GeorgeL
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 06:44 PM |
|
|
Sub 10s are quick mate for sure. The 1/4 miles were possibly not giving a true reflection of performance?
Having a look at that site now its half time. 
|
|
|
|
|
GeorgeL
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
Chris speaks sence!
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 07:46 PM |
|
|
Dont forget though that the quarter mile times include reaction time plus the time it takes you to dump the clutch and actually start moving, whch is
probably about 0.75 seconds overall, whereas the 0-100 only starts timing when the car starts moving so on the quarter mile you might hit 100mph at
about 10.5-11s after the timing started.
I wouldnt be suprised if mine took an additional 2-3 seconds to get from 100-110 what with the wind resistance so it isnt that far out.
I didnt just do it with a stopwatch BTW, done off my Digidash which can be set to record acceleration runs automatically. Speed is read off the prop
and has been checked against GPS to be accurate within a couple of mph at high speed.
Chris
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 08:11 PM |
|
|
Fair enough, wasnt aware of that, I still wouldnt be suprised if it took an R1 BEC to get from 100-110 in 3s though, which is all it would need to
have achieved a sub 10s 0-100.
If you plot a quick graph of the "known" claimed figures (0-60 in 4s, 0-100 in 10s, plus my 0-110 in 12.9s then it follows a trend quite
well, so I dont think its that unrealistic, and the graph follows a similar trend using 3.8s, 9s and 12.5s @115mph which is what a friend's ZX12
timed.
 
Acceleration graph
[Edited on 20/4/06 by ChrisGamlin]
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 08:18 PM |
|
|
Ive just done a comparison graph putting in 90mph at the 10s mark and the car would have to start accelerating harder again from 90-110mph in order to
record a 12.9s 1/4, which it obviously wouldnt do, so the car must be doing around 10s 0-100 IMHO.
 
Acceleration 2
[Edited on 20/4/06 by ChrisGamlin]
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 08:22 PM |
|
|
richard miles quotes his r1 striker at 0-60 3.4 0-100 8.4 but im not sure how or if that was measured but that is with a genuine 172bhp/390kg and he
has been accurate with all his other claims.
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 08:32 PM |
|
|
cossey, AFAIK Rich never timed his car, I suspect it was figures taken from cartest 2000 or some similar application that calculates acceleration
based on various parameters you put into it.
Chris, here's the comparison graph for the figures you gave, I assume for your car? Again a fairly good trend.
 
Acceleration 3
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 08:38 PM |
|
|
Not sure, if 60 is hit in 4 seconds, then 80 would likely be in the 6's somewhere Id think?
I agree on the wind resistance thing (drag increases by the square of speed IIRC, ie 4x speed = 16x wind resistance) which is why I think its not
unreasonable for a comparatively low powered car with high drag to take 3s to get from 100-110.
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 08:54 PM |
|
|
Yep, having seen the graphs I've changed my mind on the 9s figure, I dont think mine would get much below 10s unless my terminal speed was
higher.
If you take the terminal speed as a reasonably good indicator of actual grunt once up and running, then 110mph is probably roughly what Id get
regardless of the time. When doing the 1/4 in 12.9s at this speed, it does equate to 100mph in around 10s, but to have a chance of a 9s 0-100, it
would need to be hitting 115mph in 12.5 or less, so a ZX12 is whats required 
[Edited on 20/4/06 by ChrisGamlin]
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 09:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisGamlin
cossey, AFAIK Rich never timed his car, I suspect it was figures taken from cartest 2000 or some similar application that calculates acceleration
based on various parameters you put into it.
Chris, here's the comparison graph for the figures you gave, I assume for your car? Again a fairly good trend.
Acceleration 3
makes sense although car test doesnt work with becs. for my propsed fury specs it gives 4.2s to 60 which is a lttle high but reasonable but then 8.2
to 100 and 12.0 sqm at 127 terminal which seems more than a little quicker than i would expect for the spec. (190bhp/450kg+100kg driver) in the end id
like to dip bellow 9s to 100 but i doubt that will happen with seriously tuning the engine beyond the cost effective level
|
|
|
GeorgeL
|
| posted on 21/4/06 at 07:37 AM |
|
|
You need to raise the drag co eff in car test to get a more accurate 1/4 and terminal. By the sounds of that your top speed is going to be around 160.
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 21/4/06 at 02:43 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeL
You need to raise the drag co eff in car test to get a more accurate 1/4 and terminal. By the sounds of that your top speed is going to be around 160.
top speed is gearing limited to 154mph
after having a play and putting it some more bec friendly parameters i got to
0-60:3.6
0-100:8.2
sqm 11.8 123.7 terminal
putting in the values for a normal r1 (ie 200-2003) locost gave me
0-60 4.1
0-100 9.7
sqm 12.6 113.9 terminal
so most of the general parameter are about right.
|
|
|
GeorgeL
|
| posted on 23/4/06 at 01:03 AM |
|
|
Still sounds quick, but if its accurate then happy days!
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 23/4/06 at 07:15 AM |
|
|
i think its more a best possible so it requires good track conditions plus near perfect changes etc. to get there will require some practice. the only
difference between the 2 is the power curve and the drag coefficient (0.35 for the fury 0.6 for the locost)
|
|
|
GeorgeL
|
| posted on 23/4/06 at 07:45 AM |
|
|
Christ 0.6 is horrendous for co eff. The thing about the fury is the look, I just don't like them, even if they do cut through the air better.
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 23/4/06 at 09:56 AM |
|
|
0.6 is low for a seven thats why they arent that good over 100mph
the fury might be getting a new body style soon which is more like a baby gt with hardtop etc http://www.thekitcarworkshop.co.uk/page31.html
of the current styles the faired in version looks better imho, it looks better in racing form than road though.
|
|
|
rlong
|
| posted on 25/4/06 at 12:49 PM |
|
|
My Westfield Busa managed 9.8s 1/4 mile in the states, terminal was about 127 from memory. My best in the blade was 13.4, and with nitrous 12.2s.
Was generating 320 bhp at rear wheels on a hot day (still have rr plot somewhere). Very high spec engine, with a Velocity Racing Road stage 2 turbo
kit and water inj. (have pics if interrested). Was also fitted with nitrous but never had the need (or balls!) to use it.
This was crazy fast, but dangerous on the road (which is where a lot of my driving is)! With traction/boost control off, would leave long strips of
rubber on the road at 50mph.
Also had previously fitted a fireblade, and standard busa engine in the same car. Busa is more powerful and has more torque, but much heaver if you
also include all of the extra kit. The blade is more fun due to its "spirited" nature, and only rearly slows down when 2 up.
Now changing to a GSXR 1000 engine for licence, wife and kidies reasons......
[Edited on 25/4/06 by rlong]
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 25/4/06 at 07:00 PM |
|
|
Jesus Ric thats quick, cant wait to see Bazzer's on the 1/4 mile now!
|
|
|
Winston Todge
|
| posted on 25/4/06 at 07:33 PM |
|
|
Would love to see those pics rlong!
Post them here or bust it over on email if that's okay?
\/ Email below \/
Chris.
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 25/4/06 at 07:43 PM |
|
|
If Ric hasnt got anywhere to host them , the aforementioned Megabusa owned by Barry Bridgman is
of a similar spec I believe, certainly should be kicking out well over 300bhp when fully wound up.
|
|
|
rlong
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 08:17 AM |
|
|
quote:
if your selling the turbo ill have it, Im about to build one myself(engine) with holeshot, how quick is 320bhp in a 7 compared to standard
busa??
Sorry, its all gone now. Needed the money to get the GSXR 1000 conversion done (and to “fix” the wife's damm teeth)
Warning. 320bhp AT WHEELS (and not crank), does need some engine work for it to be 100% reliable. My engine was putting out about 360 to 380’ ish at
the crank and had $10k worth or turbo and engine mods (engine was built for strength, and good for over 500bhp)
There is NO comparison to a standard busa! You know (or at least can imagine) how fast a busa is to a "normal" hot hatch, well its the
same difference from a busa to a turbo busa!! Its that big a difference. Under full bore acceleration, with a helmet on, it is a real real effort to
try and keep looking straight ahead and not at the birds.
But be aware that this is what you really want. Someone once said, "be careful what you wish for", very true.
I found that I had lost a lot of its driving fun, mainly due to the high percentage of road driving I was doing. Unless the car will become a
dedicated track day car, it becomes a different beast on the road. This was the mistake I made.
I found that on the road it was soooo fast, you could put yourself into danger very very quickly. Not because of you, but because others just could
not comprehend how fast you are. I found that on the road, it seemed like I was only using about 50% of the power which made it less fun that the
Blade. With the Blade engine, you can thrash the tits off it most of the time and it is great fun, and only became a bit of a disappointment when 2
up.
Don’t get me wrong, on the right road, with the right conditions, NOTHING could touch this car, it was a pure awesome display of speed. As for a
adrenalin rush, this is about as good as it gets. BUT, these times were very limited, and much much less than in a Blade car. I found I was going
out just for an hour or two to get my fix, before returning home physically and mentally shattered.
As for a supercharger busa, on the TTS rolling road which mine was also put on, they commented that one of the characteristics they noticed over their
supercharged busa was the very slight spool up time of the turbo (about 0.5 seconds before anybody starts talking rubbish about lag), enabled the
wheels to get some grip before the main power hits. Also, my turbo was controlled by a wastegate that you could set the boost level for each gear by
taking the sensor feed from the busa gearbox. So for 1st gear, was set to 2psi, 2nd was 5psi, 3rd 12psi, 4th and above, 18psi. This made for awesome
acceleration as you could “dial in” the amount of boost you wanted in each gear.
Bazzer has got an awesome car, and it lucky enough to be able to spend the time (and money) putting it on the tack for most of the time. Was never
able to get together with him on the same track, which was a shame. Would have been awesome to have gone up the drag strip together.
Tried the email link, but my work pc doesn’t like the link (but nice site btw), so if you pm me the email address I can get them emailed off that way.
Have lots of pics of the engine build and car build which maybe some will be interested in.
Oh, the best bit was the insurance. It cost me (living in Midlands and garaged), for 5,000 miles limited, fully comp, declared 1300cc Bike engine plus
nitrous plus turbo, £265 !!! Could not believe it and made sure it was all fully detailed on the policy docs before I did.
Sorry for the length of the reply btw.
[Edited on 26/4/06 by rlong]
|
|
|
Winston Todge
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 09:14 AM |
|
|
Very interesting reply Ric.
Someone who hasn't experienced a car with that sort of performance really can't comprehend what you mean when you say that it is less fun
when it has N20 and a turbo! Useable perfomance really is the key as you say.
I tend to have more fun on my CB500 than litre sportsbikes solely because you feel you are working so much harder with the capable but underpowered
CB. I suppose this is the same comparison as your Blade engined machine and the turbo Busa!?
A friend has just bought a heavily modded Stylus @ around 300bhp having owned an Integra R beforehand. I get the idea he had more fun in the Teg as it
was much more useable on the road; the Stylus is just ballistic...
So there really is too much performance for the road? Or is this still based on personal preference or mental stability??
I am hoping that when I finish my R1 engined VortX that my 'plans' to add a 50 shot of N20 will become pointless... Maybe a track only
modification?
Anyway, excuse my ramblings...
Chris.
|
|
|
dilley
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 09:49 AM |
|
|
Im still gonna do it!!!!!! maybe run very low boost for the road, if you have some pics my email is newrenltd@aol.com
I think I may have spoke to the same Barry youre talking about, Im hoping to get a ride at stonleigh in a turbo bec, any offers???
[Edited on 26/4/06 by dilley]
|
|
|
Moorron
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 10:58 AM |
|
|
in a way it makes me feel better to know that it wasnt all that fun (but stupid fast) doing all that to the engine. i want (ed) to do that too having
400 bhp, but now i think 200 is my target and no more.
To confirm what you are saying with my own experiences. i have owned a renault 5 turbo for the last 10 years (18 old paying £1800 tpft!). a friend who
had much more money had one too and got his upto 250 bhp where mine was only a moddest 150bhp. i drove his many times and alltho it was great when on
boost in a straight line it was not fun to drive any other time, it was uncontrollable, handled poorly, un responsive and required 110% effort and u
spend most of your time checking the oil pressure and water temp.
i think this is the main reason i got a kitcar, i knew i couldnt beat lots of people with bigger wallets than me in cars with 10000 bhp+. When they
stuff it when using the steering wheel. just to make me feel as good as a 250bhp 5 in a straight line did all i need to do it blip the throttle on a
tight slow corner to let the back snap out in a 7.
basically what i am blabbing on about is u can have much more fun in corners that u can in a straight line (fastest 1/4 i did in my 5 was 14.2). so
power isnt the most important bit to a fast FUN car.
Sorry about my spelling, im an engineer and only work in numbers.
|
|
|
rlong
|
| posted on 26/4/06 at 11:31 AM |
|
|
Please don't get me wrong, it was all very nice and great fun. Don't regret doing it if only just to experience a car with 800bhp/ton
(would have been 1,000 with the nitrous)!! This is especially true if you can get onto a track often (which I can't).
If you can aford to do it then go for it, but just don't expect that double power = double the fun. That equation only works up to a point,
then you have to start questioning why?
Also, no one will ever go in your car twice. Trust me. They go in once thinking, hell yes this will be fun, they get out shaking and white. After a
test flight, one friend had to sit on his front door step for 5 mins before he could speak (or not hit me, not sure which). This is the nature of the
violence of its delivery.
It still is very driveable on the road. Maybe even more so. The turbo has no lag, and adds torque lower down in the rev range so actually makes it
more "car like" in driving. Its just like driving a F1 car on the road, to really enjoy it you need to push it, but in pushing it you end
up going very very fast, so therefore you don't (or can't) push it.
|
|
|
