CloseQuote:
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.
Quote:
Crash said: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
No, these are simple calculations. Look, both Rt12 versions will do an identical 0-200 km/h time (there is just too much power for the gearing to matter in that range). AFter that, the short-geared version will SLOWLY start to pull away. Remember, these figures are a projection for acceleration from 200 km/h onwards. Since acceleration slows tremendously after 200 km/h, the 2-second difference won't translate into 100 metres as it would at slower speeds, but into no more than 30 metres.
Not sure whether I am explaining this coherently or not, but this is all a byproduct of the fact that the Ruf Rt12 will accelerate at close to 4 m/s from 100 to 200 km/h, so a difference of two seconds here would mean a big gap, while acceleration averaging just over 2 m/s for the shorty Rt12 and just under 2 m/s for the standard Rt12 from 200 to 300 km/h means that the difference will be MUCH smaller at the end.
Quote:
MKSGR said:Quote:
Crash said: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
No, these are simple calculations. Look, both Rt12 versions will do an identical 0-200 km/h time (there is just too much power for the gearing to matter in that range). AFter that, the short-geared version will SLOWLY start to pull away. Remember, these figures are a projection for acceleration from 200 km/h onwards. Since acceleration slows tremendously after 200 km/h, the 2-second difference won't translate into 100 metres as it would at slower speeds, but into no more than 30 metres.
Not sure whether I am explaining this coherently or not, but this is all a byproduct of the fact that the Ruf Rt12 will accelerate at close to 4 m/s from 100 to 200 km/h, so a difference of two seconds here would mean a big gap, while acceleration averaging just over 2 m/s for the shorty Rt12 and just under 2 m/s for the standard Rt12 from 200 to 300 km/h means that the difference will be MUCH smaller at the end.
Crash, I think it is a waste of time to explain this stuff to him. The above posts should be self explanatory for 99% of mankind. The remaining 1% will never be able to follow...
.
Quote:
TB993tt said:
I'm pretty sure GT2ETR understands what you guys are talking about - his point is that one car which does 0-300 in 24 seconds will need ~150m less than the other car taking 22seconds.
This is also fact but when you run side by side it makes the difference because the chase car is also accelerating as it passes the point where the lead car hits 300kph so the gap remains small.
I don't think there is a debate
Quote:
Crash said: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?
aah986, yes, your calculations are absolutely correct, but starting velocity should be 200 km/h (due to the cars being identically fast up to that speed).
.
Quote:
aah986 said:Quote:
Crash said: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?
aah986, yes, your calculations are absolutely correct, but starting velocity should be 200 km/h (due to the cars being identically fast up to that speed).
I didn't know that. I crunched in the numbers again using 200km/h as vo and 300km/h as vf and I obtained with the formula above that the slower car has traveled 972.16 meters in 14 seconds between 200km/h and 300km/h, while the faster car was accelerating at a rate of 2.315 m/s2 and traveled 1004.57 meters during those 14 seconds.
so when the slower car reached 300km/h, the faster car was 32.41 meters ahead.
The whole trick was the initial speed at which the faster car started to pull.
So here you go
Jul 2, 2007 8:17:50 AM
Quote:
LAT said:
Now that the high jack has come to a conclusion can we get the topic back to its origins?
Quote:
bob997tt said:
And I thought the question was about the pros and cons of a cargraphic powerkit?!
Jul 2, 2007 2:27:48 PM
Quote:
bob997tt said:
I heard the Porsche kit wasn't available til 09?
Let us know how you get on, I tried an email to Parr, they didn't reply...
Quote:
Lawrence Stockwell
Parr Business Manager
lawrencestockwell@parr-uk.co.uk
http://www.parr-uk.co.uk/
Jul 2, 2007 2:31:25 PM
Quote:
LAT said:
I have the middle volume exhaust and love it. My only issue is a resonance at 125 Hz which has abated by 3 db from a 10 db spike. I have just over 800 miles or 1,300 km on the system.
Fit and finish is as expected, excellent.
Jul 2, 2007 3:09:16 PM
Jul 3, 2007 11:38:40 AM
Quote:
bobfair said:
Alex
Do you have any noise measurements for the three different exhausts. If you want to to do track days in the UK then you generally have to be able to pass a static noise test with max 105db. Currently I am torn betweeen Tubi and cargraphic as both systems have their supporters
Jul 3, 2007 11:46:10 AM
Quote:
bobfair said:
Currently I am torn betweeen Tubi and cargraphic as both systems have their supporters
Jul 3, 2007 11:48:38 AM
Jul 3, 2007 11:49:47 AM
Jul 3, 2007 1:24:42 PM
Jul 4, 2007 5:22:11 PM
Sep 7, 2007 6:25:29 PM
Quote:
RC said:
Only a few words (I'm kind of in a hurry):
stage 1 of the Cargraphic (RS-Tuning) kit should be just fine regarding reliability. Right now, I wouldn't go for more on the 997 Turbo.
Our US friends who make fun of the power output seem to forget that the Cargraphic kit is fully street legal in Germany, incl. environmental but also noise laws. It also means that it has been approved by german TÜV for street usage, meaning that it is also safe regarding high speed driving.
RS-Tuning, the tuner who is actually responsible for the Cargraphic kit development, is THE Porsche tuner in Germany and takes care of professional tuning of 911 Turbo used for professional racing in international series.
I wonder how many US tuners have actually driven their tuned 911 Turbo in an international racing series?!
Or even for a single minute on the Autobahn or at top speed?!
Feb 11, 2008 10:36:55 AM
Quote:
Alex_ said:
Powerkit 1 looks pretty good to me:
> CG Powerkit site <
Nice jump in torque!
About Rennteam | Help | Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Support | Contact | Imprint | Archive
Powered by
Community
and
