Any one know what this is?
Any one know what this is?
120 per liter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar
Crank or wheel?
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
Riiiiiight....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit07
Welcome to National...er, Majors racing, dood...Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
lol!Quote:
Originally Posted by greg amy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
Would that be crank for NA cars and wheel for turbos? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit07
Terry
All kidding aside, the "target" , which is just an assumption is crank. ie 2.5 BMW makes roughly 255 WHP. 2.5(120)=300, 300(.85)=255.
Funny, that doesn't jibe with the the target power to weight rato of 9-10lbs/hp because then the car would have to weight 2550lbs to get to 10:1.
The new TIR to weight chart and tire size limits really slowed Hoover down, he just set a new lap record this weekend:
http://www.mylaps.com/results/showla...rclass=0&pos=1
The only option it to go turbo or go home....
Excuse me but where did you come up with 9-10:1?
Looking at those results I see new TR's in all the classes. The evidence provided would indicate that the track was fast .
Simple math that's in the GCR:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
My colleague had the power value as wheel in that calculation.
no dog in the hunt, but no, he didn't use whp. he used 120 hp/l which you just stated was the estimated chp/l for STU. you assume a 15% driveline loss and you could just as easily have said 102 whp/l (120*0.85).
weight to wheel hp numbers following Greg's math (which is correct):
120hp/liter x 0.85 x 1 liter/1000cc x cc/1.1# = .093 hp/#, or 10.75 #/hp
And FWIW, 102whp/l is much more in line with STL, I don'thave a clue what one might actually see in STU
Be careful: "he" made that post in January of 2011, which may have been prior to "his" inclusion on the STAC. Or damned close, so a newbie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
- Him, who is enjoying this discussion, especially in light of a lot of IT guys Jonesin' to get their category into the National racing program..."be careful what you ask for..."
doesn't change the math. what "he" calculated in 2011 matches what the cat killer quoted as expected chp/l. I was simply pointing out that chris' assertion about the math was incorrect based on his earlier posts, dated 2013.
and THIS IT guy might think the options presented by ST look like fun but this IT guy has NO desire to see IT made into a "national" class.
I think the only reason any of 'us' would want IT in the National program is if it was managed the way it is now...by the Ops Manual. If it was to take the typical 'Prod Style' or now 'ST style' comp adjustments, I don't know anyone who would want the CRB screwing it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Granted that there were other records broken that weekend, but not in all classes. But, the STU record was set exactly a year ago by the same car and driver. So, if the reset weight to TIR chart was used, and he still broke the record, it would indicate that the same gap between turbo and naturally aspirated cars at the runoffs still exits as the N/A car's hadn't and anything done to speed them up.
A lot of the new lap records that weekend were in new classes, or classes that had been sped up. T1 and T2 are now both faster classes, and T4 and BS didn't exist a year ago. As for STU:Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar
Jan. 22, 2011 Hoover set the STU track at AAA Speedway at 1:53.897
Jan. 22, 2012 he reset the STU record with a 1:50.115
Jan. 27, 2013 he reset it again, at 1:48.792
Looks like those STU turbo car adjustments are working. :017:
Gee funny how that worked out, ain't it? Welcome to the world of Super Turbo Under. Hate to say I told ya so, but.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Chaos
That's why the Prof left STU and is now rolling EP :023:Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac36
Yes , I would say its why a lot of folks are heading to the fine folks at NASA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar
Unfortunately, that's not much of an option down here, and the EP boys are not too excited about having a huge sedan run amongst them, so I'm sort of stuck here in the new turbo wonder class.
The irony of this is I have our 2011 mazdaspeed 3 in mothballs, simply because I thought the turbo was no real match for a well prepped atmo car. I may have to get it out and re-evaluate!
Joe, wasn't it making like 9,000,000lb of torque before you blew the intake manifold off it?
I'll let you buy the 240SX for a steal. turbo is easysauce with SR20, and the car will be equipped with Moton goodness next week...
Matt, you is exactly correct, Kingfish! And that was with a 37 mm restrictor. Tell the fine folks how fast that car is out of the corners.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt93SE