
22.0 s 0-300 km/h

Rt12 STANDARD:
10.0 s 0-250 km/h
24.0 s 0-300 km/h

Results?

830,976 m for the shorty and 807,36 m for the standard (in the time it takes the shorty version to reach 300 km/h from 250). Not a huge difference, is it?

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
MKSGR said:

Quote:
Crash said:
In any case, physics support what Ruf have told Markus - 30 metres does roughly correspond with 5 car lengths.

Actually, Ruf told me the 2s. I calculated the 30m...

A man who knows his math .

Quote:
MKSGR said:

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
MKSGR said:

Quote:
Crash said:
In any case, physics support what Ruf have told Markus - 30 metres does roughly correspond with 5 car lengths.

Actually, Ruf told me the 2s. I calculated the 30m...

A man who knows his math .

Not as good as you, I am afraid

Quote:
CGT1178 said:
my cgt go from 100-300 in 17.2s and from 100-310 in 19.7s in the speedo ( 2 passengers .. 30*c.. 9200 km ..1/2 tank) .

0-300= 17.2+ 3.8= 21s (speedo)
0-310=19.7 + 3.8 = 23.5 (speedo) !

Quote:
TB993tt said:

Quote:
CGT1178 said:
my cgt go from 100-300 in 17.2s and from 100-310 in 19.7s in the speedo ( 2 passengers .. 30*c.. 9200 km ..1/2 tank) .

0-300= 17.2+ 3.8= 21s (speedo)
0-310=19.7 + 3.8 = 23.5 (speedo) !

You need one of these -cheap, dead easy to use and pretty accurate.http://www.driftbox.com/
Did you notice your 100-200kph time going off the speedo ?

Quote:
TB993tt said:
OK, someone hand me a large slice of humble pie

Through the haze of a hangover the penny has dropped and I have crunched the numbers:

What you (cleverer than me) guys are saying is that when the two cars accelerate side by side from 200kph, when the slower car hits 300kph after 19.3s running (in my example) where is the faster car.
I crunched the AX software and you are right it is only 20m ahead doing (at that instant) 304.8kph.

Similarly when the faster car hits 300kph the slower car is doing 294.6kph and there is 16m between them.

Ah....enlightenment

Quote:
TB993tt said:
OK, someone hand me a large slice of humble pie

Through the haze of a hangover the penny has dropped and I have crunched the numbers:

What you (cleverer than me) guys are saying is that when the two cars accelerate side by side from 200kph, when the slower car hits 300kph after 19.3s running (in my example) where is the faster car.
I crunched the AX software and you are right it is only 20m ahead doing (at that instant) 304.8kph.

Similarly when the faster car hits 300kph the slower car is doing 294.6kph and there is 16m between them.

Ah....enlightenment

Quote:
GT2ETR said:
MKSGR

If I am getting on your nerves go take a cold shower and come back to have a conversation like an adult.

Crash, I am afraid I am not understanding your post. I am the first one to accept I was wrong if I am, I just don't see it just yet.

It would help me better if you can clarify 1) whether the 807meters and 830meters are data extrapolated from datalogger, 2) were these measurements taken from the same car with "normal" then "shorter" 6th gear, and 3) this data is from what kph to what kph.

Any idea as to what the shorter 6th gear was, if that's the case?

I will get to the last 100kph discussion following my understanding of the above.

Cheers