Fastest Car In The World?
- Thread starter Liam
- Start date
Currently reading:
Fastest Car In The World?
They would be if I did the research on MY work lol
That's the last email I sent to my personal tutor, it wasn't replied to, I am without a personal tutor now
That's the last email I sent to my personal tutor, it wasn't replied to, I am without a personal tutor now
Paul, why do you keep saying rollers. Surely you understand why wider tyres do not nesecarisilyly equal more grip. All it does is change the shape of the contact patch..
and in turn doesn't a wider contact patch increase the friction with the road?
no, because no more of it is contacting the road. you've still got the same surface area on the road.
one sec, il dig a link out
one sec, il dig a link out
But it is isn't it?
Say you double the width of a tyre doesn't the contact patch double? Am I just picturing this incorrectly?
Surely the area touching is proportional to the width?
Say you double the width of a tyre doesn't the contact patch double? Am I just picturing this incorrectly?
Surely the area touching is proportional to the width?
Fat or thin? The question of contact patches and grip
http://www.chris-longhurst.com/carbibles/index.html?menu.html&tyre_bible.html
just over half way down the page
http://www.chris-longhurst.com/carbibles/index.html?menu.html&tyre_bible.html
just over half way down the page
littleyellowcar
Established member
my understanding of this from my physics a-level was that resistance increased exponentially as the speed increased. there would always be a minimum time any vehicle could cover a distance in because of terminal velocity due to the mass of the vehicle.
i cant remember the formulae now cos it was 4 years ago, but paul might know them???
i cant remember the formulae now cos it was 4 years ago, but paul might know them???
About the whole roller/wheels thing...even if the surface area touching the ground is larger making the area available for friction bigger- the actual friction force would become less as the weight of the vehicle is distributed over the wider area (the force = mass/area or something) so it wouldn't really make much difference would it?
Last edited:
Ah I see what you mean now. Good point so I will now back track and say it's much better as the tyre would heat up less the wider it is
[prepares for counter argument of that]
BTW: still giving the above some thought to see if I can give any reasonable comments against it but have to get my head around it. lol
[prepares for counter argument of that
]BTW: still giving the above some thought to see if I can give any reasonable comments against it but have to get my head around it.
lol
Wow i've really sarted something here.Lol
But we're talking a pretty huge mass, anything other than wide wheels/tyres like rollers simply wouldn't take the weight. I accept I didn't think through the contact patch vs. friction argument lol.
Littleyellowcar: If we're talking terminal velocity then yes, you're correct, however, as we're talking a 0-60 time an exponential drag is irrelevant - it only would be important for top speed. However, I am not having a good morning so may be wrong lol
Littleyellowcar: If we're talking terminal velocity then yes, you're correct, however, as we're talking a 0-60 time an exponential drag is irrelevant - it only would be important for top speed. However, I am not having a good morning so may be wrong lol
So we mostly agree that this is likely to be the fastest PRODUCTION CAR that can be made?
Btw; littleyellowcar you could have been thinking of Stoke's Law which is F = 6πrηv (not sure if that will all show up but it's Frictional force = 6*pi*r*velocity) for a spherical object.
That's frictional drag, F proportional to V for that.
However, there's also the Drag equation, something I didn't cover at A level but it is given as:
If that doesn't show it's:
D = 0.5Cd*ro*A*v^2
I.e. Drag = 0.5 * coeffieicnt of drag * density * Area (I expect the area facing it)*velocity squared.
Quite worrying this is on my sllyabus but we haven't covered it in my degree! Better go and learn about it!
Wikipedia has this to say about it:
Another interesting relation, though it is not part of the equation, is that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). This is because the force exerted by drag quadruples (2² = 4), and the power required equals force times velocity.
So similar to as you said, increasing v has a large increase of drag force but as I wrote before, as we're talking 0-60 and not top speed this wouldn't cause a problem AFAIK.
That's frictional drag, F proportional to V for that.
However, there's also the Drag equation, something I didn't cover at A level but it is given as:
If that doesn't show it's:
D = 0.5Cd*ro*A*v^2
I.e. Drag = 0.5 * coeffieicnt of drag * density * Area (I expect the area facing it)*velocity squared.
Quite worrying this is on my sllyabus but we haven't covered it in my degree! Better go and learn about it!
Wikipedia has this to say about it:
Another interesting relation, though it is not part of the equation, is that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). This is because the force exerted by drag quadruples (2² = 4), and the power required equals force times velocity.
So similar to as you said, increasing v has a large increase of drag force but as I wrote before, as we're talking 0-60 and not top speed this wouldn't cause a problem AFAIK.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,311
- Points
- 983
oh dear God
Spudgun_mk
Member
i have been told duie to friction it cannot be any quicker than 1.35 seconds dunno whether this is true
Chris619
New member
Check out this vid of a 1000bhp+ corvette doing a 9.18 1/4 mile
http://motortrend.com/av/112_03_lingenfelter_vette/
http://motortrend.com/av/112_03_lingenfelter_vette/
Last edited:
OP
OP
Nice find Chris!
I was always in awe of the McLaren F1 when it first came to light, back in 1993 IIRC, with 3.7 to 60 and top speed of 242 it was unheard of before in production terms anyway.
This was only two wheel drive, the 'Vette is only two wheel drive so with 4 wheel drive and more bhp, around 1500 say, you could maybe get it down to near 1.00 second, the lower the time the more power needed but with more power comes more weight so you'd need to be very clever and talk to your local kevlar, carbon, titanium and gold supplier!
Liam
I was always in awe of the McLaren F1 when it first came to light, back in 1993 IIRC, with 3.7 to 60 and top speed of 242 it was unheard of before in production terms anyway.
This was only two wheel drive, the 'Vette is only two wheel drive so with 4 wheel drive and more bhp, around 1500 say, you could maybe get it down to near 1.00 second, the lower the time the more power needed but with more power comes more weight so you'd need to be very clever and talk to your local kevlar, carbon, titanium and gold supplier!
Liam
