VW Golf VS Cobalt SS/SC
03-23-2006, 03:46 PM
#126
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
Hey dummy, if you had read properly ( aka reading and comprehension skills obviously not taught to you, or taught but not absorbed by your pea sized neanderthal brain ) then you would have read that I clearly stated it IS A MATHMATICAL HYPOTHESIS.
A hypothesis is a "scientific guess", which means that the math I was stating was a theory. A THEORY IS NOT A FACT.
AS I SAID, YOU PROVE ME WRONG WITH A THEORY, OR FACTS OF YOUR OWN AND YOU WILL HAVE A CASE. All you have proven thus far is you can make short bus jokes, and wise cracks about "special" people.
Kind of makes me wonder, how do you know soo much about "special" people, and "special" people jokes?
Are you in denial of your own "specialness"? You were the cool kid on the short bus, werent ya?
A hypothesis is a "scientific guess", which means that the math I was stating was a theory. A THEORY IS NOT A FACT.
AS I SAID, YOU PROVE ME WRONG WITH A THEORY, OR FACTS OF YOUR OWN AND YOU WILL HAVE A CASE. All you have proven thus far is you can make short bus jokes, and wise cracks about "special" people.
Kind of makes me wonder, how do you know soo much about "special" people, and "special" people jokes?
Are you in denial of your own "specialness"? You were the cool kid on the short bus, werent ya?
What is up with all the back-pedaling??? You on more then one occasion bragged how your hypothesis was "dead on". Now you change your story and talk about how it was just a hypothesis and mathmatical theory. Come on man your theory was "dead on" yet you never plugged it into any other vehicles or took it farther then just 60hp to the GTI. Try some more then 2 cars and see if it still works. Face it, you are lost at sea with out your floatie.
03-23-2006, 04:41 PM
#127
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 280Z1977
I obviously know more then you about cars and definently physics, yet you still continue to insult me.
What is up with all the back-pedaling??? You on more then one occasion bragged how your hypothesis was "dead on". Now you change your story and talk about how it was just a hypothesis and mathmatical theory. Come on man your theory was "dead on" yet you never plugged it into any other vehicles or took it farther then just 60hp to the GTI. Try some more then 2 cars and see if it still works. Face it, you are lost at sea with out your floatie.
What is up with all the back-pedaling??? You on more then one occasion bragged how your hypothesis was "dead on". Now you change your story and talk about how it was just a hypothesis and mathmatical theory. Come on man your theory was "dead on" yet you never plugged it into any other vehicles or took it farther then just 60hp to the GTI. Try some more then 2 cars and see if it still works. Face it, you are lost at sea with out your floatie.
As I said, youve had nothing intellegent to contribute all this time, except pathetic insults. And in this case, yes the hypothesis was dead on for the vehicles, however I never stated it would work all the time, or with all vehicles. Besides that, it only takes COMMON sense to come up with that estimate I did.
I used math to elaborate on my approximations. And as I said, those estimates are pretty accurate as oppossed to just guessing. DO YOU REMEMBER THIS STATEMENT?:
Now realistically, these numbers are based on common sense, and if all things remain constant. There are other factors of course that should be taken into consideration, however, the GTI is 5.8% slower regardless stock, therefore it in theory will respond 5.8% less than the SS because of WEIGHT.
Where in there did I say that my hypothesis was 100% accurate? Did I say it in this statement?:
Now realistically, these numbers are based on common sense, and if all things remain constant.
Nope
How bout this one?:
There are other factors of course that should be taken into consideration, however, the GTI is 5.8% slower regardless stock, therefore it in theory will respond 5.8% less than the SS because of WEIGHT.
Nope
Wow, whats that I see? Is that IN THEORY I see in the previous statement. Wow, so that means that its not entirely accurate, and I come flat out and say it isnt.
So basically, let me dumb down what Ive said thus far from previous posts:
1) GTI is heavier
2) I made up a theory about APPROXIMATE gains from the chip
3) I checked my theorys relevancy based on a GTI forum
4) I proved my theory to be pretty accurate
5) I tried explaining to you, and got nothing but shortbus comments and running a car in a vacuum.
6) You still dont understand, and Im still trying to explain to you
Please read first. I said "dead on" because it is pretty "dead on" in this instance, and I proved it. Never did I say it was 100% full proof and accurate all the time. And never did I say it would work for other vehicles.
I based all my guesses off of factual information ( aka people who own chipped GTI's ).
03-23-2006, 04:59 PM
#131
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by elmstreet
i havent read any of this in a while and am too lazy to go back and check.. but has this race happened yet? lol
03-23-2006, 07:21 PM
#132
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
Where have you "obviously" proven you know more about cars and physics? If you have I must of completely missed it. Either that or you never did in the first place.
As I said, youve had nothing intellegent to contribute all this time, except pathetic insults. And in this case, yes the hypothesis was dead on for the vehicles, however I never stated it would work all the time, or with all vehicles. Besides that, it only takes COMMON sense to come up with that estimate I did.
I used math to elaborate on my approximations. And as I said, those estimates are pretty accurate as oppossed to just guessing. DO YOU REMEMBER THIS STATEMENT?:
Now realistically, these numbers are based on common sense, and if all things remain constant. There are other factors of course that should be taken into consideration, however, the GTI is 5.8% slower regardless stock, therefore it in theory will respond 5.8% less than the SS because of WEIGHT.
Where in there did I say that my hypothesis was 100% accurate? Did I say it in this statement?:
Now realistically, these numbers are based on common sense, and if all things remain constant.
Nope
How bout this one?:
There are other factors of course that should be taken into consideration, however, the GTI is 5.8% slower regardless stock, therefore it in theory will respond 5.8% less than the SS because of WEIGHT.
Nope
Wow, whats that I see? Is that IN THEORY I see in the previous statement. Wow, so that means that its not entirely accurate, and I come flat out and say it isnt.
So basically, let me dumb down what Ive said thus far from previous posts:
1) GTI is heavier
2) I made up a theory about APPROXIMATE gains from the chip
3) I checked my theorys relevancy based on a GTI forum
4) I proved my theory to be pretty accurate
5) I tried explaining to you, and got nothing but shortbus comments and running a car in a vacuum.
6) You still dont understand, and Im still trying to explain to you
Please read first. I said "dead on" because it is pretty "dead on" in this instance, and I proved it. Never did I say it was 100% full proof and accurate all the time. And never did I say it would work for other vehicles.
I based all my guesses off of factual information ( aka people who own chipped GTI's ).
As I said, youve had nothing intellegent to contribute all this time, except pathetic insults. And in this case, yes the hypothesis was dead on for the vehicles, however I never stated it would work all the time, or with all vehicles. Besides that, it only takes COMMON sense to come up with that estimate I did.
I used math to elaborate on my approximations. And as I said, those estimates are pretty accurate as oppossed to just guessing. DO YOU REMEMBER THIS STATEMENT?:
Now realistically, these numbers are based on common sense, and if all things remain constant. There are other factors of course that should be taken into consideration, however, the GTI is 5.8% slower regardless stock, therefore it in theory will respond 5.8% less than the SS because of WEIGHT.
Where in there did I say that my hypothesis was 100% accurate? Did I say it in this statement?:
Now realistically, these numbers are based on common sense, and if all things remain constant.
Nope
How bout this one?:
There are other factors of course that should be taken into consideration, however, the GTI is 5.8% slower regardless stock, therefore it in theory will respond 5.8% less than the SS because of WEIGHT.
Nope
Wow, whats that I see? Is that IN THEORY I see in the previous statement. Wow, so that means that its not entirely accurate, and I come flat out and say it isnt.
So basically, let me dumb down what Ive said thus far from previous posts:
1) GTI is heavier
2) I made up a theory about APPROXIMATE gains from the chip
3) I checked my theorys relevancy based on a GTI forum
4) I proved my theory to be pretty accurate
5) I tried explaining to you, and got nothing but shortbus comments and running a car in a vacuum.
6) You still dont understand, and Im still trying to explain to you
Please read first. I said "dead on" because it is pretty "dead on" in this instance, and I proved it. Never did I say it was 100% full proof and accurate all the time. And never did I say it would work for other vehicles.
I based all my guesses off of factual information ( aka people who own chipped GTI's ).
1. No duh
2. You made up an equation on ACTUAL gains and WHP of a completely different kind of GTI then the one we were discussing and compared them to the factory UNDERRATED BHP of the Cobalt. See the difference??
3. Like said above a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT kind of GTI.
4. You did nothing but prove you failed high school physics.
5. I never said anything about running a car in a vacuum. Do not put words in my mouth to try and win an argument. I said, 'You were talking about racing in a vacuum', when you said, "When all other things stay constant". Because you were talking about linear acceleration(with your 5.8% babble) that only happens in a vacuum. Get it?
6. Read my nice list before you respond or have someone else read it to you, slowly.
03-23-2006, 08:58 PM
#133
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 280Z1977
I will skip all your back-pedaling and just talk about your nice list.
1. No duh
2. You made up an equation on ACTUAL gains and WHP of a completely different kind of GTI then the one we were discussing and compared them to the factory UNDERRATED BHP of the Cobalt. See the difference??
3. Like said above a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT kind of GTI.
4. You did nothing but prove you failed high school physics.
5. I never said anything about running a car in a vacuum. Do not put words in my mouth to try and win an argument. I said, 'You were talking about racing in a vacuum', when you said, "When all other things stay constant". Because you were talking about linear acceleration(with your 5.8% babble) that only happens in a vacuum. Get it?
6. Read my nice list before you respond or have someone else read it to you, slowly.
1. No duh
2. You made up an equation on ACTUAL gains and WHP of a completely different kind of GTI then the one we were discussing and compared them to the factory UNDERRATED BHP of the Cobalt. See the difference??
3. Like said above a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT kind of GTI.
4. You did nothing but prove you failed high school physics.
5. I never said anything about running a car in a vacuum. Do not put words in my mouth to try and win an argument. I said, 'You were talking about racing in a vacuum', when you said, "When all other things stay constant". Because you were talking about linear acceleration(with your 5.8% babble) that only happens in a vacuum. Get it?
6. Read my nice list before you respond or have someone else read it to you, slowly.
I pointed out to you some of the most basic facts of science, and you still had nothing to contribute. Oh and as for that linear statement about acceleration in a vacuum, thats only applicable for gravity:
See, gravity ( which is caused by the Earths gravitational pull ) has an acceleration consistant to 9.8m/s2. This means that if you were to free fall, you would fall at that speed. This however is not a linear speed because air slows you down ( you would reach maximum velocity, which is when the force from falling= the force from air resistance ) . In a vacuum however, there is no air to slow you down, therefore as you said acceleration is linear. So I guess if you were to drop your car out of the sky through a vacuum into the ground, and in that case only, will you have linear acceleration. IF YOU RACED IN A VACUUM IT WOULD HAVE LITTLE EFFECT OTHER THAN ELIMINATING AIR RESISTANCE! ACCELERATION IN A VACUUM IS ONLY LINEAR WHEN YOU DROP SOMETHING! UNLESS YOU RACE BY DROPPING YOUR CAR OUT OF THE SKY, ACCELERATION WOULD NOT BE LINEAR IN A VACUUM!!!! And you say I failed physics, so much for your "vast" knowledge on cars and physics.
GRAVITY slows down a car the most, not AIR RESISTANCE. Once again I tried pointing that out to you before, but youre as dense as a rock. Get it?
Read my responses "slowly" or "have someone else read to you", because youre just not understanding anything.
03-23-2006, 09:13 PM
#134
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
The GTI I discussed had the a little better stats than the new GTI stock. The reason I used it is cuz there was no information available on the new GTI, so I took the next closest vehicle performance wise. Unless you can find a chipped 2006 GTI's 1/4mi time, THERES NO WAY TO SAY WHAT THE ACTUAL 1/4MI TIME IS, therefore I used a GTI that was similar ( as I stated already, many pages ago, again with the reading ).
I pointed out to you some of the most basic facts of science, and you still had nothing to contribute. Oh and as for that linear statement about acceleration in a vacuum, thats only applicable for gravity:
See, gravity ( which is caused by the Earths gravitational pull ) has an acceleration consistant to 9.8m/s2. This means that if you were to free fall, you would fall at that speed. This however is not a linear speed because air slows you down ( you would reach maximum velocity, which is when the force from falling= the force from air resistance ) . In a vacuum however, there is no air to slow you down, therefore as you said acceleration is linear. So I guess if you were to drop your car out of the sky through a vacuum into the ground, and in that case only, will you have linear acceleration. IF YOU RACED IN A VACUUM IT WOULD HAVE LITTLE EFFECT OTHER THAN ELIMINATING AIR RESISTANCE! ACCELERATION IN A VACUUM IS ONLY LINEAR WHEN YOU DROP SOMETHING! UNLESS YOU RACE BY DROPPING YOUR CAR OUT OF THE SKY, ACCELERATION WOULD NOT BE LINEAR IN A VACUUM!!!! And you say I failed physics, so much for your "vast" knowledge on cars and physics.
GRAVITY slows down a car the most, not AIR RESISTANCE. Once again I tried pointing that out to you before, but youre as dense as a rock. Get it?
Read my responses "slowly" or "have someone else read to you", because youre just not understanding anything.
I pointed out to you some of the most basic facts of science, and you still had nothing to contribute. Oh and as for that linear statement about acceleration in a vacuum, thats only applicable for gravity:
See, gravity ( which is caused by the Earths gravitational pull ) has an acceleration consistant to 9.8m/s2. This means that if you were to free fall, you would fall at that speed. This however is not a linear speed because air slows you down ( you would reach maximum velocity, which is when the force from falling= the force from air resistance ) . In a vacuum however, there is no air to slow you down, therefore as you said acceleration is linear. So I guess if you were to drop your car out of the sky through a vacuum into the ground, and in that case only, will you have linear acceleration. IF YOU RACED IN A VACUUM IT WOULD HAVE LITTLE EFFECT OTHER THAN ELIMINATING AIR RESISTANCE! ACCELERATION IN A VACUUM IS ONLY LINEAR WHEN YOU DROP SOMETHING! UNLESS YOU RACE BY DROPPING YOUR CAR OUT OF THE SKY, ACCELERATION WOULD NOT BE LINEAR IN A VACUUM!!!! And you say I failed physics, so much for your "vast" knowledge on cars and physics.
GRAVITY slows down a car the most, not AIR RESISTANCE. Once again I tried pointing that out to you before, but youre as dense as a rock. Get it?
Read my responses "slowly" or "have someone else read to you", because youre just not understanding anything.
Please end this. I am tired of having to write all these paragraghs to show how incorrect you are. How many people on this thread have agreed with you? And how many have agreed with me? One person has agreed with me and none for you. So if all things remain constant I am 100% better, smarter, and funnier then you. Constantly.
03-23-2006, 10:34 PM
#135
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 280Z1977
OMG, you can not be serious. STFU! Please! I am begging you. Did you have to go dictionary.com to look up gravity??? So tell me Mr. Braniac how would you achieve linear acceleration as described in your brilliant theory?? So how does gravity slow down a car the most?? Gravity is a CONSTANT!! Air resistence is not. Air resistence increases the faster you go. Hence why I said it easier for a 15 second car to shave .5 seconds then for a 14 second car to do it. Hence why I said, 'you were describing RACING in a vacuum', when you said, "When all other things remain constant". Hence why you are wrong and I am right.
Please end this. I am tired of having to write all these paragraghs to show how incorrect you are. How many people on this thread have agreed with you? And how many have agreed with me? One person has agreed with me and none for you. So if all things remain constant I am 100% better, smarter, and funnier then you. Constantly.
Please end this. I am tired of having to write all these paragraghs to show how incorrect you are. How many people on this thread have agreed with you? And how many have agreed with me? One person has agreed with me and none for you. So if all things remain constant I am 100% better, smarter, and funnier then you. Constantly.
Gravity has more of an effect on the acceleration, and air resistance determines the top speed of the car.
And actually, I can see a whole bunch of posts agreeing that the race between a CAI SS/SC and a chipped GTI would be close.
As usual, youre 100% wrong, and dont know what the %^&k youre talking about. I guess in your world common sense doesnt apply.
Last edited by 1BADSS/SC; 03-23-2006 at 10:55 PM.
03-23-2006, 10:51 PM
#136
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
I never said anything about linear acceleration, you did. GRAVITY SLOWS DOWN A CAR MORE BECAUSE IT DETERMINES HOW MUCH THE CAR WEIGHS!!!! IF GRAVITY DECREASED, THE CAR WOULD WEIGH LESS AND IT WOULD ACCELERATE A LOT FASTER! AIR RESISTANCE ONLY COMES INTO PLAY WHEN YOU MAX OUT THE SPEED OF THE CAR, ( aka the force pushing the car = the force of air resisting ) NOT THE 1/4MI TIMES YOU GET!!!! NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IF THE CAR WEIGHED LESS IT WOULD HAVE MORE POWER PER LB AND WOULD HAVE A HIGHER TOP SPEED THAN BEFORE, WHICH PROVES THAT AIR RESISTANCE HAS AN EVEN LESS EFFECT ON THE CAR!!
Gravity has more of an effect on the acceleration, and air resistance determines the top speed of the car.
And actually, I can see a whole bunch of posts agreeing that the race between a CAI SS/SC and a chipped GTI would be close.
As usual, youre 100% wrong, and dont know what the %^&k youre talking about. I guess in your world common sense doesnt apply.
Gravity has more of an effect on the acceleration, and air resistance determines the top speed of the car.
And actually, I can see a whole bunch of posts agreeing that the race between a CAI SS/SC and a chipped GTI would be close.
As usual, youre 100% wrong, and dont know what the %^&k youre talking about. I guess in your world common sense doesnt apply.
Also weight has NOTHING(read:zero, zip, nada) to do with top speed.
You keep talking and bringing up more/different arguments and I keep proving the obvious... you are clueless.
Got 'em.
03-23-2006, 11:06 PM
#137
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 280Z1977
So air resistence doesn't effect quarter mile times now??? With that logic a car shaped like a brick with 300hp, weighing 3000lbs will run the same exact time as a car shaped like a dart with the same power weight and gearing.
Also weight has NOTHING(read:zero, zip, nada) to do with top speed.
You keep talking and bringing up more/different arguments and I keep proving the obvious... you are clueless.
Got 'em.
Also weight has NOTHING(read:zero, zip, nada) to do with top speed.
You keep talking and bringing up more/different arguments and I keep proving the obvious... you are clueless.
Got 'em.
How the hell does weight not thave anything to do with top speed? Are you on crack? Think about this: If you increase the HP on the Cobalt to 500, is it still going to be a top speed of 145mph? Hell no, unless youre retarded.
Now think of this:
If the car weighs less, it has more HP per LB than before right? So its the same damn thing as increasing the HP.
Ya know, this is like explaining science to a rock. You really live in your own little world dont ya? I bet youre a GED uber highschool drop out. Or maybe a 14 yr old who thinks he knows everything and hasnt even had his first pubic hair yet.
Please just stop talking to me, youre driving me nuts....
03-23-2006, 11:17 PM
#138
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, its obvious were not going to agree on this, so lets just leave it at that. Im sick of arguing and Im sure you are too. The only reason I attacked you was because of the comment you made many posts ago.
03-23-2006, 11:32 PM
#139
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
Look, its obvious were not going to agree on this, so lets just leave it at that. Im sick of arguing and Im sure you are too. The only reason I attacked you was because of the comment you made many posts ago.
A= F/M, acceleration is not top speed, force is not horsepower, and mass is not weight.
The only reason I attacked you was because you were being incorrigible. No matter what I or Blaine said that corrected you and made you wrong, you would still come back with something else that YOU THOUGHT made you right.
So what would win in a 1/4 mile race? A 300hp/3000lb brick shaped car or a 300hp/3000lb dart shaped car with identical weight distribution, powerbands, and gearing.
EDIT: My apologies for insulting you.
Last edited by 280Z1977; 03-23-2006 at 11:54 PM.
03-24-2006, 12:54 AM
#141
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 280Z1977
Google: "top speed calculator" and show me where weight effects top speed.
A= F/M, acceleration is not top speed, force is not horsepower, and mass is not weight.
The only reason I attacked you was because you were being incorrigible. No matter what I or Blaine said that corrected you and made you wrong, you would still come back with something else that YOU THOUGHT made you right.
So what would win in a 1/4 mile race? A 300hp/3000lb brick shaped car or a 300hp/3000lb dart shaped car with identical weight distribution, powerbands, and gearing.
EDIT: My apologies for insulting you.
A= F/M, acceleration is not top speed, force is not horsepower, and mass is not weight.
The only reason I attacked you was because you were being incorrigible. No matter what I or Blaine said that corrected you and made you wrong, you would still come back with something else that YOU THOUGHT made you right.
So what would win in a 1/4 mile race? A 300hp/3000lb brick shaped car or a 300hp/3000lb dart shaped car with identical weight distribution, powerbands, and gearing.
EDIT: My apologies for insulting you.
Now ok. Weight is a key factor in top speed. Think of this, Ill try and use a real world example:
A cobalt that is stock will have a top speed of about 145+ approximately.
Ok, now we have a cobalt that has lets say 300 HP. Because it is pushing more HP than before, the engine will be able to run higher rpms in the later gears.
So lets say in 4th gear, the stock cobalt engine runs 4 rpms at top speed.
With that 90 extra HP, the engine should be able to run a higher RPM in 4th because it is working harder.
Ok, so lets say in 4th, the 300 HP cobalt can run 6 RPMs. Because it is able to run at 6 RPMs, it is moving at a higher speed than before, thus changing the top speed.
Ok, now youre asking, what does that have to do with top speed and the weight of the car? Ill show you:
Both cars in the previous example weighed the same 2900 lbs. The only difference was the 300 HP Cobalt is going to have a higher top speed than the 210 HP stock Cobalt becuase the engine can work harder.
Ok, so now lets say that 210 HP Cobalt is dropped from 2900 lbs to 2500 lbs. Now the same 210 HP is pushing much less weight ( 400 lbs less ). Becuase its pushing much less weight, its going to now have a higher RPMs when in the higher gears, thus increasing the top speed. The engine has to work less with the -400 lbs therefore it will be able to achieve higher RPM's in 4th and 5th, and therefore increasing the top speed.
If I were to bet money on who would win in a race, I would say a 300HP/2000 lb brick would win vs a 300HP/3000 lb dart. If weight is less, its much easier on the engine, therefore the engine can operate with much better efficiency. I dont know however, what car would have a better top speed.
03-24-2006, 01:19 AM
#142
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
Apology accepted and thank you.
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
Now ok. Weight is a key factor in top speed. Think of this, Ill try and use a real world example:
A cobalt that is stock will have a top speed of about 145+ approximately.
A cobalt that is stock will have a top speed of about 145+ approximately.
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
Ok, now we have a cobalt that has lets say 300 HP. Because it is pushing more HP than before, the engine will be able to run higher rpms in the later gears.
So lets say in 4th gear, the stock cobalt engine runs 4 rpms at top speed.
With that 90 extra HP, the engine should be able to run a higher RPM in 4th because it is working harder.
Ok, so lets say in 4th, the 300 HP cobalt can run 6 RPMs. Because it is able to run at 6 RPMs, it is moving at a higher speed than before, thus changing the top speed.
Ok, now youre asking, what does that have to do with top speed and the weight of the car? Ill show you:
Both cars in the previous example weighed the same 2900 lbs. The only difference was the 300 HP Cobalt is going to have a higher top speed than the 210 HP stock Cobalt becuase the engine can work harder.
Ok, so now lets say that 210 HP Cobalt is dropped from 2900 lbs to 2500 lbs. Now the same 210 HP is pushing much less weight ( 400 lbs less ). Becuase its pushing much less weight, its going to now have a higher RPMs when in the higher gears, thus increasing the top speed. The engine has to work less with the -400 lbs therefore it will be able to achieve higher RPM's in 4th and 5th, and therefore increasing the top speed.
So lets say in 4th gear, the stock cobalt engine runs 4 rpms at top speed.
With that 90 extra HP, the engine should be able to run a higher RPM in 4th because it is working harder.
Ok, so lets say in 4th, the 300 HP cobalt can run 6 RPMs. Because it is able to run at 6 RPMs, it is moving at a higher speed than before, thus changing the top speed.
Ok, now youre asking, what does that have to do with top speed and the weight of the car? Ill show you:
Both cars in the previous example weighed the same 2900 lbs. The only difference was the 300 HP Cobalt is going to have a higher top speed than the 210 HP stock Cobalt becuase the engine can work harder.
Ok, so now lets say that 210 HP Cobalt is dropped from 2900 lbs to 2500 lbs. Now the same 210 HP is pushing much less weight ( 400 lbs less ). Becuase its pushing much less weight, its going to now have a higher RPMs when in the higher gears, thus increasing the top speed. The engine has to work less with the -400 lbs therefore it will be able to achieve higher RPM's in 4th and 5th, and therefore increasing the top speed.
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
If I were to bet money on who would win in a race, I would say a 300HP/2000 lb brick would win vs a 300HP/3000 lb dart. If weight is less, its much easier on the engine, therefore the engine can operate with much better efficiency. I dont know however, what car would have a better top speed.
03-24-2006, 03:55 AM
#143
Senior Member
Join Date: 08-16-05
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
No, it doesnt effect it as much as gravity does. If you take our cars and reduce the gravity, as opposed to reduce the air resistance, the car is going to accelerate faster because IT WEIGHS LESS. Why is it that F=MxA and there is nothing about air resistance? Because ACCELERATION=M/F. Not M/F/air resistance. AIR RESISTANCE HAS MUCH LESS TO DO WITH ACCELERATION THAN WEIGHT!!
How the hell does weight not thave anything to do with top speed? Are you on crack? Think about this: If you increase the HP on the Cobalt to 500, is it still going to be a top speed of 145mph? Hell no, unless youre retarded.
Now think of this:
If the car weighs less, it has more HP per LB than before right? So its the same damn thing as increasing the HP.
Ya know, this is like explaining science to a rock. You really live in your own little world dont ya? I bet youre a GED uber highschool drop out. Or maybe a 14 yr old who thinks he knows everything and hasnt even had his first pubic hair yet.
Please just stop talking to me, youre driving me nuts....
How the hell does weight not thave anything to do with top speed? Are you on crack? Think about this: If you increase the HP on the Cobalt to 500, is it still going to be a top speed of 145mph? Hell no, unless youre retarded.
Now think of this:
If the car weighs less, it has more HP per LB than before right? So its the same damn thing as increasing the HP.
Ya know, this is like explaining science to a rock. You really live in your own little world dont ya? I bet youre a GED uber highschool drop out. Or maybe a 14 yr old who thinks he knows everything and hasnt even had his first pubic hair yet.
Please just stop talking to me, youre driving me nuts....
i would just like to point out that F= M * A only works like that when you ignore air friction. if you were to take into account air friction it would show up in the F part of the equaion since air resistance or friction in general is categorized as a Force. the real equation is F(net) = M * A where F(net) is the sum of all forces acting on the object. also, the biggest factor in going fast is the coefficient of drag of a vehicle, which is the number you would have to multiply by the force of friction to get net force of friction. the more aerodynamic a car is the lower the coefficient of drag is. ALSO, air resistance increases as a square of the speed. so, if you're going twice as fast the force of air resistance is 4 times as strong, so in reality air resistance would play a huge role even in a quarter mile race. especially the lower your times get since the faster you will have to go to get those times. that's why it's so hard to break into sub 11 sec times, the air resistance is immense at those speeds. i really hate when people try to use first year basic physics to win an argument when they don't understand the full concepts of advanced physics. and don't try to tell me i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm an engineering major.
03-24-2006, 08:55 AM
#144
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-19-05
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by iso
i would just like to point out that F= M * A only works like that when you ignore air friction. if you were to take into account air friction it would show up in the F part of the equaion since air resistance or friction in general is categorized as a Force. the real equation is F(net) = M * A where F(net) is the sum of all forces acting on the object. also, the biggest factor in going fast is the coefficient of drag of a vehicle, which is the number you would have to multiply by the force of friction to get net force of friction. the more aerodynamic a car is the lower the coefficient of drag is. ALSO, air resistance increases as a square of the speed. so, if you're going twice as fast the force of air resistance is 4 times as strong, so in reality air resistance would play a huge role even in a quarter mile race. especially the lower your times get since the faster you will have to go to get those times. that's why it's so hard to break into sub 11 sec times, the air resistance is immense at those speeds. i really hate when people try to use first year basic physics to win an argument when they don't understand the full concepts of advanced physics. and don't try to tell me i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm an engineering major.
Drag = 1/391 CdAV˛
Where:
Cd = Drag Coefficient
A = Frontal Area
V = Relative Velocity of the car with respect to the air
03-24-2006, 09:56 AM
#145
I have personal experience racing that VW and it was from about a 20mpn roll. It was blue with dual exhaust, mods unknown. He had absolutely no chance. All I have is an Injen CAI. Within 5 seconds or so I had at least 2 car lengths. These ss/sc's have more nugget than you think. Aspecially if you can drive.
03-24-2006, 10:54 AM
#146
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by iso
i would just like to point out that F= M * A only works like that when you ignore air friction. if you were to take into account air friction it would show up in the F part of the equaion since air resistance or friction in general is categorized as a Force. the real equation is F(net) = M * A where F(net) is the sum of all forces acting on the object. also, the biggest factor in going fast is the coefficient of drag of a vehicle, which is the number you would have to multiply by the force of friction to get net force of friction. the more aerodynamic a car is the lower the coefficient of drag is. ALSO, air resistance increases as a square of the speed. so, if you're going twice as fast the force of air resistance is 4 times as strong, so in reality air resistance would play a huge role even in a quarter mile race. especially the lower your times get since the faster you will have to go to get those times. that's why it's so hard to break into sub 11 sec times, the air resistance is immense at those speeds. i really hate when people try to use first year basic physics to win an argument when they don't understand the full concepts of advanced physics. and don't try to tell me i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm an engineering major.
What kind of engineer are you wanting to be?
03-24-2006, 02:49 PM
#147
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: UNDER YOUR BED
Posts: 13,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by iso
i would just like to point out that F= M * A only works like that when you ignore air friction. if you were to take into account air friction it would show up in the F part of the equaion since air resistance or friction in general is categorized as a Force. the real equation is F(net) = M * A where F(net) is the sum of all forces acting on the object. also, the biggest factor in going fast is the coefficient of drag of a vehicle, which is the number you would have to multiply by the force of friction to get net force of friction. the more aerodynamic a car is the lower the coefficient of drag is. ALSO, air resistance increases as a square of the speed. so, if you're going twice as fast the force of air resistance is 4 times as strong, so in reality air resistance would play a huge role even in a quarter mile race. especially the lower your times get since the faster you will have to go to get those times. that's why it's so hard to break into sub 11 sec times, the air resistance is immense at those speeds. i really hate when people try to use first year basic physics to win an argument when they don't understand the full concepts of advanced physics. and don't try to tell me i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm an engineering major.
How would that be? If you drove a car in a vacuum, yet still had gravity effecting it, its going to be faster than driving a car where there would be no gravity??<< I know you cant do either one of these, but Im just using them as extreme examples.
That doesnt make any sense to me. If gravity decreases, the weight of the car is going to decrease aswell, thus allowing the engine to work less to achieve much better acceleration.
So how would reducing air friction by the same amount, yet maintaining the same gravity make the car accelerate faster and get better 1/4mi times, that doesnt make any sense at all.
That means that if I was to drop the weight of my car 30% ( 870 lbs ) and do a 1/4mi, the time is going to be worse than keeping my car at 2900 lbs, and reducing the air resistance 30%?
I could understand it effecting the top end speed, but not so much the 1/4mi + acceleration. If you have any links I could check out it would be greatly appreciated. Im a huge science fan, so sorry if Im poking and prying, but Im genuinely interested in the mechanics behind this debate.
03-24-2006, 04:36 PM
#148
Banned
Join Date: 03-02-06
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
So what youre saying is, gravity has less of an effect on acceleration than air friction?
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
How would that be? If you drove a car in a vacuum, yet still had gravity effecting it, its going to be faster than driving a car where there would be no gravity??<< I know you cant do either one of these, but Im just using them as extreme examples.
That doesnt make any sense to me. If gravity decreases, the weight of the car is going to decrease aswell, thus allowing the engine to work less to achieve much better acceleration.
So how would reducing air friction by the same amount, yet maintaining the same gravity make the car accelerate faster and get better 1/4mi times, that doesnt make any sense at all.
That means that if I was to drop the weight of my car 30% ( 870 lbs ) and do a 1/4mi, the time is going to be worse than keeping my car at 2900 lbs, and reducing the air resistance 30%?
That doesnt make any sense to me. If gravity decreases, the weight of the car is going to decrease aswell, thus allowing the engine to work less to achieve much better acceleration.
So how would reducing air friction by the same amount, yet maintaining the same gravity make the car accelerate faster and get better 1/4mi times, that doesnt make any sense at all.
That means that if I was to drop the weight of my car 30% ( 870 lbs ) and do a 1/4mi, the time is going to be worse than keeping my car at 2900 lbs, and reducing the air resistance 30%?
Originally Posted by 1BADSS/SC
I could understand it effecting the top end speed, but not so much the 1/4mi + acceleration. If you have any links I could check out it would be greatly appreciated. Im a huge science fan, so sorry if Im poking and prying, but Im genuinely interested in the mechanics behind this debate.
03-28-2006, 09:10 PM
#150
Senior Member
Join Date: 08-16-05
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blainestang
Drag = 1/391 CdAV˛
Where:
Cd = Drag Coefficient
A = Frontal Area
V = Relative Velocity of the car with respect to the air
Where:
Cd = Drag Coefficient
A = Frontal Area
V = Relative Velocity of the car with respect to the air