Performance 101 for Slicks

[Matra et Alpine]

Despite answering the question adn suggesting to Slicks that of he WANTED advice to educate him more that he shoudl create a thread ... HE DIDN'T ( there's a suprise )

So as suggested to stop this diverting from the intersting UltimateCarPage car threads we've moved the discourse to here.

Warning : This thread will not be for the faint hearted

The next post will be Slicks words, i'll get round to repudiating 80% of the tosh later

[Matra et Alpine]

and THAT is when weight, gearing and traction comes in to it.
Hence why a bike engined 7-copy is one of the fastest 0-60 production !!!!
So it's whre it's FLAT that it's usable.
Hence why I'd asked you to invetigate and realise that the revvy I4 had a wider band which makes it - when mated to a gearbox - to have a more usable power band.

Yes, and if the elise truly had a usable powerband its rolling start wouldnt have been close to 2 seconds slower due to no low end power. That can also go for the S2000 tested in the same article, thanks to no low end power it did close to 2 seconds over its 0-60 time with a rolling start.
Like I said, if a car has usable power, then it has power in its low and high rev ranges.
Take the GTO C&D tested, it did 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. Rolling from 5-60 it did 5.8 seconds, thats only 1/2 a second. Why? low end power.

That last comment is nonsense, Slicks.
Go listen to a race car start - a flagged start, none of this rolling start stuff

Rolling starts give an idea of how much low end torque the car has. Race cars are a totally different car than street cars. One thing about race cars is usually displacement is limited due to rules. So, revs will have to be used to make the most amount of power from that amount of displacement.

Revs to max point and GO.

Sure in rally they have AWD...
Traction isnt always in issue with these race cars, having racing slicks and in some cases a traction control system. In street cars traction is an issue, thats why cars like Vipers and Corvettes are launched at low RPMs. Yet thanks to their good power bands they pull of great 0-60 without being launched at redline.

AND that shows HUGE bias as you've clearly never driven a car with it and realised that it is NOT that hard to do. have you ? If you name the car we can probably talkk about optimum launch. I've done thousands of race/rally launches, IF you'll take it as true when I describe it I'm happy to explain further.

Never driven a car with a "high redline" with peaky power, is that what your asking? I drove a Celica GT for example, not exactly a "high revver" but it was a manual and I launched it at about 4500RPMs. Bad idea, torque steer, and alot of wheel spin, but like i said its a street car, not a race car.

That "stupid calculation" is used by race engineers to optimise the car for racing at a track !
So who told you it's "stupid", because it flies in the face of what happens every day in tracks and pits all over the world !!

Race cars again are different from street cars. Like I said before, displacement is limited bla bla bla. When racing they're going to try their best to keep it in the high revs, where they make their power.
And yes, that calculation is biased toward high revvers.

You are stuck thinking on justifying the whle power badn having to be flat!!
Think of the car IN a gear approaching a corner, the wider the usabale power band - ie power that dos not drop so much that you lose perfromance - then the more scope the driver has to avoid a gear change mid corner and hence the FASTER they will be.

Very good, now think about an Elise coming out of a hairpin, its a 2000RPMs, next to it is a Z06, also at 2000RPMs, which will accelerate faster? The one with usable power, the Z06, although having a power/weight advantage, has alot of torque at 2000RPMs, where as the Elise, does not.

With a 2000 rev power band they can only adjust speed by HALF as much as a 4000 rev power band without losing time. The gears are what enables the driver to chose one so that the power band is most usable for the fast corner.

Yes, and wouldnt it be nice if the engine had enough torque that you could get away with a higher gear? That means it would be even better in a lower gear...

ah, well we went round that point SOOO many times and we DID go over the relative nature of these. AND we went over the physics of race car development AND we covered the issue of the types of roads AND we've covered recently the issue of driver awareness due to position in the car AND we went over the changes for the European version to "improve it's handling" AND we got personal about AND we got facts AND we got evidence AND we presented AND you ignored it all.

No, I saw you finally try and answer that one, good job. Now remember not say that the Corvette and Viper cannot handle, ever again. But yes, you are allowed to say that the Elise will out handle them, but does that make them bad handlers, certainly not.

.....

[CdocZ]

wow......you realize how much this is gonna piss him off matra?

[spi-ti-tout]

Ya but nobody can say anything to the boss of ucp(Matra)

[Matra et Alpine]

Well it pisses MORE folks off that this got continued in that thread despite it being suggested that if he WANTED to discuss it further to create a new thread.

Slicks had the choice to be grown up and realise it was pissing others off and diverting a great thread into trivia.

Having chosen not to then I get to name the thread - it coudl have been "Matras stmart ass comments about performance" if HE had created it

Better keeping this out of the UCP car thread so we can get it moving along. We ahve enough now to get the layout and dimensions finalised and start workign on the chassis !!!

He's gonna be more pissed of when I point out all the mistruths and errors

[spi-ti-tout]

Having chosen not to then I get to name the thread - it coudl have been "Matras stmart ass comments about performance" if HE had created it

We'd never let that happen. Don't take too much pain.

He's gonna be more pissed of when I point out all the mistruths and errors

Haha can't wait to see it

[Slicks]

wow......you realize how much this is gonna piss him off matra?

Whats there to be pissed about? There needed to be a new thread to get this out of the original one.

Ok Matra, have at it.

BTW the vette and elise @ 2000RPMs thing I forget to mention that their both in 1st gear.

[Slicks]

Slicks had the choice to be grown up and realise it was pissing others off and diverting a great thread into trivia.

Haha, grow up... Your the old man still calling people names here....

Having chosen not to then I get to name the thread - it coudl have been "Matras stmart ass comments about performance" if HE had created it

No, I would have gone with something like "Handling 101" or "why the viper and vette cant handle."
And I would have put it in either technical or american board, why did you choose the european board?

[Matra et Alpine]

Whats there to be pissed about? There needed to be a new thread to get this out of the original one.

ah so you DID read that then.
Shame you can't do simple steps to ease others hassle

ah well, to be expected

BTW the vette and elise @ 2000RPMs thing I forget to mention that their both in 1st gear.

oh I new that. The Elise would barely pull the skin of a rice pudding in second !!

And again Slicks we're running a test that has little relevance and has NONE to performance driving.

Every car has to slip the clutch to get the initial progression.
So going from 5 instead of say 10 or 15 is a test that will always favour the low end torque engine and yet has little difference in the real world - unless you actually drive around at 5mph a lot !!

If you actually wanted to test the Elise acceleration from 5 the driver would slip the clutch as they would be doing if pulling away from a standing start up to 10 mph. In rallying you slip the clutch all the time - even in huge monsters - to match the right torque at the wheels with the torque availabel at the engine. Sometimes you do it because the engine produce TOO MUCH torque for the challenge faced. Even racing you will occasionaly slip the clutch especially if you are balancing the handling on a complex corner where you need to remove/add power faster than you can do with the throttle.

The mags do it because there is HUGE variability in drivers being able to launch and launches from standstill stress the drivetrain more than the manufacturer will sometimes let them or thier own damage insuarance will allow - especially true of cheap mags and young journos

Did you realise that ?
If so, how did you adjust your opinion to include that knowledge ?

SO I think we've corrected the erroneous view on the magical number you were using to try to imply that the car with wider usable power band was worse. As I explained to you, MORE torque is the benefit when you can't or don't want to change gear. the WIDER powerband however gives the better car in all other circumstances as it allows the driver to select when to change gear to suit the road challenges ahead and hence traverse them faster. The narrower powerband requires more gearchanges to do the same which will mean slower times as you dont' change gears in the tickle and acceleration phases of a corner !!!

That's one over with, I'll do the next one tomorrow.

[Slicks]

ah so you DID read that then.
Shame you can't do simple steps to ease others hassle

ah well, to be expected

Yes, I saw that after I posted. I was going to move it but you beat me to it. Sorry.

oh I new that. The Elise would barely pull the skin of a rice pudding in second !!

I just wanted to make every thing clear

And again Slicks we're running a test that has little relevance and has NONE to performance driving.

Every car has to slip the clutch to get the initial progression.
So going from 5 instead of say 10 or 15 is a test that will always favour the low end torque engine and yet has little difference in the real world - unless you actually drive around at 5mph a lot !!

If you actually wanted to test the Elise acceleration from 5 the driver would slip the clutch as they would be doing if pulling away from a standing start up to 10 mph. In rallying you slip the clutch all the time - even in huge monsters - to match the right torque at the wheels with the torque availabel at the engine. Sometimes you do it because the engine produce TOO MUCH torque for the challenge faced. Even racing you will occasionaly slip the clutch especially if you are balancing the handling on a complex corner where you need to remove/add power faster than you can do with the throttle.

The mags do it because there is HUGE variability in drivers being able to launch and launches from standstill stress the drivetrain more than the manufacturer will sometimes let them or thier own damage insuarance will allow - especially true of cheap mags and young journos

Did you realise that ?
If so, how did you adjust your opinion to include that knowledge ?

Yes, I knew that, what needs to be adjusted? The whole rolling start thing just shows how much low end power the car has, thats the whole point. And low end power is part of the powerband correct?

SO I think we've corrected the erroneous view on the magical number you were using to try to imply that the car with wider usable power band was worse. As I explained to you, MORE torque is the benefit when you can't or don't want to change gear. the WIDER powerband however gives the better car in all other circumstances as it allows the driver to select when to change gear to suit the road challenges ahead and hence traverse them faster. The narrower powerband requires more gearchanges to do the same which will mean slower times as you dont' change gears in the tickle and acceleration phases of a corner !!!

That's one over with, I'll do the next one tomorrow.

No, you see like I said before, the width of the powerband is not just 20% from peak to peak power. Again that calculation just tells you that the higher revving engine is "better." The powerband is the whole rev range of the engine, it doesnt have to be just in the "racing powerband" at redline RPMs. For street use or track use (like the 2000RPM example) measure whole powerband, not just the top. That is the usable power.

[Matra et Alpine]

Please go down to the track and talk to someone who tunes and race about usable power band as I'm not goign to keep repeating it to you if you won't listen.

The "usable" power band is NOT the complete band unless that band is inherently flat and within 20% ( some use 10 ) of the peak. Only then can a driver save having to change gears too often. SO, the Elise needs assistance in that first 2000 revs in first gear for sure, but equally you can create a test which KEEPS the car in first gear and then see who can go fastest. THAT checks out the top limit of the power band but not it's usable range. Nobody does a test like that because you would naturally change gears long before that point. JUST SO with the lower one your citing. You would slip the clutch and get the improvement.

To return to what I'd said, do you really drive around in first at 5mph ?
Grannies with autos and poor eyesight, fine.
BUT as I said, look at it next time YOU drive. You're doing 10-15mphg before you're completely off the clutch when pushing it hard - presuming you're optimising your launch.

We're all agreed we use gears to utilse the availabel power band, it amazes me you dont' consider using the clutch to do the same at the lower end other than you lack the experience and exposure to HAVE tried it - it's not a hard skill so I'm hoping it's not that.

Like other times SLicks you clearly won't take it as told to you by someone who has raced tuned and rallied. You won't believe because you think you're right based on no real knowledge and you don't like me telling you things because of our past history when we've tried to clear up your misconceptions. So please go to a track and into the pits and hear it repeated to you and understand it. OR it's not that expensive for a trackday and go and learn in some single seaters

So as you realised by keeping in the "power band" the Elise is wider. I know that sticks in your throat, but that's the reality of fast driving. AS I'd pointed out the BIG advantage of a large capcity V8 is the lower and upper ends of the curve typically only drop off to 40-50% of the peak whereas a 4-potter will drop to 10% at the idle.
So if the driver wants to potter around and not push the car hard at low revs then a V8 is best. But that's got little to do with making the car move and using it's performance. But those aren't "usable power" except for grannies

[Slicks]

Please go down to the track and talk to someone who tunes and race about usable power band as I'm not goign to keep repeating it to you if you won't listen.

The "usable" power band is NOT the complete band unless that band is inherently flat and within 20% ( some use 10 ) of the peak. Only then can a driver save having to change gears too often.

Usable: convenient to use. Tell me, is it convenient to have to keep your revs 20% from peak power or more? Usable power is power that can be used conveniently, not having to rev very high to use power, and get going.

SO, the Elise needs assistance in that first 2000 revs in first gear for sure, but equally you can create a test which KEEPS the car in first gear and then see who can go fastest. THAT checks out the top limit of the power band but not it's usable range. Nobody does a test like that because you would naturally change gears long before that point. JUST SO with the lower one your citing. You would slip the clutch and get the improvement.

Like I said, it shows low end power, slipping the clutch would be “cheating.”

To return to what I'd said, do you really drive around in first at 5mph ?
Grannies with autos and poor eyesight, fine.
BUT as I said, look at it next time YOU drive. You're doing 10-15mphg before you're completely off the clutch when pushing it hard - presuming you're optimising your launch.

Read post above, it’s a test to show low end power. Rolling start, maybe the owner doesn’t want to fry, or damage the clutch

We're all agreed we use gears to utilse the availabel power band, it amazes me you dont' consider using the clutch to do the same at the lower end other than you lack the experience and exposure to HAVE tried it - it's not a hard skill so I'm hoping it's not that.

Yes, that’s the problem you keep thinking about gearing to compensate for no low end power (so using small gears). Engines with usable power will be using larger gears to use the available lower to higher power, not just the peaky power.
Using that 20% calculation seems to show what RPM the engine will fall to when gear changed. Problem is, not all cars are geared the same…

BTW Yes, I consider the clutch, read the other two posts.

Like other times SLicks you clearly won't take it as told to you by someone who has raced tuned and rallied. You won't believe because you think you're right based on no real knowledge and you don't like me telling you things because of our past history when we've tried to clear up your misconceptions. So please go to a track and into the pits and hear it repeated to you and understand it. OR it's not that expensive for a trackday and go and learn in some single seaters

Ill go talk to some race car drivers of some less peaky engines and see what they say.

So as you realised by keeping in the "power band" the Elise is wider. I know that sticks in your throat, but that's the reality of fast driving. AS I'd pointed out the BIG advantage of a large capcity V8 is the lower and upper ends of the curve typically only drop off to 40-50% of the peak whereas a 4-potter will drop to 10% at the idle.
So if the driver wants to potter around and not push the car hard at low revs then a V8 is best. But that's got little to do with making the car move and using it's performance. But those aren't "usable power" except for grannies

It seems you still have it backwards, that 20% formula, like mention earlier is biased toward the higher revving engines.
For example, lets say an engine makes its peak torque at 20K RPMs (were going to use torque because that’s actually the force an engine makes, hp is just a calculation like you know.) By your 20% that engine has more “usable” power then the Elise’s engine, which is not the case, being you have to rev to 20K+ to get to that peak TQ. Again usable = convenient, having to rev higher is less convienent and you have to compensate with gearing, loosing gas mileage and top speed.

[Matra et Alpine]

Usable: convenient to use. Tell me, is it convenient to have to keep your revs 20% from peak power or more? Usable power is power that can be used conveniently, not having to rev very high to use power, and get going.

oh .... hurts ..... aaaarrrrghhhhh

A little context....
THIS is ULTIMATEcarpage.com *NOT* granniescarpage.com or commutercarpage.com

Best comeback EVER Slicks.
If you WANT convenience go get a Prius, you and Karrmann can have a love affair

AND you AGAIN show you actually have never been shown how to drive a performance car and keep repeating that nonsense about "not having to rev high".
Get with the program, Slicks, performance cars you DO rev and how high is only determined by what the engine allows the driver to do it is NOT determined by how comfrotable you feel revving it. So it's screaming, so what. If that gives you an extra 5 mph exit on a corner because you had the WIDER power band then that's the winner.
Hell if you want power from zero then go get the Matra Zoom. Electric cars pull max torque from 0 revs !

Like I said, it shows low end power, slipping the clutch would be “cheating.”

Quidk call up FIA and tell them about all those guys cheating in V8 Supercars and Formula One and WRC and Formula Ford and GT racing and Le Mans and...
Do I REALLY need to continue ?
Explain WHY is it cheating.
One car is designed to be able to pull from 1000 revs with the clutch out the other is designed to have the driver use the clutch to pull from speeds matching 1000 revs. WHY is that "cheating".
BTW, you haven't really considered my comments to you about how much you slip the clutch to get to a speed. As I already said it's more than 5mph

Read post above, it’s a test to show low end power. Rolling start, maybe the owner doesn’t want to fry, or damage the clutch

yep or the clutch isn't capable of handlign it.
BUT if designed to handle it ( eg some use double clutch plates ) then there IS no issue.
AND all cars with very low torque at 5mph WILL be designed to allow the clutch to slip to transfer torque at takeaway.
If you don't think that is the case then can you explain how cars have done 100s of thousands of miles with clutches and performance EXACTLY like that ?
You're confused again by the bias and the lack of experience and exposure to cars DESIGNED to operate that way.
The test shows low end power, exactly. If the driver isn't allowed to slip the clutch AS DESIGNED FOR THOSE SPEEDS then the test shows nothing related to actual performance of the car !!

Yes, that’s the problem you keep thinking about gearing to compensate for no low end power (so using small gears). Engines with usable power will be using larger gears to use the available lower to higher power, not just the peaky power.
Using that 20% calculation seems to show what RPM the engine will fall to when gear changed. Problem is, not all cars are geared the same…

Correct. So cars with broad power and revvy engiens are geared to maximise their performance and so that you're not looking for second gear within 1/2 second of launching you have a higher first gera and use the clutch.
Get someone to take you in an M3. A car that takes VERY fast foota dn hand work to change out of first on launch. In some stages I've seen an M3 driver pull away in second do that he didn't have to change upa ta a critical time. Slipping a clutch gives a performance driver more opportunities to maximise the performance. BUT it made for a dangerous car in 'granny-hands' - my old man drove around in 2nd and 5th !
You REALLY CONFUSE "problem" and "design".
Do you relly think that performance car designers built the cars and then went "oops we've a problem in pulling from 5mph" ??
COME ON SLICKS, get with the concept of driving fast cars.
Designers determine the optimal gearing for performance. Hence the arrival of 6 speed boxes so they've a high top to get the fuel number sbetter and 5 gears to be able to use the broader power band to have a gear for all corners
To call it a "problem" shows you've never thought the whoel thing through.
As said, for "granny-drivers" it's a problem, for normal over here it's not and for performance in the US it's not.
PLEASE go to a track and talk to some folks who can ectally DEMONSTRATE it to you.

BTW Yes, I consider the clutch, read the other two posts.

You clearly don't coz you dismiss USING the clutch as a "prblem"
'hoist by your own petard' on THAT one Slicks.

Ill go talk to some race car drivers of some less peaky engines and see what they say.

PEAKY ?
erm the charts we';ve been sharing weren't 'peaky'.
50 lbs/ft difference is NOTHING in a range.
I think you're WAY to focussed on numbers and don't realise the operation of the rest of the machine to realise it, but go to the track and talk to mechanics and drivers of ALL types. Why limit yourself ? I dont'. We can all all learn by listending to those with more experience. Take EVERY opportuntity to learn more.
I'd focuss on the use of clutch ( and you probably shoudl read the advice in the snow driving thread just in case you hit some ice - without a clutch you're in a bad place )

It seems you still have it backwards, that 20% formula, like mention earlier is biased toward the higher revving engines.
For example, lets say an engine makes its peak torque at 20K RPMs (were going to use torque because that’s actually the force an engine makes, hp is just a calculation like you know.) By your 20% that engine has more “usable” power then the Elise’s engine, which is not the case, being you have to rev to 20K+ to get to that peak TQ. Again usable = convenient, having to rev higher is less convienent and you have to compensate with gearing, loosing gas mileage and top speed.[/QUOTE]

[Slicks]

oh .... hurts ..... aaaarrrrghhhhh

A little context....
THIS is ULTIMATEcarpage.com *NOT* granniescarpage.com or commutercarpage.com

Best comeback EVER Slicks.
If you WANT convenience go get a Prius, you and Karrmann can have a love affair

Yes, this is ultimatecarpage, not biasedcarpage, or hateamericacarpage, although it could be named that easily.
Look up usable :
1. That can be used: usable byproducts.
2. Fit for use; convenient to use, usable spare parts.

AND you AGAIN show you actually have never been shown how to drive a performance car and keep repeating that nonsense about "not having to rev high".
Get with the program, Slicks, performance cars you DO rev and how high is only determined by what the engine allows the driver to do it is NOT determined by how comfrotable you feel revving it. So it's screaming, so what. If that gives you an extra 5 mph exit on a corner because you had the WIDER power band then that's the winner.
Hell if you want power from zero then go get the Matra Zoom. Electric cars pull max torque from 0 revs !

It seems that cultural differences have alot of things to do here. It seems you see the Z06 and Viper as "low revving(or maybe granny revving)" cars, and the Elise as standard. But compared to an F1 car, the Elise is a "granny revving car." But undoubtably, the Elise has a more usable powerband than F1 cars, being that they are very peaky.

Quick call up FIA and tell them about all those guys cheating in V8 Supercars and Formula One and WRC and Formula Ford and GT racing and Le Mans and...
Do I REALLY need to continue ?
Explain WHY is it cheating.
One car is designed to be able to pull from 1000 revs with the clutch out the other is designed to have the driver use the clutch to pull from speeds matching 1000 revs. WHY is that "cheating".
BTW, you haven't really considered my comments to you about how much you slip the clutch to get to a speed. As I already said it's more than 5mph

Did you really read my post? ITS A TEST, IN THE TEST IT WOULD BE CHEATING, not in any other situation. The point of the test was to see low end power, sliping the clitch would be cheating in the test.

You're confused again by the bias and the lack of experience and exposure to cars DESIGNED to operate that way.
The test shows low end power, exactly. If the driver isn't allowed to slip the clutch AS DESIGNED FOR THOSE SPEEDS then the test shows nothing related to actual performance of the car !!

Your making this harder than it really is. Its very simple, the car with the better low end power(that does include gearing) to weight ratio will accelerate faster.

BTW yo overread this


It seems you still have it backwards, that 20% formula, like mention earlier is biased toward the higher revving engines.
For example, lets say an engine makes its peak torque at 20K RPMs (were going to use torque because that’s actually the force an engine makes, hp is just a calculation like you know.) By your 20% that engine has more “usable” power then the Elise’s engine, which is not the case, being you have to rev to 20K+ to get to that peak TQ. Again usable = convenient, having to rev higher is less convienent and you have to compensate with gearing, loosing gas mileage and top speed.

[Matra et Alpine]

Yes, this is ultimatecarpage, not biasedcarpage, or hateamericacarpage, although it could be named that easily.
Look up usable :
1. That can be used: usable byproducts.
2. Fit for use; convenient to use, usable spare parts.

You tried that before Slicks, tryign to get so bfuddled in intepretation of myopic details that you forget the purpose of what was beign discussed.
We were talking performanc ecars and performance engine and the power band of the LS1 versus the Toyota.
Poo show trying to AGAIN hide the error in your thinking by quoteing a diciotnary and highlightinh ONE of the explanations.
Funny you skimmed over "fit for use" in that and jumped on the one to support your lost cause,
ANd actually NONE of those fit cars as they don't reflect cars.
Pathetic if you're having to try that escape route Slicks.
The FACT is the Toyota had a wider power band adn the FACT is that clutches and gears are there to be used and you keep ignoring it.
So you're best to GO TO THE TRACk, PLEASE and then you'll understand.

It seems that cultural differences have alot of things to do here. It seems you see the Z06 and Viper as "low revving(or maybe granny revving)" cars, and the Elise as standard. But compared to an F1 car, the Elise is a "granny revving car." But undoubtably, the Elise has a more usable powerband than F1 cars, being that they are very peaky.

Avoiding the issue by trying to argue an irrelevant interpretation YOU make !
What yuou forget is that a decent driver will use the clutch on the Vipers and Corvettes to get their maximum performance out.
BUT anyone who drives a car from 5mph in a trial that measures the performanne of a CAR is a fool not to use the clutch !!
As you said it measures the low end torque of an ENGINE and nothing else. As it excludes the use of the clutch then it's not testing the complete solution as designed. So it's as well jsut being a bench test of the engine !!
See you cite 'bias' again SLicks and the difference is I know the benefit - remember it was ME that pointed out you should be commenting on the AMOUNT of torque at the low revs - and you only know the bias because you don't know the other side of the coin and just keep repeating the same stuck record.
Actually since going V10 and coated cylinders the modern F1 has about a 6-8K power band ( and yes I mean TORQUE band when we've been taling here ) so well better than the Elise. Why do you think F1 are 'peaky' ?
That's another ERRO, SLicks. Go chekc them out and apply the 20% rule and get some facts to back your foollish comment up or come and admit the error of BSing.

Did you really read my post? ITS A TEST, IN THE TEST IT WOULD BE CHEATING, not in any other situation. The point of the test was to see low end power, sliping the clitch would be cheating in the test.

WHAT are you testing ? YOU called it the 5-50mph test. IF it is a test of 5-60 and you are using it to judge performance then it is WRONG to NTO allow clutch. THINK ABOUT IT !!
As it is, if it's NOT allowed to slip the clutch then it is actually NO DIFFERENT from a static bench test of torque and pointless. I hold by what I said at the beginning it's onlya cited 'test' because (1) bias to favour low end torque cars and (2) the magazine can't afford to risk testing the launch.
Either way it is STILL not an actual test of 5-60 it is a test of 5-60 with a deliberate restriction to punish low torque at low rev cars.
Hence NOT a realistic test giving anything appliacabel to performacne driving.
Hence my "granny" comments. Grannies go round in high gears and not chaning gears and want ti to pull with no effort. Did you not understand that ?

Your making this harder than it really is. Its very simple, the car with the better low end power(that does include gearing) to weight ratio will accelerate faster.

If you add "include gearing" WHY do you not "include clutch" ?
That's some serious bias on the test is it not ?
Not really any form of fair comparison, is it ??
Clearly it's NOT. Why include the engine, gearbox, prop, diff, driveshaft and whell and leave out ONE component of the drivetrain ? Now THAT is suspect. Any reasons WHY ?

BTW yo overread this

It seems you still have it backwards, that 20% formula, like mention earlier is biased toward the higher revving engines.
For example, lets say an engine makes its peak torque at 20K RPMs (were going to use torque because that’s actually the force an engine makes, hp is just a calculation like you know.) By your 20% that engine has more “usable” power then the Elise’s engine, which is not the case, being you have to rev to 20K+ to get to that peak TQ. Again usable = convenient, having to rev higher is less convienent and you have to compensate with gearing, loosing gas mileage and top speed.

nope.
Maybe you need to read my psots again - oh dear we're there again
HOW THE HELL is it biased other than it makes them "win" ?
See Slicsk, you consider anything that disproves your (wrong) beliefs as bias and dont' apply the same to anything else. That is the definition of a biased view !!
Let me repeat and THIS TIME PLEASE READ IT -- the 20% gives the driver little difference between the variation in the torque they are trying to control at the wheels. The wider that torque can be within those limits then the more scope the driver has of remaining in the right gears over the more complex sequences on road and track. OK ? So 20% is relevant.
You AGAIN go ON an ON and ON about revving high.
So let me repeat THAT. It does not matter how much you have to rev an engine as long as you are revving it within it's design constraints. YOU dont' liek revving and that measn you'd sstruggle to drive a revvy car fast. It's is YOUR PROBLEM SLicks, nobody elses. Funnily enough, I have no problem running a low revving car and a high reving bike on the same day. one does NOT preclude the other

"having to rev high is less conventient"
Read that again SLicks.
Do you realy, REALLY believe that ?
Do you see how stupid it sounds ???
Do you want to reconsider that ?
What is inconvenient is having to change gear. Having a wide power band by whatever method it's provided measn less gear change and less convenience. So the car with the wider power/torque band ( and it was the torque band I asked you to compare ) is the MORE convenient car. I'm happy to accept the minor hassle of a wee bit more clutch slip to start but hey the driver is ALERADY slipping it anyway.

Let me summarise for you Slicsk. You don't like and don't understand high revving engines, their desig or their maintenance. BECAUSE of that you are trying to through anything you can guess and make up to support your errant belief that a revvy engien must have less usable torque. You're wrong and have shown up some pretty poor thinking in this post of reasons why. Hopefully my further explanatino and clarification are helping you to open your eyes to realise the benefits and be in a better position to make a more informed choice when you can afford to move cars.