Maria.

Mike - of course not what do you take me for?

We bring the duvet down on the sofa whilst we're watching nature programmes!

Porkie

iTrader: (1)

Or Chris Harris Autocar videos

It does rock having a girlfriend into cars! but it sucks that she knows more than me about them!

oooh and I am now a huge Family Guy fan! that programme is genius!

Luca

iTrader: (2)

Indeed Peter Griffin is a Legend!

Ive only got into this the last 6months also

AndyBrew

not piss taking chap just makes me laugh if they were asked not to tell the results fair enough don't post on the internet what you might of done, me personally if I'd spent 10's of thousands on achieving 200 mph I would of found the cash to run my car at brunters and I'd be blarting it out everywhere LOL!!!

maybe thats me, simple chap!

Rod-Tarry

I talk about optimum as getting the gearing 'spot bollix' because thats the most important thing. My cars blatted up & down Brunters more than most & unless you have a cross wind ive noticed no real difference in speed obtained.
Steven_RW second run almost certainly was geared too long & hence past 'optimum' this will make a big difference to whats achieved. Ive found over many runs that its best to slightly under-gear because the momentum will pull it past peak Power & of course give better accleration .
As for Dave he asked me to say what his car would be doing at 8K on certain gearing, I said 200mph & he was happy. If it had been my car I would have looked at the Power & thought that aint capable of more than 196mph because thats what the maths say & geared for 196 at 8k & im sure it would have pulled close to that 'optimum' but hey!! what do I know, experts abound on this thread..

NEEDFORSPEED

it may be an old thread and he may be an oap but . . .

Si B

iTrader: (59)

....and yet you decided to drag it back up anyway ?

Why do people keep doing that?

COCHYN

How dare you boys for not getting into Family Guy years ago, you got a long way to go!

And its good to see YUM back

Glenn_

iTrader: (1)

Family guy is class.

Its Dave

iTrader: (4)

You dug this up, As for YUM almost there

blacky.

lol look at the date of the post
this was last tine yum was back not this time

fammily guy is top though lol

COCHYN

Hey guys, I didn't dig this thread up But my Family Guy opinion still stands...hehe, aaaaalriiiiight...

Steven_RW

So if wind speed doesn't make any difference this must mean that you are getting nowhere near ultimate speed of the vehicle (ie - where forces of drag = forces of drive). Otherwise you would expect a direct impact.

Interesting

RW

Rod-Tarry

Can i suggest respectfully that we have got a lot closer than anybody else.

Steven_RW

Rod - u know I am on team about u lads pushing the cossie top speed however that reply from you was confusing:

I'm not sure what you mean? I am also not sure why you feel you need to respectfully point out to me that you think you have come closer to reaching terminal velocity than others? I also don't know why you think you have? Plenty people will have hit terminal velocity in a car before, I know I have. Foots to the board and it just is not accelerating any more, mile after mile, still no more acceleration. Force of the engine has been equalled by force of drag.

Anyway I would have thought you would rather have answered the question in your usual fashion than spin me a P.R. line.

In a plane, going into a 50 mph headwind reduces your ground speed by 50 mph. I was expecting a similar outcome in a car. Perhaps the fact you are in touch with the ground reduces the overall impact. However, why does a car stop accelerating? It must be that engine force = drag forces (of course you can optimise this by matching gearing and power bands). If you have a 10 mph headwind, surely drag forces are higher than having no headwind, therefore a car will ultimately meet the point where drag forces = engine force at a lower speed? I can appreciate that in the distance you are using, it might not make much difference to the speed you achieve, however I therefore stand that you must not be hitting terminal velocity, or maybe you have not run in high head wind conditions?

Can I respectfully point you in the direction of answering the question rather than typing up any further PR?

RW

COCHYN

Fookin' hell, a year old argument!

Don't bother, Rod's a brass player....we're always right!

AGAR-COSWORTH

Without reading all ten pages I agree with what Steven_RW is saying, seems like basic standard grade physics to me: Newtons 1st and 2nd laws. I can't see why a headwind would NOT have an effect on the car's top speed.

Barry_GTi

Because Rod is so far up his own arse that he doesn't believe simple physics has any effect on him? I am sure his Saph could fly if it just had wings....

Rod-Tarry

There you go lads thats what I actually said. My 500bhp car didnt suddenly do a 178 or a 185 because of changing wind speed any differences were very small indeed. My 500bhp car ran all its runs at Brunters between 181.8 & 183.2 & was down on boost on that slow run (worn-out Turbo) so thats why i said no real difference, maybe i should have said not much difference but i was unaware at the time that a year down the line a lot of youngsters had nothing better to do than argue over my wording .

Of course i have an excuse i had no education like what you lads have got, Physics whats that all about, in the days of chalk & slate we were simply given tips on hunting wild animals .

Steven_RW

It is rather laughable when you are allowed to be so incredibly choosy over other peoples dyno figures, who has run with an alternator and a PAS pump Vs who has not, however are surprised when someone checks the accuracy of one of your own statements. Be you old or young, that can't be a surprise...

RW