cobalt ss/sc vs s/c cobra terminator
04-16-2009, 07:56 PM
#151
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-27-09
Location: Climbin In Your Window...
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fastest 2.8" Terminator with just a tune and a opened airbox ran a 12.2@118. Fastest bone stock was 12.8@112. Those are two i have witnessed.
I think bob cosby has gone 12.7@112 bone stock in a terminator.
I think bob cosby has gone 12.7@112 bone stock in a terminator.
04-16-2009, 07:59 PM
#152
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-30-06
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all about the driver and the tires on a Cobra. With just DRs and an average driver you can pull mid-low 12s in the 110-112 mph. Bone stock down to the tires they on average run 12.5-12.7 @ 110. The problem is the IRS creates nasty wheel-hop. It kills the time on those cars and can destroy the rearend now too. (Sadly the 07+ GT500 suffers from the same wheel hop and it has a solid rearend)
When in comes down to mods the average Cobra has a 2.6-2.8 pulley, intake, tune, exhaust and DRs and thats a mid 11sec car in the 118-119mph range. If you port the blower and add a 4lb lower you will have a low 11- high 10sec car that traps 124-126+mph. All this comes from personal experience from racing with numerous guys that had these mods. Though I never owned an 03/04 Cobra I've driven enough of them and been around enough of them to know them inside and out.
Yes I’ve seen people run **** times too, I watched a guy in a 500rwhp Cobra run 12.6@115 mph but he was coming off the line like a ***** and couldn’t hit 3rd gear to save his life.
I also know of a guy with just bolt ons, SRA, and DRs that has gone 11.5X@117. That is on an UNTOUCHED BLOWER and being one hell of a driver.
When in comes down to mods the average Cobra has a 2.6-2.8 pulley, intake, tune, exhaust and DRs and thats a mid 11sec car in the 118-119mph range. If you port the blower and add a 4lb lower you will have a low 11- high 10sec car that traps 124-126+mph. All this comes from personal experience from racing with numerous guys that had these mods. Though I never owned an 03/04 Cobra I've driven enough of them and been around enough of them to know them inside and out.
Yes I’ve seen people run **** times too, I watched a guy in a 500rwhp Cobra run 12.6@115 mph but he was coming off the line like a ***** and couldn’t hit 3rd gear to save his life.
I also know of a guy with just bolt ons, SRA, and DRs that has gone 11.5X@117. That is on an UNTOUCHED BLOWER and being one hell of a driver.
04-16-2009, 08:00 PM
#153
Senior Member
reality check...version 2.0 real world:
pullied, exhaust, tuned cobra vs me............(be nice, my trans was on its last leg and i still pulled a 12.3!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGwhcp-72b8
pullied, exhaust, tuned cobra vs me............(be nice, my trans was on its last leg and i still pulled a 12.3!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGwhcp-72b8
04-17-2009, 02:37 AM
#155
Junior Member
Join Date: 10-11-08
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah they dyno more WHP/WTQ than their posted crank numbers LOL. They dyno 410 WTQ stock and crank they have it listed at 390, and that is RWD numbers hahahaha.
the thing i love most 450RWHP from a pully and a tune lol. Image what full bolt on is like, the car gets 50HP from porting the supercharger and throttle body.
I'm not a fan of Mustang GT's and what not, but when it comes to the Cobra or GT500 I have a **** load of respect.
04-17-2009, 09:28 AM
#157
New Member
Join Date: 04-25-08
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-17-2009, 09:40 AM
#158
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-17-06
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He drove it , it scared him, he returned it.
04-17-2009, 09:43 AM
#159
Senior Member
Join Date: 08-29-07
Location: "Central", PA
Posts: 3,811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-17-2009, 09:57 AM
#160
New Member
Join Date: 04-25-08
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here ill help you out. Take a car, put it in neutral and start pushing it from a stop. now push that same car after its already moving. Now tell me which one takes less strength to push and get moving faster?
04-19-2009, 08:34 PM
#161
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-19-05
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes they do.
My friend's bone stock '03 Cobra made 371whp. That's ~436hp at the crank, assuming 15% powertrain loss.
As far as the whole "weight makes less difference at speed" discussion, I'm unconvinced. I don't think it takes less force to accelerate an object moving 20mph than it does to accelerate an object moving 80mph... in a vacuum, of course.
I'd like to continue the discussion.
Think about a couple situations:
1. An object falling from the empire state building (in a vacuum). Gravity accelerates the object at 9.8 m/s^2 the entire time, correct? If it becomes easier to accelerate a given object when it's moving faster, that would imply gravity is imparting a smaller and smaller force as time goes on.
2. Let's say you're parked on a giant treadmill in a vacuum. The treadmill is moving at a constant 100mph. Is it easier for you to accelerate from 0-10mph (relative to the treadmill) because you are going 100mph compared to the ground around the treadmill?
Finally, F=ma... or a=F/m
There is no accounting for current velocity or momentum. If a car is moving at a constant speed, then acceleration = 0, and therefore, the current sum of all forces are zero.
Therefore, whether the car is moving 10mph or 100mph (in a vacuum), you must add an equal amount of force to achieve a given acceleration.
All that being said, because we DON'T live in a vacuum, weight becomes less and less "important" as speed increases... but because Wind Resistance increases proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, not because force required to accelerate decreases with increasing velocity for a given mass.
Discuss.
04-19-2009, 09:05 PM
#162
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-28-08
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-19-2009, 11:03 PM
#163
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-17-07
Location: right behind you.
Posts: 9,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes they are.
Yes they do.
My friend's bone stock '03 Cobra made 371whp. That's ~436hp at the crank, assuming 15% powertrain loss.
As far as the whole "weight makes less difference at speed" discussion, I'm unconvinced. I don't think it takes less force to accelerate an object moving 20mph than it does to accelerate an object moving 80mph... in a vacuum, of course.
I'd like to continue the discussion.
Both of these statements are true, however, I don't see how this statement proves that it requires less force to accelerate an object at a higher velocity. Essentially, all the second statement is saying is that it requires less force added to a moving object to reach a net force because a force has already been imparted to it to get it to it's current velocity. It doesn't mean it will be easier to accelerate the moving object than it would be to accelerate an object from rest.
Think about a couple situations:
1. An object falling from the empire state building (in a vacuum). Gravity accelerates the object at 9.8 m/s^2 the entire time, correct? If it becomes easier to accelerate a given object when it's moving faster, that would imply gravity is imparting a smaller and smaller force as time goes on.
2. Let's say you're parked on a giant treadmill in a vacuum. The treadmill is moving at a constant 100mph. Is it easier for you to accelerate from 0-10mph (relative to the treadmill) because you are going 100mph compared to the ground around the treadmill?
Finally, F=ma... or a=F/m
There is no accounting for current velocity or momentum. If a car is moving at a constant speed, then acceleration = 0, and therefore, the current sum of all forces are zero.
Therefore, whether the car is moving 10mph or 100mph (in a vacuum), you must add an equal amount of force to achieve a given acceleration.
All that being said, because we DON'T live in a vacuum, weight becomes less and less "important" as speed increases... but because Wind Resistance increases proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, not because force required to accelerate decreases with increasing velocity for a given mass.
Discuss.
Yes they do.
My friend's bone stock '03 Cobra made 371whp. That's ~436hp at the crank, assuming 15% powertrain loss.
As far as the whole "weight makes less difference at speed" discussion, I'm unconvinced. I don't think it takes less force to accelerate an object moving 20mph than it does to accelerate an object moving 80mph... in a vacuum, of course.
I'd like to continue the discussion.
Both of these statements are true, however, I don't see how this statement proves that it requires less force to accelerate an object at a higher velocity. Essentially, all the second statement is saying is that it requires less force added to a moving object to reach a net force because a force has already been imparted to it to get it to it's current velocity. It doesn't mean it will be easier to accelerate the moving object than it would be to accelerate an object from rest.
Think about a couple situations:
1. An object falling from the empire state building (in a vacuum). Gravity accelerates the object at 9.8 m/s^2 the entire time, correct? If it becomes easier to accelerate a given object when it's moving faster, that would imply gravity is imparting a smaller and smaller force as time goes on.
2. Let's say you're parked on a giant treadmill in a vacuum. The treadmill is moving at a constant 100mph. Is it easier for you to accelerate from 0-10mph (relative to the treadmill) because you are going 100mph compared to the ground around the treadmill?
Finally, F=ma... or a=F/m
There is no accounting for current velocity or momentum. If a car is moving at a constant speed, then acceleration = 0, and therefore, the current sum of all forces are zero.
Therefore, whether the car is moving 10mph or 100mph (in a vacuum), you must add an equal amount of force to achieve a given acceleration.
All that being said, because we DON'T live in a vacuum, weight becomes less and less "important" as speed increases... but because Wind Resistance increases proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, not because force required to accelerate decreases with increasing velocity for a given mass.
Discuss.
Car B weighs 3,700 lbs.
P=mv. at a given velocity, car B has a significantly higher LINEAR momentum than car A. Take your foot off the gas on both and car B will almost always be the one to start rolling away if aerodynamic properties are similar even on flat ground. Momentum is almost a resistance TO a resistance. Car B has more natural forces counteracting the forces that would be slowing it down, so it takes less force per unit of acceleration at HIGHER speeds than a car of equal mass with all other properties equal. Think of it this way, as momentum goes up, the force acting against the movement of the car is effectively less. It isn't actually less, but momentum is counteracting those forces more at higher velocities. It takes a certain amount of kinetic energy to move any object of ___ mass at a certain velocity, not including aerodynamics and friction. As momentum increases, kinetic energy in the direction of that momentum (the direction you are attempting to accelerate) increases, thus requiring less kinetic energy to accelerate. Of course, the more massive body already takes more to move at those speeds than the lighter body, but due to momentum, that handicap is less apparent at higher velocities. The heavier car doesn't have an advantage just because it's heavier, but the advantage the lighter car has from a low velocity, is less apparent the higher the velocity, and in turn momentum, goes.
basically in shorter terms, The heavier car does not suffer less than the lighter car at higher speed from the extra weight, but it suffers less than it did at lower speeds. the easiest way to think of it is the heavy car does NOT HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OF ANY KIND AT HIGHER SPEED, BUT HAS LESS OF A DISADVANTAGE DIRECTLY DUE TO IT'S WEIGHT.
04-20-2009, 08:48 AM
#164
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-19-05
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car A weighs 3,300 lbs.
Car B weighs 3,700 lbs.
P=mv. at a given velocity, car B has a significantly higher LINEAR momentum than car A. Take your foot off the gas on both and car B will almost always be the one to start rolling away if aerodynamic properties are similar even on flat ground. Momentum is almost a resistance TO a resistance. Car B has more natural forces counteracting the forces that would be slowing it down, so it takes less force per unit of acceleration at HIGHER speeds than a car of equal mass with all other properties equal. Think of it this way, as momentum goes up, the force acting against the movement of the car is effectively less. It isn't actually less, but momentum is counteracting those forces more at higher velocities. It takes a certain amount of kinetic energy to move any object of ___ mass at a certain velocity, not including aerodynamics and friction. As momentum increases, kinetic energy in the direction of that momentum (the direction you are attempting to accelerate) increases, thus requiring less kinetic energy to accelerate. Of course, the more massive body already takes more to move at those speeds than the lighter body, but due to momentum, that handicap is less apparent at higher velocities. The heavier car doesn't have an advantage just because it's heavier, but the advantage the lighter car has from a low velocity, is less apparent the higher the velocity, and in turn momentum, goes.
basically in shorter terms, The heavier car does not suffer less than the lighter car at higher speed from the extra weight, but it suffers less than it did at lower speeds. the easiest way to think of it is the heavy car does NOT HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OF ANY KIND AT HIGHER SPEED, BUT HAS LESS OF A DISADVANTAGE DIRECTLY DUE TO IT'S WEIGHT.
Car B weighs 3,700 lbs.
P=mv. at a given velocity, car B has a significantly higher LINEAR momentum than car A. Take your foot off the gas on both and car B will almost always be the one to start rolling away if aerodynamic properties are similar even on flat ground. Momentum is almost a resistance TO a resistance. Car B has more natural forces counteracting the forces that would be slowing it down, so it takes less force per unit of acceleration at HIGHER speeds than a car of equal mass with all other properties equal. Think of it this way, as momentum goes up, the force acting against the movement of the car is effectively less. It isn't actually less, but momentum is counteracting those forces more at higher velocities. It takes a certain amount of kinetic energy to move any object of ___ mass at a certain velocity, not including aerodynamics and friction. As momentum increases, kinetic energy in the direction of that momentum (the direction you are attempting to accelerate) increases, thus requiring less kinetic energy to accelerate. Of course, the more massive body already takes more to move at those speeds than the lighter body, but due to momentum, that handicap is less apparent at higher velocities. The heavier car doesn't have an advantage just because it's heavier, but the advantage the lighter car has from a low velocity, is less apparent the higher the velocity, and in turn momentum, goes.
basically in shorter terms, The heavier car does not suffer less than the lighter car at higher speed from the extra weight, but it suffers less than it did at lower speeds. the easiest way to think of it is the heavy car does NOT HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OF ANY KIND AT HIGHER SPEED, BUT HAS LESS OF A DISADVANTAGE DIRECTLY DUE TO IT'S WEIGHT.
What is your response to the gravity and treadmill examples?
04-20-2009, 10:56 PM
#165
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-17-07
Location: right behind you.
Posts: 9,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes they are.
Yes they do.
My friend's bone stock '03 Cobra made 371whp. That's ~436hp at the crank, assuming 15% powertrain loss.
As far as the whole "weight makes less difference at speed" discussion, I'm unconvinced. I don't think it takes less force to accelerate an object moving 20mph than it does to accelerate an object moving 80mph... in a vacuum, of course.
I'd like to continue the discussion.
Both of these statements are true, however, I don't see how this statement proves that it requires less force to accelerate an object at a higher velocity. Essentially, all the second statement is saying is that it requires less force added to a moving object to reach a net force because a force has already been imparted to it to get it to it's current velocity. It doesn't mean it will be easier to accelerate the moving object than it would be to accelerate an object from rest.
Think about a couple situations:
1. An object falling from the empire state building (in a vacuum). Gravity accelerates the object at 9.8 m/s^2 the entire time, correct? If it becomes easier to accelerate a given object when it's moving faster, that would imply gravity is imparting a smaller and smaller force as time goes on.
You are confusing yourself here. Gravity is NOT a constant force. T Technically, as velocity increases mass does increase, but that's a whole different ball game. F=ma does not apply to gravity accurately because distance between the bodies causing the gravitational force is a factor, on top of that the acceleration is always constant because FORCE INCREASES AS MASS DOES with gravity. We only learn about f=ma applying to gravity in school because it is generally accurate, but does not account for distances which in the grand scheme of things is a MAJOR player. Using gravity as an example is completely besides the point and will not aid in the understanding of this concept. If you want me to explain more why acceleration due to gravity has no bearing here, I will just ask, I just don't want to type more than necessary.
2. Let's say you're parked on a giant treadmill in a vacuum. The treadmill is moving at a constant 100mph. Is it easier for you to accelerate from 0-10mph (relative to the treadmill) because you are going 100mph compared to the ground around the treadmill?
Finally, F=ma... or a=F/m
There is no accounting for current velocity or momentum. If a car is moving at a constant speed, then acceleration = 0, and therefore, the current sum of all forces are zero.
This is where you are over simplifying and using high school physics to solve a university level problem. The question is not whether car A (the heavier car) benefits by being so heavy compared to car B (the lighter car) the question is whether or not BOTH cars have to exert slightly less energy per unit mass to accelerate a proportional amount relative to the low speed acceleration numbers. This is true for BOTH vehicles, like i said before, it is just more apparent with the heavier vehicle, just like that vehicle's inertia is more apparent at low speed accelerations.
Here is a better example:
At 60mph there are multiple forces in the opposite direction of travel such as air resistance, friction from the tires on the ground, wheel bearings, etc. Assuming all are equal for both vehicles (even though they never will be, similar vehicles will have similar resistances at speed more so than at rest due to aerodynamic properties) one vehicle is effected less by these forces due to a greater inertia, so assuming zero force from the drivetrain (closed throttle, no brake being applied) the heavier vehicle has a LOWER net force in the direction opposing travel. Now to accelerate the vehicle using force from the drivetrain, the heavier vehicle will have to exert more force than the lighter vehicle based solely on it's mass, but at rest the intertia of the heavier vehicle will be working against it, not for it. So, at speed although technically exerting the same force will still make the less massive vehicle accelerate faster, the advantage of less mass is lesser due to the effects of inertia or momentum in this instance.
Therefore, whether the car is moving 10mph or 100mph (in a vacuum), you must add an equal amount of force to achieve a given acceleration.
All that being said, because we DON'T live in a vacuum, weight becomes less and less "important" as speed increases... but because Wind Resistance increases proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, not because force required to accelerate decreases with increasing velocity for a given mass.
Discuss.
Yes they do.
My friend's bone stock '03 Cobra made 371whp. That's ~436hp at the crank, assuming 15% powertrain loss.
As far as the whole "weight makes less difference at speed" discussion, I'm unconvinced. I don't think it takes less force to accelerate an object moving 20mph than it does to accelerate an object moving 80mph... in a vacuum, of course.
I'd like to continue the discussion.
Both of these statements are true, however, I don't see how this statement proves that it requires less force to accelerate an object at a higher velocity. Essentially, all the second statement is saying is that it requires less force added to a moving object to reach a net force because a force has already been imparted to it to get it to it's current velocity. It doesn't mean it will be easier to accelerate the moving object than it would be to accelerate an object from rest.
Think about a couple situations:
1. An object falling from the empire state building (in a vacuum). Gravity accelerates the object at 9.8 m/s^2 the entire time, correct? If it becomes easier to accelerate a given object when it's moving faster, that would imply gravity is imparting a smaller and smaller force as time goes on.
You are confusing yourself here. Gravity is NOT a constant force. T Technically, as velocity increases mass does increase, but that's a whole different ball game. F=ma does not apply to gravity accurately because distance between the bodies causing the gravitational force is a factor, on top of that the acceleration is always constant because FORCE INCREASES AS MASS DOES with gravity. We only learn about f=ma applying to gravity in school because it is generally accurate, but does not account for distances which in the grand scheme of things is a MAJOR player. Using gravity as an example is completely besides the point and will not aid in the understanding of this concept. If you want me to explain more why acceleration due to gravity has no bearing here, I will just ask, I just don't want to type more than necessary.
2. Let's say you're parked on a giant treadmill in a vacuum. The treadmill is moving at a constant 100mph. Is it easier for you to accelerate from 0-10mph (relative to the treadmill) because you are going 100mph compared to the ground around the treadmill?
Finally, F=ma... or a=F/m
There is no accounting for current velocity or momentum. If a car is moving at a constant speed, then acceleration = 0, and therefore, the current sum of all forces are zero.
This is where you are over simplifying and using high school physics to solve a university level problem. The question is not whether car A (the heavier car) benefits by being so heavy compared to car B (the lighter car) the question is whether or not BOTH cars have to exert slightly less energy per unit mass to accelerate a proportional amount relative to the low speed acceleration numbers. This is true for BOTH vehicles, like i said before, it is just more apparent with the heavier vehicle, just like that vehicle's inertia is more apparent at low speed accelerations.
Here is a better example:
At 60mph there are multiple forces in the opposite direction of travel such as air resistance, friction from the tires on the ground, wheel bearings, etc. Assuming all are equal for both vehicles (even though they never will be, similar vehicles will have similar resistances at speed more so than at rest due to aerodynamic properties) one vehicle is effected less by these forces due to a greater inertia, so assuming zero force from the drivetrain (closed throttle, no brake being applied) the heavier vehicle has a LOWER net force in the direction opposing travel. Now to accelerate the vehicle using force from the drivetrain, the heavier vehicle will have to exert more force than the lighter vehicle based solely on it's mass, but at rest the intertia of the heavier vehicle will be working against it, not for it. So, at speed although technically exerting the same force will still make the less massive vehicle accelerate faster, the advantage of less mass is lesser due to the effects of inertia or momentum in this instance.
Therefore, whether the car is moving 10mph or 100mph (in a vacuum), you must add an equal amount of force to achieve a given acceleration.
All that being said, because we DON'T live in a vacuum, weight becomes less and less "important" as speed increases... but because Wind Resistance increases proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, not because force required to accelerate decreases with increasing velocity for a given mass.
Discuss.
Certainly the heavier vehicle is going to resist deceleration more than the lighter car because of inertia/momentum. However, that doesn't mean it will be easier to accelerate the heavier car, either. It's inertia is going to resist deceleration AND acceleration per F=ma just like it did when it was at slower speeds.
What is your response to the gravity and treadmill examples?
What is your response to the gravity and treadmill examples?
Last edited by cakeeater; 04-20-2009 at 10:58 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
04-21-2009, 10:13 AM
#167
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-19-05
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are confusing yourself here. Gravity is NOT a constant force. T Technically, as velocity increases mass does increase, but that's a whole different ball game. F=ma does not apply to gravity accurately because distance between the bodies causing the gravitational force is a factor, on top of that the acceleration is always constant because FORCE INCREASES AS MASS DOES with gravity. We only learn about f=ma applying to gravity in school because it is generally accurate, but does not account for distances which in the grand scheme of things is a MAJOR player. Using gravity as an example is completely besides the point and will not aid in the understanding of this concept. If you want me to explain more why acceleration due to gravity has no bearing here, I will just ask, I just don't want to type more than necessary.
This is where you are over simplifying and using high school physics to solve a university level problem. The question is not whether car A (the heavier car) benefits by being so heavy compared to car B (the lighter car) the question is whether or not BOTH cars have to exert slightly less energy per unit mass to accelerate a proportional amount relative to the low speed acceleration numbers. This is true for BOTH vehicles, like i said before, it is just more apparent with the heavier vehicle, just like that vehicle's inertia is more apparent at low speed accelerations.
Let's say there are 2 trains moving next to each other at a constant speed of 50mph (in a vacuum). You are standing on one looking over at the other which is carrying an '03 Cobra. Is it somehow EASIER for that Cobra to accelerate because it's already moving at 50mph relative to the ground around it? No. The sum of all the forces on the Cobra at rest are zero... otherwise it would be moving. Therefore, it must start "from scratch" --- F=ma. The fact that it is technically already moving 50mph relative to the ground around it doesn't mean it takes less force for it to accelerate on the back of the train. Unless you can explain why moving 50mph relative to the ground around the train randomly adds a force once the driver drops the clutch, then it's not "easier" for it to accelerate once already moving.
We're not considering wind resistance and wheel bearing friction and such, so it IS that simple.
Here is a better example:
At 60mph there are multiple forces in the opposite direction of travel such as air resistance, friction from the tires on the ground, wheel bearings, etc. Assuming all are equal for both vehicles (even though they never will be, similar vehicles will have similar resistances at speed more so than at rest due to aerodynamic properties) one vehicle is effected less by these forces due to a greater inertia, so assuming zero force from the drivetrain (closed throttle, no brake being applied) the heavier vehicle has a LOWER net force in the direction opposing travel. Now to accelerate the vehicle using force from the drivetrain, the heavier vehicle will have to exert more force than the lighter vehicle based solely on it's mass, but at rest the intertia of the heavier vehicle will be working against it, not for it. So, at speed although technically exerting the same force will still make the less massive vehicle accelerate faster, the advantage of less mass is lesser due to the effects of inertia or momentum in this instance.
At 60mph there are multiple forces in the opposite direction of travel such as air resistance, friction from the tires on the ground, wheel bearings, etc. Assuming all are equal for both vehicles (even though they never will be, similar vehicles will have similar resistances at speed more so than at rest due to aerodynamic properties) one vehicle is effected less by these forces due to a greater inertia, so assuming zero force from the drivetrain (closed throttle, no brake being applied) the heavier vehicle has a LOWER net force in the direction opposing travel. Now to accelerate the vehicle using force from the drivetrain, the heavier vehicle will have to exert more force than the lighter vehicle based solely on it's mass, but at rest the intertia of the heavier vehicle will be working against it, not for it. So, at speed although technically exerting the same force will still make the less massive vehicle accelerate faster, the advantage of less mass is lesser due to the effects of inertia or momentum in this instance.
Again, F=ma... a=F/m (in this case, a = DECELERATION, because forces are opposing movement)
Let's assume F=1000
So, for the 3000lb car, a = 1000/3000 = .333
For the 3600lb car, a = 1000/3600 = .278
The lighter car is slowing faster because it has less mass resisting acceleration.
That being said, the same exact calculations could be used to show ACCELERATION resulting from equal summation of forces in the opposite direction, which shows that a constant velocity does not impact a mass's ability to accelerate in the direction it is already moving.
This is where you are misunderstanding. That is in no way what i am saying. I am just saying that both cars will be effected by outside factors differently at speed than at 0 velocity, the heavier vehicle will just be effected LESS by outside forces at speed. the weight is still hurting it and it will still require more force to accelerate, but not as much more force as at 0. Basically, like i said, the heavier car does not have an advantage from a high roll in any way, it just has LESS of a DISADVANTAGE.
04-21-2009, 11:02 AM
#168
New Member
Join Date: 03-31-09
Location: Buffalo NY
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow...just wow
who honestly gives a ****? no vids then the race never happend! all this scientific **** is giving me a headache...the cobra is gonna pull on the SS/SC, end of story!
\thread
who honestly gives a ****? no vids then the race never happend! all this scientific **** is giving me a headache...the cobra is gonna pull on the SS/SC, end of story!
\thread
04-23-2009, 03:07 PM
#171
Member
Join Date: 09-28-08
Location: Flint Mi
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
man i would love to race a 03+ cobra.. stock one that is. i think it would be damn close from a roll!!
BTW my saturn is 2650 with me in it last time i had it on the scales
am a whooping 158lbs
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2004/sat...754/specs.html
BTW my saturn is 2650 with me in it last time i had it on the scales
am a whooping 158lbs
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2004/sat...754/specs.html
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
satisfied
Problems/Service/Maintenance
3
10-19-2015 12:35 AM