Veryon power figure @ wheels
21-12-2009, 02:35 PM
#5
Cool, about the same as my nova then (350 ish per tonne at wheels), just wondered.
Just wondered how the power to weight compared, obviously its a little better in other areas, such as aerydynamics and comfort, lol
Gallachers cars must be about 600 per tonne at wheels, so I guess would make a veryon feel quite slow for 30-130 where power to weight really matters!
Just wondered how the power to weight compared, obviously its a little better in other areas, such as aerydynamics and comfort, lol
Gallachers cars must be about 600 per tonne at wheels, so I guess would make a veryon feel quite slow for 30-130 where power to weight really matters!
Last edited by Chip; 21-12-2009 at 02:39 PM.
Trending Topics
21-12-2009, 03:00 PM
#8
10K+ Poster!!
Wennys MK3 is gona be something ridiculous BHP per ton as well once he gets the new engine in it. when i was there last week he was doing a very good job of getting the weight out of it, think it had lost around 12kg and he hasnt finished yet, it was insane on the old engine, gona be mental with the new one.
21-12-2009, 03:14 PM
#9
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah, I can't believe that either.
Anyone got a source for that info?
And while on the subject, why do people always talk about drivetrain losses as being calculated as a percentage of the flywheel figure?
I've never understood this - maybe someone can help me out? Genuine question 
I would imagine that a car would lose a relatively fixed amount of power through its drive train, at any specific rpm.
Say if I had a FWD car making 130 bhp @ 6000 rpm at the fly wheel. I could expect maybe 15% drivetrain losses, or about 20 bhp.
But if I tuned the engine to twice the power (260bhp), but left the rest of the drivetrain exactly the same, why would I now be expecting to see a 40 bhp loss through the exact same drivetrain?
Surely the power required to turn the gearbox, drive shafts, wheels etc is the same?
I can understand that drivetrain losses will increase as rpm increases / due to higher rotation speed of the gearbox components, tyre friction etc.
steve
Anyone got a source for that info?
And while on the subject, why do people always talk about drivetrain losses as being calculated as a percentage of the flywheel figure?
I've never understood this - maybe someone can help me out? Genuine question I would imagine that a car would lose a relatively fixed amount of power through its drive train, at any specific rpm.
Say if I had a FWD car making 130 bhp @ 6000 rpm at the fly wheel. I could expect maybe 15% drivetrain losses, or about 20 bhp.
But if I tuned the engine to twice the power (260bhp), but left the rest of the drivetrain exactly the same, why would I now be expecting to see a 40 bhp loss through the exact same drivetrain?
Surely the power required to turn the gearbox, drive shafts, wheels etc is the same?
I can understand that drivetrain losses will increase as rpm increases / due to higher rotation speed of the gearbox components, tyre friction etc.
steve
21-12-2009, 03:18 PM
#10
10K+ Poster!!
iTrader: (4)
yeah, I can't believe that either.
Anyone got a source for that info?
And while on the subject, why do people always talk about drivetrain losses as being calculated as a percentage of the flywheel figure? I've never understood this - maybe someone can help me out? Genuine question
I would imagine that a car would lose a relatively fixed amount of power through its drive train, at any specific rpm.
Say if I had a FWD car making 130 bhp @ 6000 rpm at the fly wheel. I could expect maybe 15% drivetrain losses, or about 20 bhp.
But if I tuned the engine to twice the power (260bhp), but left the rest of the drivetrain exactly the same, why would I now be expecting to see a 40 bhp loss through the exact same drivetrain?
Surely the power required to turn the gearbox, drive shafts, wheels etc is the same?
I can understand that drivetrain losses will increase as rpm increases / due to higher rotation speed of the gearbox components, tyre friction etc.
steve
Anyone got a source for that info?
And while on the subject, why do people always talk about drivetrain losses as being calculated as a percentage of the flywheel figure?
I've never understood this - maybe someone can help me out? Genuine question I would imagine that a car would lose a relatively fixed amount of power through its drive train, at any specific rpm.
Say if I had a FWD car making 130 bhp @ 6000 rpm at the fly wheel. I could expect maybe 15% drivetrain losses, or about 20 bhp.
But if I tuned the engine to twice the power (260bhp), but left the rest of the drivetrain exactly the same, why would I now be expecting to see a 40 bhp loss through the exact same drivetrain?
Surely the power required to turn the gearbox, drive shafts, wheels etc is the same?
I can understand that drivetrain losses will increase as rpm increases / due to higher rotation speed of the gearbox components, tyre friction etc.
steve
basically the harder you turn something it is in turn harder to turn it.
21-12-2009, 03:21 PM
#11
Professional Waffler
this is no fixed percentage losses in a gearbox, just thinking of one thing, the more power you transmit through a gearbox, the more thrust you apply to the shafts of the gearbox, (remember we use helical gears) this thrust is resisted by bearing!
21-12-2009, 03:25 PM
#14
10K+ Poster!!
iTrader: (4)
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9mSvd0...orsepower.com/
just found this.
its only an estimate but that equation equals 830 whp for a veyron
following the equation for 2wd my r/r run is with 8bhp of the equation.
its not exact science but it must be in the right ball park.
just found this.
its only an estimate but that equation equals 830 whp for a veyron
following the equation for 2wd my r/r run is with 8bhp of the equation.
its not exact science but it must be in the right ball park.
Last edited by scoooby slayer; 21-12-2009 at 03:28 PM.
21-12-2009, 03:46 PM
#16
Professional Waffler
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 26,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cool, about the same as my nova then (350 ish per tonne at wheels), just wondered.
Just wondered how the power to weight compared, obviously its a little better in other areas, such as aerydynamics and comfort, lol
Gallachers cars must be about 600 per tonne at wheels, so I guess would make a veryon feel quite slow for 30-130 where power to weight really matters!
Just wondered how the power to weight compared, obviously its a little better in other areas, such as aerydynamics and comfort, lol
Gallachers cars must be about 600 per tonne at wheels, so I guess would make a veryon feel quite slow for 30-130 where power to weight really matters!
just wondering, whats the weight of the nova?
21-12-2009, 03:49 PM
#17
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9mSvd0...orsepower.com/
just found this.
its only an estimate but that equation equals 830 whp for a veyron
following the equation for 2wd my r/r run is with 8bhp of the equation.
its not exact science but it must be in the right ball park.
just found this.
its only an estimate but that equation equals 830 whp for a veyron
following the equation for 2wd my r/r run is with 8bhp of the equation.
its not exact science but it must be in the right ball park.
Bear in mind your flywheel figure you were quoted is only a guess anyway (as is mine) so all you are showing there is that your rolling road guessed similar to that equation, you dont actually have any facts to test the equation with from your car.
21-12-2009, 03:59 PM
#21
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget the veryon has a duel clutch gearbox as well, not that it makes a difference to power to weight ratio but going though the gears compared to a standard gearbox its going to have a hell of an advantage, so has got to be worth some bhp.
21-12-2009, 04:30 PM
#24
This is a serious question, so don't get offended, is the weight you are quoting with you in the car? I only ask, as the current European quoted weights include a 65kg driver and 7kg of luggage.... So if not, subtract 72kg from these to get a comparable power to weight figure.... .
.
21-12-2009, 04:32 PM
#25
It Wasnt Me!
Anyone know what a S14 200sx weighs? It's been partialy stripped/fibreglass bonnet, forged wheels, but also has a twin 3" exhaust....so i'd imagine it prob weighs around standard weight?
*edit* think its 1200kg roughly, with 420bhp@wheels So what's the power to weight ratio of that?
*edit* think its 1200kg roughly, with 420bhp@wheels So what's the power to weight ratio of that?
Last edited by vroooom ptssssh; 21-12-2009 at 04:37 PM.
21-12-2009, 04:55 PM
#28
This is a serious question, so don't get offended, is the weight you are quoting with you in the car? I only ask, as the current European quoted weights include a 65kg driver and 7kg of luggage.... So if not, subtract 72kg from these to get a comparable power to weight figure.... .
.Not sure if the veryon figure quoted here is with or without a driver.
21-12-2009, 04:58 PM
#29
Professional Waffler
This is a serious question, so don't get offended, is the weight you are quoting with you in the car? I only ask, as the current European quoted weights include a 65kg driver and 7kg of luggage.... So if not, subtract 72kg from these to get a comparable power to weight figure.... .
.65kg driver,,, no man should be light lol
21-12-2009, 04:59 PM
#31
No idea, doubt I will ever take my car as high as 180mph in the first place to find out.
Ive utterly no interest in doing those sort of speeds, just interested how my car stacked up in terms of power to weight, not looked at any of the many many other facts that effect performance, just interested in that one figure as someone asked me if I had a better power to weight ratio at the wheels than a veryon and I didnt know the answer.
Unlike a 0-180mph time, which I dont know either, this can be simply calculated so I thought I would do so by getting the figures.
If someone asked me how the number of legs I had compared to hugh grant, then I would indeed say I had the same number, I dont see how that particuarly effects looks though, so you seem to be adding 1 and 1 and getting something other than 2 there TBH mate.
Ive utterly no interest in doing those sort of speeds, just interested how my car stacked up in terms of power to weight, not looked at any of the many many other facts that effect performance, just interested in that one figure as someone asked me if I had a better power to weight ratio at the wheels than a veryon and I didnt know the answer.
Unlike a 0-180mph time, which I dont know either, this can be simply calculated so I thought I would do so by getting the figures.
Its rather like saying you look like Hugh Grant because you both have 2 Legs 
.
.
21-12-2009, 05:05 PM
#34
10K+ Poster!!
I was having a laugh mate but in all seriousness I have always believed this car has the potential to be seriously fast, as you say though wether it has or not you personally don't feel like pushing it that far.
I still think it'll be doing 10's soon enough though
I still think it'll be doing 10's soon enough though
21-12-2009, 05:10 PM
#35
It did a 5.3 330ft with far worse rear suspension geometry and about 100bhp less than it has now, so it should get under 5 on its next outing I would think.
Which tends to hint its going to be in the low 11s to high 10s
But obviously the only way to know is to run it, which I will do as soon as I can.
21-12-2009, 06:06 PM
#39
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
