You could be going 3 mph in that picture.Originally Posted by Fleet 500
You could be going 3 mph in that picture.Originally Posted by Fleet 500
Rockefella says:
pat's sister is hawt
David Fiset says:
so is mine
David Fiset says:
do want
I could have, but wasn't. Again, you can tell by comparing the front wheelwells and the tire when comparing the bottom (standing still) photo and the cornering one that the car was not turning slowly.Originally Posted by Rockefella
I was turning onto a sidestreet and going downhill at the same time, so a lot of speed wasn't necessary compared to a flat street with a gradual turn. I was going 15-20 mph in the top photo.
As stated, I will get some better shots (especially cornering with a front view).
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Turn at 35-40 mph and show me those pics. 15 isn't much, hell, thats like 1/2 of the speed limit on most residential roads in NJ.Originally Posted by Fleet 500
Rockefella says:
pat's sister is hawt
David Fiset says:
so is mine
David Fiset says:
do want
It was too tight of a corner to turn at that speed and there is also a dip in it. It was on a residential street where the speed limit is 25 mph.Originally Posted by Rockefella
Stay tuned... I will take some better pics.
Besides, I already have posted pics of Cadillacs cornering:
(Like this '61.)
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Point proven, thanks FleetOriginally Posted by Fleet 500
"A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'
torque is, but it also depends on hwere it is in the rev band and the shape of the curveOriginally Posted by Godlaus
horsepower gives a useful measurement only in the strictly theoretical sense and thats only if you have all the data for drag on hte car, the instantaneous torque figure gives you a good idea of how fast you're going to be accelerating but again only if you have info on the drag of the car
if you're looking at the engine itself however horsepower really means nothing cuz while 200 horsepower might mean 120mph in a honda civic you stick the same thing in a dodge ram and it might struggle to pass 80, torque on hte other hand assuming same ratios will be the same, acceleration will differ depending on the mass, but since most cars built for the raod differ only by a few hundred kilograms at most (excluding suvs trucks and stripped down versions) it seems that torque will be the more "useful" figure since many cars will have different drag coefficients and frontal areas which differe by much more (percentage wise)
this is a pretty pointless argument because you're comparing the effects of 2 variables on a car which has hundreds of variables and that's just talking about strait line performance, then you get subjective ratings like how much of that gut turning feeling u get, or how much wheelspin, or power delivery or how smooth the transitions are ect.
so in conclusion the best way to figure out which car is the "best" for you is to just drive them all and decide
No, you misunderstand. I certainly could have went faster.Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
If I went faster, it wouldn't have leaned much more than it was, but the tires would have been scrubing more and maybe squealing. There was no point of going faster since I got the picture I was after. (But I am still going to get a photo taken from the front to better see the handling.)
The street I was on was going downhill and "crowned"- meaning it actually tips a little toward the downslope. I saw no reason to accelerate a lot when I was already going downhill... I mean, would you?
If you were a passenger in my '69, you would be surprised at how easy it corners, and how little lean. I found that out when I first drove my parent's '69 Coupe de Ville. I could take corners much faster than I would have guessed and quite flat, too.
Last edited by Fleet 500; 06-11-2005 at 08:14 PM.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Yeah, whats the big deal?Originally Posted by ZemoButts
People nowadays want brake horsepower to accelerate.
This is where my respect for you is born Fleet.Originally Posted by Fleet 500
See you give us FACTS - it's a shame they just prove the opposite of what you are trygin to say.
You SAID "It was too tight of a corner to turn at that speed".
So BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT you coudlnt' have cornered faster because it was too tight
SO by what magic are you abel to go faster NOW ??????
"A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'
To explain further... it was too tight a corner to go through without really grinding and squealing the tires. I saw no need to do that because it was unnecessary. It is possible to show a car's handling/leaning without high speeds unless it's out on an open road with gradual curves- then a speed of 50 or 60 mph would be appropriate, but not on a relatively skinny residential street!Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
Again, stay tuned- I thought of some streets I can drive on next time where the car's handling ability can be better demonstrated. I'll post it on a separate thread.
BTW, the handling pics taken were pretty much a last-minute thought. I originally sought out to take burning rubber photos:
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
leaning isnt really a good measurement for cornering ability, most people think you should run a really really hard suspension to corner well, while this is true ... if you're on level ground thats completely flat and well maintained its not neccesarily true for the road, and not even close to true for rallyin or anything off road, you want the wheel to go over the bump quickly and smoothly with as little "after shock" (i dont know a better term) as possible, and this means running the softest suspension allowed under those conditionsOriginally Posted by Fleet 500
even if a car leans alot if the camber angles are right then the tyres will be level and maximize grip (obviously not as good as a completely level car with level tyres but thats never gonna happen)
i hope ur jokin since horsepower doesnt have anything to do with accelrationOriginally Posted by Cadillac Imaj
and brake horsepower has even less to do with acceleration cuz it aint even horsepower at the wheels, u have no data for drivetrain loss
As you said, too hard a susupension will make the car jump and bounce over bumps.Originally Posted by KnifeEdge_2K1
True also about leaning. I've seen pics of good handling cars leaning moderately and poor handling cars with the same amount of lean.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
I believe the equation for instantaneous acceleration from power for any given velocity is:Originally Posted by KnifeEdge_2K1
Where:
v = velocity
t = time
P = power
k = drag coefficent
Although I have seen this equation in the past I was too lazy to derive it myself so instead I found it here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...0&page=2&pp=15
When looking at a vehicle’s performance torque by itself it not useful. Torque is only useful if one knows not only engine speed but also the vehicle’s gear ratios. As well, torque at the engine means little as it can be multiplied nearly indefinitely by gearing.
That is not to say that torque does not have it’s uses, but it is not the single greatest measure of vehicle performance.
Nor is there any data on torque losses through the drivetrain.Originally Posted by KnifeEdge_2K1
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
My 535i makes 300Nm from about 2000rpm, plenty enough to move <1400Kg.
The M3 inline 6 makes 80% of it's 365Nm within a 6000rpm band, exceptional for a 3.2L motor (100Nm/L is pretty good for a NA engine), and a good reason why it was voted performance engine of the year more than once.
I'm a bit confused as to why BMW is singled out as torque lacking...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)