# Lightweight stage 4 v stage 5



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Just a idea .Thinking of putting the car on a diet - my thinking is could you get the same performance out of a lighter stage 4 car than a stage 5 car ? at the same sort of cost - was looking at

Tillet seats
Race battery
remove rear seats
titan exhaust
ceramic brakes would be ideal but cost rules them out 
any other ideas ?


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

If it's roughly the same cost why put yourself through the Agro of a race battery, really uncomfortable seats and lose the option to take passengers......... if of course you take passengers now that is.

Keep the car full fat and A tiny bit more practical


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Think you will be surprised how comfortable they are ( with pads ) the oem seats arnt great imo - have a race battery in my kit car been fine for 5 years - thinking of selling the kit car and using the gtr on track days , i may be wrong but am thinking making it lighter will be easier on the car as well - and a capped stage 5 car is not much quicker than a stage 4 from the times i have seen posted


----------



## nick the tubman (Jun 28, 2006)

not worth it IMO. at best you might save 50kgs.
the back seats weigh next to nothing, so no vantage there..
the original TP version, even went as far as removing some of the soundproofing, which made it horrendous on the road to drive and that only saved 40kgs.

to make the car significantly lighter, in order feel the full effect, you would need to lose 100kgs at least and that is not going to happen without major surgery and shed load of cash been thrown at it......

to be lighter on tyres, brakes, etc you would need to lose about 700kgs ! lol


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

nick the tubman said:


> not worth it IMO. at best you might save 50kgs.
> the back seats weigh next to nothing, so no vantage there..
> the original TP version, even went as far as removing some of the soundproofing, which made it horrendous on the road to drive and that only saved 40kgs.
> 
> ...


Thanks Nick

Do you not think you would lose 100kgs with the front seats battery and titan exhaust - 100kgs was what i was hoping for


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

There's nearly nothing between a full fat 4.25 car and a stage 5 car, it's when the cars start stretching their legs you notice the difference over 100mph, on tight roads and tracks you'll notice little difference


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

I've had both and the stage 5 are animals compared to stage 4 cars if for example they were both same cars and done by the same tuners for example Litchfields. The stage 5 have a much more stronger torque delivery in my opinion and stronger midrange power. The EFR Turbos make a lot of difference if fitted in conjunction with the Dominator Intercooler.... Game over massive difference, the only time it may come close to speed and power delivery is around a track but on the straight it's goodnight and see you in the morning.... Lol


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

The SICOM ccm brake kit claims it is 55kg lighter than the OEM steel Brembo set up, costs about £10k and you would be able to recoup some of that back by selling your current set to the Skyline boys.


----------



## Evo9lution (Aug 24, 2013)

Takamo said:


> Game over massive difference, the only time it may come close to speed and power delivery is around a track *but on the straight it's goodnight and see you in the morning*.... Lol


But that's boring.

You could probably buy some ZR1 CCX discs or some Surface Transform CCX discs for standard calipers (£4-6k?) and then buy some super-lightweight forged alloys for another £4-5k (possibly additional £1k for new tyres). Wouldn't affect comfort while increasing agility, acceleration and braking but costs a huge chunk of the difference between a Stage 4.25 & a Stage 5 anyway.

Personally, I'd prefer the discs and wheels option ...


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

CC brakes are just to costly for me - i am hoping there is around 100kgs in the front seats and swapping to a titan exhaust plus a race dry cell battery - am guessing MPSS are quite a bit lighter than the runflats as well - not sure you will gain much with different wheels ? cost v gain


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

Didn't "Vernonjones" go through this once upon a time? I'm sure there's a thread on it somewhere.

My memory was lots of cost and loss of practicality for very little reduction in weight.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

http://www.gtr.co.uk/#/topics/238682?page=1&_k=ygpa8k


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

borat52 said:


> Didn't "Vernonjones" go through this once upon a time? I'm sure there's a thread on it somewhere.
> 
> My memory was lots of cost and loss of practicality for very little reduction in weight.


Yes i did read that thread - but that did seem like a extreme money no object build - i was looking at a max £5k budget - just an idea and wondered what peoples thoughts were weight saving or stage 5


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

Financially saving weight doesn't add up compared to adding turbos and an intercooler.


----------



## Evo9lution (Aug 24, 2013)

Anyone know the weight of OEM rims and the weight of 20" Volk Racing G25 or G27s etc.?


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

may not mean much - power to weight i used 1800kgs

650hp at 1800kgs = 361

650hp at 1700kgs = 382

700hp at 1800kgs = 388


----------



## Evo9lution (Aug 24, 2013)

terry lloyd said:


> may not mean much - power to weight i used 1800kgs
> 
> 650hp at 1800kgs = 361
> 
> ...


Torque will be more relevant ...


----------



## Tin (Aug 15, 2010)

Evo9lution said:


> Anyone know the weight of OEM rims and the weight of 20" Volk Racing G25 or G27s etc.?


Think I have some pics somewhere.. but the G25 weights are

10.3kg front 20x10
10.7kg rears 20x11

OEMs

11.9kg front
12.1kg rears


----------



## nick the tubman (Jun 28, 2006)

terry lloyd said:


> Thanks Nick
> 
> Do you not think you would lose 100kgs with the front seats battery and titan exhaust - 100kgs was what i was hoping for


I know the seats and motors weigh a quite a bit, but you gotta put some back in, with mounts etc...
maybe you might get closer to 70 kilos with both seats, battery and exhaust. 

add in carbon boot lid, carbon rear spoiler, carbon bonnet might help to lose another 20-30kgs. so maybe 100kgs is possible

but, is that enough for track work ? 
its the equivalent of losing a passenger I suppose, but I don't think you would notice it on most tracks...

I like the idea of forged wheels, lighter brakes and connecting arms etc..
but you would be well over £10k I would suspect. so not an option.


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

Lightest battery are the Lithium race battery but they are very expensive.


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

When ever anyone i know seems to put there race car on a diet,there weight loss goals are normally half of what they hoped they would loose,im thinking the stage 5 car would be the better option.particularly for track use.just my opinion 

interesting thread with interesting views,

£2.500 for a brail race battery could loose you 30-40 lbs


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

I was not looking at that sort of priced battery - more in the lines of a i think they called varley/odyssey red top around £150 I have one to try its about half the weight of the gtr one 

if I am honest i was looking at doing it with second hand parts and think i could lose @ 100kgs for £1500- £2k


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

terry lloyd said:


> if I am honest i was looking at doing it with second hand parts and think i could lose @ 100kgs for £1500- £2k


If could pull that off then I think it would be a very good improvement as long as the weight reduction left the car balanced (which it would with seats / exhaust). 

Potentially you could also relocate the battery, it's about as high in the car as possible, moving it into the rear seat footwell would be the best placement I'd have thought, every little helps.

Besides improving the power weight you'd also be gaining a meaningful reduction in brake / tyre wear and engine / gearbox temps. Taking 5% will make a noticeable difference to wear I think.


----------



## Evo9lution (Aug 24, 2013)

Really think that you'll struggle to get a 100kg weight saving with what you're planning. To get that, you pretty much have to remove 150kgs and put items that only weigh a third as much back in (the rear seats weight virtually nothing ...) and I'm not sure that is possible; especially at the amount that you're looking to spend. I don't even think that the CF bonnet and boot lids weigh much less than OEM (unless going pre-preg but that will cost ...).

Happy to be proven wrong though!!!

Don't the Tillet seats cost about £2k each?


----------



## Chronos (Dec 2, 2013)

terry lloyd said:


> may not mean much - power to weight i used 1800kgs
> 650hp at 1800kgs = 361
> 650hp at 1700kgs = 382
> 700hp at 1800kgs = 388


Remember this below? I had my stage 4.25 ; R35 weighed in 2015 just for fun!, results below..

Rather than stripping parts out and saving a few KG, probably best just to throw more BHP/Turbos at it! aka stage 5+

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/354169-h...-r35-gt-r-weigh-i-went-find-out-pictures.html


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Evo9lution said:


> Really think that you'll struggle to get a 100kg weight saving with what you're planning. To get that, you pretty much have to remove 150kgs and put items that only weigh a third as much back in (the rear seats weight virtually nothing ...) and I'm not sure that is possible; especially at the amount that you're looking to spend. I don't even think that the CF bonnet and boot lids weigh much less than OEM (unless going pre-preg but that will cost ...).
> 
> Happy to be proven wrong though!!!
> 
> Don't the Tillet seats cost about £2k each?


I agree with the panel weights not being much different so not going down that route - tillet seats i have seen go for @ £600 second hand a pair @ £700 each new - i have just bought a set of new jk composite seats for £305 sounds cheap but they are v/ good quality not carbon obviously and only weigh 3.5kg each
An guessing stock seats 50kgs+ the pair
sevens bucket seats, lotus seven kit car seats

Exhaust we all know they weigh a tonne compared to titan ones
Battery / wheel nuts and whatever else i can trim down i think i could get close to my goal


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Chronos said:


> Remember this below? I had my stage 4.25 ; R35 weighed in 2015 just for fun!, results below..
> 
> Rather than stripping parts out and saving a few KG, probably best just to throw more BHP/Turbos at it! aka stage 5+
> 
> http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/354169-h...-r35-gt-r-weigh-i-went-find-out-pictures.html


Cutting weight should help keep it reliable compared to big hp - thats my thinking - plus the fact it will be a lot cheaper


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

Chronos said:


> Remember this below? I had my stage 4.25 ; R35 weighed in 2015 just for fun!, results below..
> 
> Rather than stripping parts out and saving a few KG, probably best just to throw more BHP/Turbos at it! aka stage 5+
> 
> http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/354169-h...-r35-gt-r-weigh-i-went-find-out-pictures.html


WOW i knew they were heavy,but how impressive is it that they are so ****in fast at that weight.awesome cars.


----------



## Chronos (Dec 2, 2013)

terry lloyd said:


> may not mean much - power to weight i used 1800kgs
> 
> 650hp at 1800kgs = 361
> 
> ...





55chev said:


> WOW i knew they were heavy,but how impressive is it that they are so ****in fast at that weight.awesome cars.


Always reminds me of this, from the GTR Grand Master! *Kazutoshi Mizuno - "Anyone who tells me a good car is one that is light with high power to weight ratio is an amateur." - Kazutoshi Mizuno"* GTR Documentary - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9faC-XExtc


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

He Lied - run 100 meters time it - then grab a 50kg weight and do it again i bet your slower


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

He says a good car, doesn't say the fastest.. just so happens the GTR Is both so the 50kg comparison is void lol

You'll end up making a sacrifice somewhere lightening it.


----------



## Chronos (Dec 2, 2013)

terry lloyd said:


> He Lied - run 100 meters time it - then grab a 50kg weight and do it again i bet your slower


50kg, No. It appears it's Aerodynamics with an R35? 50/100kg here or there, I dont think would make a difference.

Obviously at a certain level of weight loss vs speed, weight loss would make a difference, Can't say I've noticed power/speed loss with just x1 passenger next to me. and that's probably 70+kg of human being.


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

I recently done a evo how fast day at bedford ( passenger ) my friend could only lap at 1.27.something with me in the car and 1.25.something without me @ 1.5seconds quicker i am 14 stone this is what started me thinking


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

terry lloyd said:


> He Lied - run 100 meters time it - then grab a 50kg weight and do it again i bet your slower


Stick a rocket up your backside and you'll go faster:runaway:

That's the turbo equivalent, lol.


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Start by looking at your diet then poppet and the money you save on food and snacks you can put towards your stage 5 :lol: *running away now*


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Stealth69 said:


> Start by looking at your diet then poppet and the money you save on food and snacks you can put towards your stage 5 :lol: *running away now*


You [email protected] lol


----------



## kindai (Feb 8, 2016)

terry lloyd said:


> I recently done a evo how fast day at bedford ( passenger ) my friend could only lap at 1.27.something with me in the car and 1.25.something without me @ 1.5seconds quicker i am 14 stone this is what started me thinking


He was probably being more cautious as he had a passenger, even if subconsciously. I know I drive day and light difference depending on whos in the car, if there's someone else I'm responsible for I simply won't push the car as hard as if I'm on my own.


----------



## Trevgtr (Dec 24, 2012)

Chronos said:


> Can't say I've noticed power/speed loss with just x1 passenger next to me. and that's probably 70+kg of human being.


Same here, I sometimes have 2 passengers, approx 22 stone (whatever that is in french) and I honestly don't notice any difference in performance at all.


----------



## HUGHS1E (Jan 20, 2015)

I think you will probably find he was 1.5seconds faster with you out the car because when you were in it he was over driving it trying to impress you or losing some concentration just because you were there. 

If your trying to make it more reliable/gentle on the car then spending 5k on it putting it on a diet is pointless. Any benefits would be erased with a passenger. 

Losing 14stone out of an already light car will be more noticeable because due to the lighter weight it will be more sensible to change but a gtr is near 2 tonne.

If you want it faster across a lap, its better with brakes/aero. Reliability your better with a gearbox cooler and improving cooling


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

I am guessing but over a timed distance i am sure you would see a difference 

It could be a complete waste of time . that is why i am asking for opinions , i was always brought up with lighter is better when making something go quicker


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Great thread!

Terry, I think you should go for it, if only to break from the norm.

Re:mizuno, surely worth pointing out that the guy was forced out!


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Exactly why you shouldn't go for it, it's a waste of your time and money..... over a timed drag a stage 5 will just pip you, at the end of the day it still has the same laws of physics to contend with as your full fat car. 

Over a 1 mile drag or vmax you'll certain lose out as the stage 5 turbos just don't run out of puff. You have to remember that the stage 5 car will still have a torque cap in place. 

I suspect the lighter car will make it around a tight track a tiny bit quicker but that's about it. 

I think


----------



## HUGHS1E (Jan 20, 2015)

A nismo will be a faster car due to its increased balanced aero rather than its weight saving. 

A stage 5 with capped torque will be a completely different car to one with uncapped torque so it also depends on that.

100kg is nothing on a 1800kg car. If the car was 1000kg then it will make a difference. 

You will always gain more time on track with braking and corner speed. A 1700kg car will not drastically improve this over a 1800kg. 

Tires, pressures, cooling, brakes, aero will play a much bigger part plus driver technique. 

If a pro driver was in a stock gtr they would be faster than me in a stage5 which says more about the driver than the car.

For weight to be a big benefit it has to be a big weight saving and on a car with big power it has to be even more


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

HUGHS1E said:


> A stage 5 with capped torque will be a completely different car to one with uncapped torque so it also depends on that.


Wel obviously but that's not the dilemma at hand! The OP wants to know if a lightened 4.25 will outpace a stage 5 as he's caught between lightening or upgrading, his engine will still be capped as it's not built from what I gather. 

So full fat stage 5 is always going to outrun a light stage 4.25.


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

Yes a lighter stage 4 could do it, although the amount of weight you would have to remove just wouldn't make it cost effective. 

Try it and see what happens, I'm sceptical but proove me wrong! 

Re the extra passenger, some track drivers have told me that they are quicker with a passenger because it balances the weight distribution. Although later GTRs are supposed to have allowances for this in their stock suspension set up.


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

vxrcymru said:


> Yes a lighter stage 4 could do it, although the amount of weight you would have to remove just wouldn't make it cost effective.
> 
> Try it and see what happens, I'm sceptical but proove me wrong!
> 
> Re the extra passenger, some track drivers have told me that they are quicker with a passenger because it balances the weight distribution. Although later GTRs are supposed to have allowances for this in their stock suspension set up.


Easy to sort that out if you have coilovers fitted, corner weight it with the driver in and adjust the spring platforms to give equal front weights.


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

barry P. said:


> Easy to sort that out if you have coilovers fitted, corner weight it with the driver in and adjust the spring platforms to give equal front weights.


Or fit one of these

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/461409-s...settings-launch-control-performance-read.html

Barry what is your take on losing 100kg / passenger guessing you would have more experience than most on track

i am leaning to 100kg may not be enough to notice in a Gtr, if it was 150-200kg you would probably see a good improvement 

Thanks for all the views makes a interesting read if nothing else :thumbsup:


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

On a GTR my view is that it will need at least 200kg to be taken out to make much difference, you would see 100kg out on the stopwatch on a circuit but for "normal" driving it would not really be worth the effort or loss of comfort in the seats to get rid of 100kg. It's quite interesting how much race teams strive to lose weight on the race cars, when I was working on the F4 cars we would measure the fuel to ensure we only finished the race 1.5-2kg over the weight limit, but I've won races in single seaters where I weighed nearly 100kg and other drivers in the same race weighed 60kg!


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Thanks Barry


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

Run it with just enough fuel for what you want to do, petrol weighs 0.73 kg per ltr so instead of running full 74 ltrs just put enough in for your session.


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

Where would the weight savings come from, at a guess?

Race seats saving 30kg - 3k
Lightweight wheels saving 10kg -3k
Lightweight battery saving 5kg - 300
CC Breaks saving 30kg - 10k
Ti exhaust saving 15kg - 3k
Lightweight Carbon bonnet, wings, doors and roof saving 30kg -12k 
Coilovers saving 10kg - 3k

Total weight saved 130kg.. for a cost of some 34k


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

vxrcymru said:


> Where would the savings come from, at a guess?
> 
> Race seats saving 30kg
> Lightweight wheels saving 10kg
> ...


But if your doing it for track work you would prob add , cage/1/2 cage, Harness', aero, trans cooler brake cooling.
My mates 911 has £10,000's of carbon on it yet weighs allmost exactly the same a s stock 911 Turbo because it has cage, fire system, big turbos, bigger intercoolers etc


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

No he's doing it to go faster than a full weight stage 5. If both are track cars then both would have a cage etc so still a comparable difference. 

For your mate at least he has reassurance of a cage if he rolls it. Imagine what it would weigh if he hadn't fitted the carbon..


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

TBH if your not going to drop 4-500kg I would not compromise the overall driveability and comfort just add more power, most of my laps are with a passenger so whats the point.


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

Yes that's my view, but the OP wanted to discuss the weigh issue.


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

HUGHS1E said:


> A nismo will be a faster car due to its increased balanced aero rather than its weight saving.
> 
> A stage 5 with capped torque will be a completely different car to one with uncapped torque so it also depends on that.
> 
> ...


So true!!!


I take it you've already got upgraded brakes and suspension terry lloyd????


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

vxrcymru said:


> Yes that's my view, but the OP wanted to discuss the weigh issue.


Its not worth discussing a 100kg weight loss in a 1800kg car, if my Mrs drives mine with a 1/4 tank fuel its prob almost 100kg lighter than if I drive it full up. He also didnt say he was comparing to a stock weight stage 5 so if we compare a like for like 4.25 vs 5 the 5 will always win, if it has too much power for conditions turn the boost down, best of both worlds, ive driven many track days with radicals and caterhams and even 2 up not struggled, im not the quickest (52 secs Brands Indy) but I cant out drive the stock suspension and weight and my mate who has been racing for the last 30 years said he couldn't believe how the car handled on track and felt so light and when you see a video of one full weight keeping up with a McLaren 675LT and its in RWD with no TC I jst dont see the point of spending 1000's to lose a little weight that will barely notice.


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Ok i see vxr and dude are at stage 5 - what do you think the difference would be in car lengths between a capped stage 5 car with a 100kg passenger and a 4.25 without one from 0-130mph i know launch and traction come into it but in layman terms- i am guessing the 4.25 would pull away at first ?

55CHEV I have big brakes fitted 405mm p/f with 01 race pads, stock suspension


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

dudersvr said:


> I cant out drive the stock suspension and weight and my mate who has been racing for the last 30 years said he couldn't believe how the car handled on track and felt so light and when you see a video of one full weight keeping up with a McLaren 675LT and its in RWD with no TC I jst dont see the point of spending 1000's to lose a little weight that will barely notice.


One of the plus points of driving at the Dunsfold Supercar Charity Day is showing some of the stuck up Supercar owners how quick a full fat GTR is on track :clap:
I'm just waiting for dudesvr post above to be picked up by somebody on Maclife and all hell breaking loose :flame:, the Mac drivers will all claim they were on slowing down laps


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

barry P. said:


> One of the plus points of driving at the Dunsfold Supercar Charity Day is showing some of the stuck up Supercar owners how quick a full fat GTR is on track :clap:
> I'm just waiting for dudesvr post above to be picked up by somebody on Maclife and all hell breaking loose :flame:, the Mac drivers will all claim they were on slowing down laps


Not for 9 mins he wasnt LOL


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

terry lloyd said:


> Ok i see vxr and dude are at stage 5 - what do you think the difference would be in car lengths between a capped stage 5 car with a 100kg passenger and a 4.25 without one from 0-130mph i know launch and traction come into it but in layman terms- i am guessing the 4.25 would pull away at first ?
> 
> 55CHEV I have big brakes fitted 405mm p/f with 01 race pads, stock suspension


Hardly any difference at all Terry TBH to take advantage you need a forged motor to un cap the torque and up hP a little THEN IF the stage 5 car puts it down (hence im going Linney AWD and PTYS DSC controller) it will be night and day, my torque is capped at 650 and we make roughly 750+ at hi RPM at the moment, when motor is built it will rev higher and run an extra 0.4 bar low down and midrange and more up top


----------



## motors (Mar 14, 2013)

dudersvr said:


> Hardly any difference at all Terry TBH to take advantage you need a forged motor to un cap the torque and up hP a little THEN IF the stage 5 car puts it down (hence im going Linney AWD and PTYS DSC controller) it will be night and day, my torque is capped at 650 and we make roughly 750+ at hi RPM at the moment, when motor is built it will rev higher and run an extra 0.4 bar low down and midrange and more up top


Will be interested to see the results with Linney AWD and PTYS controller. I'm definitely going for the PTYS controller and plan to follow it with the Linney awd controller. It feels a more dynamic solution to resolve understeer and have a comfortable road car


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

barry P. said:


> One of the plus points of driving at the Dunsfold Supercar Charity Day is showing some of the stuck up Supercar owners how quick a full fat GTR is on track :clap:
> I'm just waiting for dudesvr post above to be picked up by somebody on Maclife and all hell breaking loose :flame:, the Mac drivers will all claim they were on slowing down laps


Barry this guy had the Fezza and the 675LT Ill need to dig out the LT clip but heres a 458 speciale getting shown the way round. The 675 clip is 9 mins before the GTR gets past. Its in RWD with no TC on Dunlop runlats


----------



## charles charlie (May 3, 2008)

I did some calcs last year prior to embarking on my engine build.

Reducing sprung weight gets costly, starts making the car too much of a harsh noisy uncomfortable track car, and starts to mess with the suspension to the point where you need proper aftermarket setups to manage the reduced load on the suspension.

For me I just didn't want my car to be any less comfortable than it already is and you'd need significant weight reduction to see any lap by lap differences.

It's just so much easier and predictable to up the power whilst keepin a decent road car.

Reducing unsprung weight by going CCM brakes saves 5kg but also improves steering control and braking efficiency on track. That'd surely improve lap times more than trying to find 100kg of weight savings on the car?


----------



## Mr.B (Feb 18, 2016)

What's quite interesting in the power versus weight saving discussion for GTR's is the Nismo N Attack Package components and the video of the Nismo team setting the Nurburgring lap time. 

NISMO | News Release

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QbSPWYZm28

Although there was some weight saving components selected and better aero added the feedback from the drivers was that the suspension wasn't good enough. I may be wrong but it looks like they spent most of the time improving the suspension to get the gains. My money would be on adding the extra power and ensuring I was putting it down on the track at all times.


----------



## nick the tubman (Jun 28, 2006)

two things to consider here>

1) the guy that designed the car, has said on numerous occasions that its weight helped the car, grip wise. - how true that is, I don't know. 

2) race batteries you are considering are, at best for track days only. the GTR has so many electrical things going on, I am fairly certain it would not hold up in real world conditions.
in my race car I was lucky to get 5 starts out of it, before the jumper pack was required.
and you would need a BIG battery for the GTR - something to do with crank torque and amps etc..IIRC, then loading it up, takes loads out of the battery.

a race battery would never cope in the dark, in the rain, with air con on. it would be dead in minutes. they just don't have the storage capacity - unless you start spending ££££ on one.


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

nick the tubman said:


> two things to consider here>
> 
> 1) the guy that designed the car, has said on numerous occasions that its weight helped the car, grip wise. - how true that is, I don't know.
> 
> ...


I had a voltphreaks Li in my 911 coped just fine, if it dropped to 12v it just switched off, leaving enough to restart the car.


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

terry lloyd said:


> Ok i see vxr and dude are at stage 5 - what do you think the difference would be in car lengths between a capped stage 5 car with a 100kg passenger and a 4.25 without one from 0-130mph i know launch and traction come into it but in layman terms- i am guessing the 4.25 would pull away at first ?
> 
> 55CHEV I have big brakes fitted 405mm p/f with 01 race pads, stock suspension


No idea, never tried but only one way to find out...


----------



## Namor (Mar 17, 2012)

Agree look at what Nismo did for improved lap times, its mainly suspension, aero work & only a bit more power. Isn't the truth that a good lap time requires balance to all 3 aspects so just turning up the power has surprisingly little benefit on lap times. Clearly not true on a drag strip. On the actual N attack cars the most expensive mods were to make diffs more aggressive, which I'm not aware any tuner modifies other than to take more power perhaps and it doesn't save weight. The other obscure change was swapping the metal rear bulkhead for carbon. Again they weren't doing it for cosmetic value but not heard anyone else offering it. I gave to believe they kNew what they were doing.


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

vxrcymru said:


> No idea, never tried but only one way to find out...


not sure the 4.25 would pull even passenger less because the stage 5 will make the torque sooner and hold on to it longer if mapped properly.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

Stealth69 said:


> not sure the 4.25 would pull even passenger less because the stage 5 will make the torque sooner and hold on to it longer if mapped properly.



With a DSG gearbox with reasonable close ratios, as long as you stay in the peak power range between gear changes, torque is largely non relevant when it comes to acceleration. It's all about bhp.

If we're saying 20-150 in 4th then that's when you need torque.


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

the torque is hugely important from a standing start and when you are adding weight in to an equation..... read back!


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Guys, forget the torque versus power conversation.

Scientifically you simply need to be aware that one is a function of the other.

You can accelerate with high torque low power our low torque high power, it's simply a function of gearing. If you have enough gears and can change between them quickly and efficiently you can achieve the acceleration with either.


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Eugh...... for the sake of the argument posed above lightweight 4.25 vs stage 5 with a passenger, torque and the power delivery is VERY MUCH a factor from a standing start.

Yes we know one is the function of the other, given that both cars have the same gearing etc torque is the only real function


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

barry P. said:


> One of the plus points of driving at the Dunsfold Supercar Charity Day is showing some of the stuck up Supercar owners how quick a full fat GTR is on track :clap:
> I'm just waiting for dudesvr post above to be picked up by somebody on Maclife and all hell breaking loose :flame:, the Mac drivers will all claim they were on slowing down laps


Just for you Barry, for when they claim cooling down lap

imOinpNCvR4&feature


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

Another maybe overlooked point,is Value,if you were to go with the lighter weight option i think this would make the car less attractive money wise, if you were to sell the car further down the line,where if it were a stage 5+ plus car i think it would be more attractive and add value.


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

55chev said:


> Another maybe overlooked point,is Value,if you were to go with the lighter weight option i think this would make the car less attractive money wise, if you were to sell the car further down the line,where if it were a stage 5+ plus car i think it would be more attractive and add value.


Like i said i was looking at £1500 v £6k+ fitted and its quite easy to put the seats back it in - not sure a capped stage 5 car commands much of a value increase over a stage 4


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

terry lloyd said:


> Like i said i was looking at £1500 v £6k+ fitted and its quite easy to put the seats back it in - not sure a capped stage 5 car commands much of a value increase over a stage 4


I understand terry,for me personally it would be.but thats just me.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

Personally think a stage 5 car might be slightly harder to sell than a stage 4. Bigger power cars have a smaller audience...IMHO.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

Adamantium said:


> Guys, forget the torque versus power conversation.
> 
> Scientifically you simply need to be aware that one is a function of the other.
> 
> *You can accelerate with high torque low power our low torque high power,* it's simply a function of gearing. If you have enough gears and can change between them quickly and efficiently you can achieve the acceleration with either.


That needs correcting to high torque low rpm or low torque high rpm. Both result in relatively high power.

You absolutely cannot accelerate anything without power regardless of torque. 
If you doubt this take a sealed jar of jam and try to make the lid tighter. Lots of torque and zero power.

Gearing cannot result in a higher power output for a given rpm, assuming no losses it keeps power constant while changing output torque and output rpm.


I still maintain even from launch, as long as you have LC and a DCT low down torque only makes a very marginal difference.

Some of the best drag GTR's have turbo's so big they make nothing below 3.5k rpm, if torque won drag races stock cars would be faster than them.

Power moves mass, period.


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

borat52 said:


> Some of the best drag GTR's have turbo's so big they make nothing below 3.5k rpm, if torque won drag races stock cars would be faster than them.


Not true.... the cars running massive turbos normally have some mad arse anti lag negating the size factor!


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

*Power moves mass, period*.

This should read torque moves mass,as without torque in a heavy car aint good,you could have loads of horsepower but without good torque with a heavy car your gonna struggle,world record setting turbo cars use boost out of the hole in a drag setups,the more boost you can apply out of the hole in the first 330ft is whats gonna get ya the fast E.T,the second half of the track is a moot point on a turbo car.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

55chev said:


> *Power moves mass, period*.
> 
> *This should read torque moves mass,as without torque in a heavy car aint good,you could have loads of horsepower but without good torque with a heavy car your gonna struggle*,


What your saying does not make sense with respect to the physics of accelerating a car, or more broadly accelerating mass.

It doesn't matter if you have a heavy car or a light car you are referring to power not torque when you talk about accelerating any mass.

You cannot calculate acceleration given only an objects mass and a torque figure for either an engine. You can calculate it given mass and power.

I think the confusion arises as both torque and (by definition) power vary across the rev range of an engine and given a car is geared we cannot simply state at x mph the power is y because it depends on what gear you are in.

In terms of equations, to accelerate a mass you need to generate kenetic energy, KE = 1/2MV^2

Energy = power x time

so to generate a given amount of energy we need to have power and time.

If you want to make time as low as possible you must make power as high as possible. 

What has this got to do with torque? 
Well in a rotating engine power is generated as a function of torque x rpm, but you can't actually tell anything meaningful from a given torque number unless you also know the rpm number which is then power.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

Stealth69 said:


> Not true.... the cars running massive turbos normally have some mad arse anti lag negating the size factor!


It's my understanding that the anti lag on turbo drag cars is to enable them to generate boost from an engine which is at constant rpm while stationary (ie about to launch) as without load on the engine it will not generate enough exhaust gasses to generate significant boost even at high RPM.


Given that high spec drag GTR's can easily spin all four wheels off the line, are we really saying here that a relative dead spot in power between 2000-5000rpm in first gear is where they lose the time? Much more to do with getting the power down and getting the launch sequence set up correctly to minimise wheel spin imho. (I have no experience of drag racing, that's just my gut instinct)


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

55chev said:


> *Power moves mass, period*.
> 
> This should read torque moves mass,as without torque in a heavy car aint good,you could have loads of horsepower but without good torque with a heavy car your gonna struggle,world record setting turbo cars use boost out of the hole in a drag setups,the more boost you can apply out of the hole in the first 330ft is whats gonna get ya the fast E.T,the second half of the track is a moot point on a turbo car.


That isnt really true, the big power turbo cars are faster at the top of the track ie if a nitrous car doesnt get away from a turbo car in the first 330/ 660ft its not gonna catch it, simple fact is torque = acceleration (ET) HP = Terminal. In theory if you had a car that was 600hp/600 ft lbs and ran 10 dead at say 130mph, if you increase torque and not hp it would run quicker but still be doing 130mph, if you increase hp and not torque it will run faster but still run a 10 dead. You only need to watch the turbo cars on street outlaws, they make around 2000hp but the nitrous cars give them a run over the 1/8 with less hp cause they have more torque, if it continued over 1/4 the turbo car would waik away.

Hp is how fast you hit the tree Torque is how far you move it!!!!!


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

borat52 said:


> It's my understanding that the anti lag on turbo drag cars is to enable them to generate boost from an engine which is at constant rpm while stationary (ie about to launch) as without load on the engine it will not generate enough exhaust gasses to generate significant boost even at high RPM.
> 
> 
> Given that high spec drag GTR's can easily spin all four wheels off the line, are we really saying here that a relative dead spot in power between 2000-5000rpm in first gear is where they lose the time? Much more to do with getting the power down and getting the launch sequence set up correctly to minimise wheel spin imho. (I have no experience of drag racing, that's just my gut instinct)


Correct and iMO most seem to make too much power off the line and lose time spinning wheels, for example Jurgens car makes like 1500 odd hp his best 60 ft is 1.2 seconds but most are 1.3/4, my car makes 700+hp and cuts a 1.4 60ft, trouble is if you start spinning the wheels its harder to get them to hook than if it drove off the line and you introduced more power gear/speed relative, thats why some cars with ecu's that can do it run anti lag for the first XXXft to stop wheelspin.


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

borat52 said:


> What your saying does not make sense with respect to the physics of accelerating a car, or more broadly accelerating mass.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you have a heavy car or a light car you are referring to power not torque when you talk about accelerating any mass.
> 
> ...


Sorry IT DONT MAKE SENSE what your saying,on all the dyno sheets i look at it shows calculated horsepower and a torque figures,not how much power,horsepower is the promoter of torque,torque moves mass,as it is the lever effect that moves it,the heavier the car the more torque required to move it fast,you could have a load of horespower but it couldnt move weight fast without torque,were talking about moveing a heavy car here not a shopping trolley,if your using the term power as a word for torque and horsepower then i understand,but there are many variables of engine configuration that have different torque/horsepower characteristics,ie a turbo diesel compaired to a N/A petrol engine.thats why diesels are in trucks to move Mass/weight.


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

55chev said:


> Sorry IT DONT MAKE SENSE what your saying,on all the dyno sheets i look at it shows calculated horsepower and a torque figures,not how much power,horsepower is the promoter of torque,torque moves mass,as it is the lever effect that moves it,the heavier the car the more torque required to move it fast,you could have a load of horespower but it couldnt move weight fast without torque,were talking about moveing a heavy car here not a shopping trolley,if your using the term power as a word for torque and horsepower then i understand,but there are many variables of engine configuration that have different torque/horsepower characteristics,ie a turbo diesel compaired to a N/A petrol engine.thats why diesels are in trucks to move Mass/weight.


Formula 1 car high HP relatively low torque, goes like stink with loads of RPM
Tractor, low HP s**t loads of torque and gears prob goes 0-10 quick but will pull a tree out the ground.


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

dudersvr said:


> That isnt really true, the big power turbo cars are faster at the top of the track ie if a nitrous car doesnt get away from a turbo car in the first 330/ 660ft its not gonna catch it, simple fact is torque = acceleration (ET) HP = Terminal. In theory if you had a car that was 600hp/600 ft lbs and ran 10 dead at say 130mph, if you increase torque and not hp it would run quicker but still be doing 130mph, if you increase hp and not torque it will run faster but still run a 10 dead. You only need to watch the turbo cars on street outlaws, they make around 2000hp but the nitrous cars give them a run over the 1/8 with less hp cause they have more torque, if it continued over 1/4 the turbo car would waik away.
> 
> Hp is how fast you hit the tree Torque is how far you move it!!!!!


You obviously didnt read or understand what i said correct,what i said if you read it right was the turbo cars need to be as fast as possible from the get go,ie as much boost of the line which in a outlaw car would be 50lbs within of .5sec to achieve record setting E.Ts,as the second half of the track in a turbo car is moot,meaning there just so much faster in the second half than any other combo,so the whole ball game for a turbo car is getting the first half of the track as fast as possible,from the first 60 foot.


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

55chev said:


> You obviously didnt read or understand what i said correct,what i said if you read it right was the turbo cars need to be as fast as possible from the get go,ie as much boost of the line which in a outlaw car would be 50lbs within of .5sec to achieve record setting E.Ts,as the second half of the track in a turbo car is moot,meaning there just so much faster in the second half than any other combo,so the whole ball game for a turbo car is getting the first half of the track as fast as possible,from the first 60 foot.


Ahh I see yes! So great minds think alike !!!!


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Typo indeed, low or high torque, high power either way.

Hence high power will accelerate a car regardless of torque, with the appropriate gearing.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

55chev, Borat is talking pure physics, he's not wrong in what he said.

If power is high, torque is irrelevant as gearing will enable you to generate a usable torque.

I think the issue here is that power is a construct, it's not something that is tangible, torque however is an applied force that you can feel. You are saying you can't move something without a force/torque - that's true, but equally engine power doesn't exist without a torque.

The point Borat and i are making is that the engines output torque being high doesn't matter if your power is sufficient you will be able to accelerate hard regardless of high or low torque.

See F1 car - 300lbft! 0-100 - Sub 4 seconds.


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

Originally Posted by borat52 View Post
Some of the best drag GTR's have turbo's so big they make nothing below 3.5k rpm, if torque won drag races stock cars would be faster than them.





Stealth69 said:


> Not true.... the cars running massive turbos normally have some mad arse anti lag negating the size factor!


Stealth69 is correct,for a start in a turbo drag car,using launch control as you guys call it or transbrake as i would call it you would be leaving the line at way past 3,500 rpm,also weather using antilag,nitros,or chucking loads of fuel and retarding ignition lead,all will have the same effect of spooling up the motor to produce boost of the line which obviously will make all the torque/horsepower you would ever need,then it becomes all about managing the power down the track. 

on a side note,im well impressed with the torque the vr38 produces from such a small engine,must have alot to do with the variable cam timing.very impressed


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

Adamantium said:


> 55chev, Borat is talking pure physics, he's not wrong in what he said.
> 
> If power is high, torque is irrelevant as gearing will enable you to generate a usable torque.
> 
> ...


i here what your saying adam,my point is what is meant by power,if you were to just say its powerfull,it doesnt tell me anything,its when you use the two most used fugures for such an analysis that one begines to understand what were talking about,all i was saying with regards to a heavy car was that torque is the key factor in such an analysis of a cars potential to move weight fast,perhaps were taking the same language,but using different terminology.


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

55chev said:


> Originally Posted by borat52 View Post
> Some of the best drag GTR's have turbo's so big they make nothing below 3.5k rpm, if torque won drag races stock cars would be faster than them.
> 
> 
> ...


I changed my launch to an anti lag type as opposed to just allowing it to rev high, its now far quicker off the line at 2500rpm making boost than it was at just revs and 4500.


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Thank **** someone has got it!! Jeeeeeeesus!!


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

55chev said:


> Sorry IT DONT MAKE SENSE what your saying,on all the dyno sheets i look at it shows calculated horsepower and a torque figures,not how much power,horsepower is the promoter of torque,torque moves mass,as it is the lever effect that moves it,the heavier the car the more torque required to move it fast,*you could have a load of horespower but it couldnt move weight fast without torqu*e,were talking about moveing a heavy car here not a shopping trolley,if your using the term *power as a word for torque and horsepower* then i understand,but there are many variables of engine configuration that have different torque/horsepower characteristics,ie a turbo diesel compaired to a N/A petrol engine.thats why diesels are in trucks to move Mass/weight.



I can show you high torque low power situations and high power low torque situations (diesel truck vs F1 car)
If you can use some physics equations to demonstrate how more power does not move 'weight' faster than less power then you will get a nobel prize for redefining physics.

Horsepower is a unit of power.

Would it help if I could demonstrate a car which accelerated really quickly without any torque at all?


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

55chev said:


> *i here what your saying adam,my point is what is meant by power*,if you were to just say its powerfull,it doesnt tell me anything,its when you use the two most used fugures for such an analysis that one begines to understand what were talking about,all i was saying with regards to a heavy car was that torque is the key factor in such an analysis of a cars potential to move weight fast,perhaps were taking the same language,but using different terminology.


Power = energy/unit time, or BHP or KW.


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Not sure if i am missing something but the torque on a stage 4 and 5 is not much different


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

borat52 said:


> Power = energy/unit time, or BHP or KW.


We got there in the end


----------



## WingedBeast1968 (Sep 18, 2009)

Yeah, anyway. I'd rather lose 50kg than gain 50bhp any day. Corners matter.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

We were always there.

Point is you could move a two tonne gtr with 1Lbft with ease if it made that 1lbft at 1 million rpm.

You simply gear it appropriately for example through a hyperbolic gearbox and it will light up its tyres off the line.


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

terry lloyd said:


> Not sure if i am missing something but the torque on a stage 4 and 5 is not much different


back on track at last 

Just to throw this in the mix,noT much different=50lbs/100lbs? but theres more than just a final torque figure thats relevant terry,you would have to compair the hole torque/horsepower map,as i have no dout that there will be significant differances at different rpm points on those figures to make small reductions in lap times,so you would have to see the complete map side by side to see how the car would be better particularly out of corners on a track..so my point is its just not a final figure that would be relevant.also if its a capped stage 5 car,then the final figure would be the same.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

dudersvr said:


> Formula 1 car high HP relatively low torque, goes like stink with loads of RPM
> Tractor, low HP s**t loads of torque and gears prob goes 0-10 quick but will pull a tree out the ground.



I promise you this, if you could slip the clutch on an F1 car at 15000 rpm so that all of the power was transferred into the drivetrain the F1 car would pull a far bigger stronger and better anchored tree from the ground.

The reason the tractor is more effective in real life is because it can transfer more energy from a standstill from it's engine to the tree due to it generating more power at low rpm's which is easier to transfer through a drivetrain than it is to transfer power from the F1 engine at 15000 RPM (ie you'll just burn the clutch in seconds).


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

Adamantium said:


> We were always there.
> 
> Point is you could move a two tonne gtr with 1Lbft with ease if it made that 1lbft at 1 million rpm.
> 
> You simply gear it appropriately for example through a hyperbolic gearbox and it will light up its tyres off the line.


yes but you havnt got a million RPM and a hyperbolic gearbox have you


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

terry lloyd said:


> Not sure if i am missing something but the torque on a stage 4 and 5 is not much different


Depends how you define stage 5! To me stage 5 is built motor and uprated turbos, so where mine is capped around 650 it will be able to make around 760 on the little BB turbos and an extra 100+ hp and an extra 1000rpm,


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

55chev said:


> yes but you havnt got a million RPM and a hypoid gearbox have you


:chuckle:

Indeed you do not, but it does illustrate that talking about engine torque is completely irrelevant. You need engine horsepower over the rpm range that you're doing the work at, which once rolling should be about 5000-7000rpm.

Apologies for going so far OT, the internet has done a very bad job of confusing torque and power.


----------



## charles charlie (May 3, 2008)

Stage 4-ish maxs the torque for the stock rods so bigger blowers at stage 5 just keeps that capped torque available to a higher point up the rev range without it tailing off. That's why you have 700-750 bhp on stage 5 cars as the torque is there at a higher rpm 

Power = torque x rpm / 5252

So using a turbo which keeps the torque coming at higher rpm gives more max power reading.

Simply put you have that torque for longer before a gearchange and in and an and out drag run, all other things being equal, that bit more torque for longer will give a stage 5 the edge.

Better things come when you swap out the rods and uncap the torque.


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

55chev said:


> back on track at last
> 
> Just to throw this in the mix,noT much different=50lbs/100lbs? but theres more than just a final torque figure thats relevant terry,you would have to compair the hole torque/horsepower map,as i have no dout that there will be significant differances at different rpm points on those figures to make small reductions in lap times,so you would have to see the complete map side by side to see how the car would be better particularly out of corners on a track..so my point is its just not a final figure that would be relevant.also if its a capped stage 5 car,then the final figure would be the same.


From what i can make out they are both or can both be mapped @650flb its the rods stopping the torque not the turbos


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

borat52 said:


> I promise you this, if you could slip the clutch on an F1 car at 15000 rpm so that all of the power was transferred into the drivetrain the F1 car would pull a far bigger stronger and better anchored tree from the ground.
> 
> The reason the tractor is more effective in real life is because it can transfer more energy from a standstill from it's engine to the tree due to it generating more power at low rpm's which is easier to transfer through a drivetrain than it is to transfer power from the F1 engine at 15000 RPM (ie you'll just burn the clutch in seconds).


Dont agree with that, only if it were geared down so it did 30 mph in top gear, we are not talking quantum physics but real world make my car go fast stuff and fact is a high torque motor in a heavy car is far easier for the average jo to make go fast same as a V twin bike will always flatter a less competent rider as it will go in one of say 3 gears out of a bend where a 250 2 stroke will just fall over if in too higher gear


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

borat52 said:


> I promise you this, if you could slip the clutch on an F1 car at 15000 rpm so that all of the power was transferred into the drivetrain the F1 car would pull a far bigger stronger and better anchored tree from the ground.
> 
> The reason the tractor is more effective in real life is because it can transfer more energy from a standstill from it's engine to the tree due to it generating more power at low rpm's which is easier to transfer through a drivetrain than it is to transfer power from the F1 engine at 15000 RPM (ie you'll just burn the clutch in seconds).


You go get an F1 car and show me when you've achieved this, and ill borrow me dads tractor and an old bit of rope,and we will see who spent the most doing it lol.


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

terry lloyd said:


> From what i can make out they are both or can both be mapped @650flb its the rods stopping the torque not the turbos


Yes agree,but are the stage 4 maps identical to the capped stage 5 maps?


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

55chev said:


> Yes agree,but are the stage 4 maps identical to the capped stage 5 maps?


No, the stage 5 map will be handicapping itself low down to cap torque however the mapper decides to do that, less timing I would imagine but after the torque drops off you can run a lot more boost, we run 1.3 bar and 1.7/8 right at the top, when the built motor goes in we can run 1.7/8 low down and 2 bar or higher at the top and thats just to protect box a little, if iI had a built box I would just run the turbos flat stick for a 1/4 mile run.


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

55chev said:


> You go get an F1 car and show me when you've achieved this, and ill borrow me dads tractor and an old bit of rope,and we will see who spent the most doing it lol.


Or better still tie the tractor and F1 car together and see what pulls what !!! Have you seen the you tube vids of Tourag V10 Diesels pulling yank pick ups backwards as they try to drive forwards.


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Getting a bit to involved now - ( you are right mapping will be a big part ) i was more getting at if someone went to say litchfield and had their stage 5 conversion done with the figures map they release it with and someone had a stage 4.25 with 100kgs removed what will yield the better results


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

dudersvr said:


> No, the stage 5 map will be handicapping itself low down to cap torque however the mapper decides to do that, less timing I would imagine but after the torque drops off you can run a lot more boost, we run 1.3 bar and 1.7/8 right at the top, when the built motor goes in we can run 1.7/8 low down and 2 bar or higher at the top and thats just to protect box a little, if iI had a built box I would just run the turbos flat stick for a 1/4 mile run.


ok cool,so a stage 5 mapped car would make what 700-750 horsepower which would normally indicate that the motor will make more torque through the the whole band ,but this is torque restricted through the whole map buy the mapper,of choice.?


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

55chev said:


> ok cool,so a stage 5 mapped car would make what 700-750 horsepower which would normally indicate that the motor will make more torque through the the whole band ,but this is torque restricted through the whole map buy the mapper,of choice.?


Yes so really you would just be teasing yourself, bit like swapping a naked plain bird for a clothed supermodel.....................I think, which is why Im forging my engine.


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

terry lloyd said:


> Getting a bit to involved now - ( you are right mapping will be a big part ) i was more getting at if someone went to say litchfield and had their stage 5 conversion done with the figures map they release it with and someone had a stage 4.25 with 100kgs removed what will yield the better results


IMO no, the stage 5 car will be quicker if you rev it, just watch the video of the McLaren I posted earlier, its at high revs the whole time, its virtually the same spec as mine.


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

borat52 said:


> :chuckle:
> 
> *Indeed you do not, but it does illustrate that talking about engine torque is completely irrelevant.* You need engine horsepower over the rpm range that you're doing the work at, which once rolling should be about 5000-7000rpm.
> 
> Apologies for going so far OT, the internet has done a very bad job of confusing torque and power.


Saying it has power tells me nothing! Torque in this context couldnt be more relevant borat,i not going to disagree any more im done on this now,so we will just have to agree to disagree .sorry OT can we now get back to your interesting debate. xxxx


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

Is there no one who has got a comparison on lap times on there stage 4.25 car to a stage 5 car,as this will tell the story pretty dam good..?


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

55chev said:


> Is there no one who has got a comparison on lap times on there stage 4.25 car to a stage 5 car,as this will tell the story pretty dam good..?


Stage 4 high tens stage 5 capped 10.3 letting off at 1000ft, terminal went up about 6 mph


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Thats Cheating lol


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

dudersvr said:


> Stage 4 high tens stage 5 capped 10.3 letting off at 1000ft, terminal went up about 6 mph


Well that says alot,6 or 7 tenths and 6mph in the quarter is a big chunk,i would recon a stage 5 car being at least a second a lap quicker,and cant see a 100kg lighter doing the same,maybe a few tenths quicker.on a circuit


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

terry lloyd said:


> Thats Cheating lol


Yeah the slicks helped the launch for sure 1.4 60ft compared to 1.7 on 888 but the terminal shows the extra HP, had to let off that run at around the 1000ft as it started weaving around due to wrong front tyres but the car next to me when I let off (he was in my blindspot) ran a 9.7 and the fact i was 10mph down that run and looking at the 60 ft 330 ft and 1/8 times and speeds should have been a high 9 with a full pass so almost a second better .3/.4 prob down to slicks, car does pull right to redline now.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

dudersvr said:


> Or better still tie the tractor and F1 car together and see what pulls what !!! Have you seen the you tube vids of Tourag V10 Diesels pulling yank pick ups backwards as they try to drive forwards.


That's a complex problem though and largely not to do with the output of the engines. Ultimately same tyres and same mass over the drive axle(s) the car which is outputting the most power will pull. I'll qualify that, I mean most power at the point of the pull, so not neccesarily peak power output of the engine, but both engines might be at different RPM's from stationary so if you just said "the toureg has got 500 torques at 2000rpm and the pick up 200 at 2000rpm" thats not at all relevant if the pick up is at 4000rpm and the toureg at 1000rpm.


Pick ups have no weight over the drive axle and the toureg is 4wd, it would pull a pick up backwards if it had less power than the pick up because it could transfer it into the ground.

I'll restate it, torque is misunderstood as it means nothing unless you also know the RPM. You don't need any extra data to calculate acceleration in a lossless world as long as you have power and mass.

If it's torque that's important then why is the stage 5 GTR (same torque as the stage 4 low down) faster at the trap?


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Easiest explain is this. 

An electric motor can produce 500lbft at 0 rpm. Does that make for lightning acceleration?

Answer is no! Loads of torque, zero power = zero acceleration.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

I think I can demonstrate it. 

Take this tractor, let's assume it's moving at 20mph.

If we can apply 500lbft torque to the front axle, will it accelerate faster, slower or the same as if we apply 500lbft torque to the rear axle?


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

Borat/adam,when you pull into your local petrol station in your R35,and a young 16 year old with envy all over his face comes up to you and asks you what power you running,your reply will be either a horsepower figure or a torque figure or both,it wont be its making somewhere in the middle power.power doesn't tell a thing about an engines character or its ability to move weight/mass,in a heavy vehicle in the context were talking,were not talking quantum physics are we.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

First off I have no axe to grind here, I love this forum and the members are incredibly constructive and helpful.


It IS physics and you can't on one hand indulge in it by making assertions on power, torque, mass and acceleration and then on the otherhand say physics doesn't matter when we're talking about physics.

If someone asks you what power your car makes, you should tell them the power output of your car. They didn't ask you for the torque they asked you for the power.

If it's so simple then tell me if you apply the same torque to each axle of the tractor which will result in the higher acceleration number, or the same. 

It's not personal, in your previous posts you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the known laws of physics.

Here's another mistruth "torque is the push you feel from your seat". It's power that's causing that push, not torque.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

55chev said:


> *power doesn't tell a thing about an engines character or its ability to move weight/mass*


Power does tell you exactly that, and I can show you how with equations of physics exactly how it does this.


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

borat52 said:


> Power does tell you exactly that, and I can show you how with equations of physics exactly how it does this.


Wrong im not questioning the law of physics at all,what im questioning is the terminology your using,the word power doesnt tell me a thing,horsepower and torque relating to an engine do.? when your using the word power do you mean horsepower?


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

when you discuss the horsepower of the car, it is exactly the same thing as the term power used in physics. It is simply energy converted over time. In physics it is measured in watts or joules per second. In car engines in the UK we measure in bhp, but on the continent they measure in Kilowatts, or kilojoules per second.

Same unit as we used for power in physics, same measurement of energy you'll see on the side of your cornflakes packet.

There's nothing magical about the equations we use in physics in the classroom that stops them applying to real life.

incidentally, we measure torque in lbft, but this can easily be convered in Newton metres or Nm, the same unit we use in scientific calculations and the same unit that is used for cars by European manufacturers.


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

Adamantium said:


> when you discuss the horsepower of the car, it is exactly the same thing as the term power used in physics. It is simply energy converted over time. In physics it is measured in watts or joules per second. In car engines in the UK we measure in bhp, but on the continent they measure in Kilowatts, or kilojoules per second.
> 
> Same unit as we used for power in physics, same measurement of energy you'll see on the side of your cornflakes packet.
> 
> ...


AGREE adam,so borat is using the word power meaning horsepower,or is he using it meaning torque and horsepower?


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

55chev said:


> AGREE adam,so borat is using the word power meaning horsepower,or is he using it meaning torque and horsepower?


Horsepower is a unit of measurement of power, so power is not unit specific. Horsepower is a particular way of quantifying power in terms of using horses as a unit of measurement, 1 horsepower is about 750kw when expressed in watts (watts means joules of energy output per second)

Power is the amount of energy output over a unit of time.

I absolutely do not mean torque when I say power and if that has been confused anywhere it's important to be clear, torque and power are different things entirely. Torque is simply an applied force and power is the amount energy output over a unit of time.

Going back to the tractor, if you apply 500lbft to the front axle (with the smaller wheels) the tractor accelerates much faster than applying 500lbt to the rear larger wheels.

Same torque, very different rates of acceleration. That is why torque does not accelerate mass, only power can do that.


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

borat52 said:


> Horsepower is a unit of measurement of power, so power is not unit specific. Horsepower is a particular way of quantifying power in terms of using horses as a unit of measurement, 1 horsepower is about 750kw when expressed in watts (watts means joules of energy output per second)
> 
> Power is the amount of energy output over a unit of time.
> 
> ...


So why do drag cars have taller driven tyres/wheels?


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

The above assumes perfect traction of course!

55chev,

Ignoring the value of units, power refers to power, and torque refers to torque, scientific of real world.

Power and torque are very different things but they are related to one another.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

dudersvr said:


> So why do drag cars have taller driven tyres/wheels?


An engine outputs an amount of power (for any given rpm and WOT), the gearbox converts that power to a different rpm while always maintaining the same power assuming no friction losses in a perfect world (good enough assumption for us here in order not to complicate things).

So regardless of wheel size, as long as the engine is outputting the same power, this power will be output at the drive axle (again assuming no losses).

Drag cars have taller driven wheels for grip. I've no real world experience of drag wheels but I would imagine the physics is very complex regarding friction in that situation. Shooting from the hip a small tyre will get much hotter as each cross section will be interacting with the ground far more often at any given speed.

You would get the same power output at the rear axle though no matter what size wheel you have as long as the engine was operating in the same mode (which would mean different gearing through the gearbox in reality). Thinking quickly about it, smaller wheels probably also mean more gear changes.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

The physics of tyre traction is highly complex. I have to pick borat up on one thing though, we are talking about straight line tractive force and hence traction, not grip (generally relates to lateral loading).

There's no question that a smaller radius tyre for the same power will be transmitting more torque, in the same way that a guillotine has its blade near the pivot for maximum cutting force.

But, drag racing is a balance between power and traction. It's no good having loads of power if you just spin your wheels.

Taller thinner tyres running low pressure have several characteristics that promote traction (in a straight line). They have a long thin contact patch in the direction of travel which is ideal for favouring traction over lateral grip. They sag due to low pressure and hence have a degree of torsional flex which means they slow down the rate of transmission of torque to the ground in a similar way that a long screw driver allows you to transmit more torque. Ie, the grip the screw and drive it rather than strip the head - cf. grip the ground rather than spin. They also get much hotter due to the constant degree of slip that again the sagging allows which heats up the tyre and increases the coefficient of friction.

This combination creates sticky tyres that literally glue the car to the ground.


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

Adamantium said:


> The above assumes perfect traction of course!
> 
> 55chev,
> 
> ...


OK i get that,my understanding of an engines ability to do work,can be measured in a number different ways,the 2 main units of measuring that, so one can understand are torque and horespower,its on every dyno sheet i see,horsepower is the promoter of torque ,torque is the ability for the engine to do the work,on a given.as were talking about a cars ability to lap fast either by less weight or more power,to understand this in context the amount of an engines ability to do work is measured in these units torque and horsepower,or power if others want to call it that,so if 2 cars weighing the same with same gearing and Tyre size,both with 700hp,one with 500lbs of torque and the other with 650lbs of torque,which one will lap faster?as it will be the later,if one was to just use the laws of physics to make a car go fast it would make life so much easier,but as we know there's so much more to it,i understand if you were to add a load of gearing to an engine making less torque the that equates to an equal engines ability to make that leverage up, if you want a heavy car to be accelerated fast then that is its ability to do work,and the torque figure is what i would be looking at all things being the same.we can call it power if you want,but for me to understand it ill keep looking for the comparison of these 2 units of measure horsepower/torque.


----------



## Evo9lution (Aug 24, 2013)

What has any of this got to do with the OP?


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Nothing. Absolutely nothing!

55chev, what ever happens, we would never call torque power. It's like calling apples, pears. They are related because they are both fruit, but they are not the same thing.

Your example is over simiplified, a car having 650lbft versus a car having 500lbft means nothing at all. It's the torque at a given rpm that matters which funnily enough means it's the power that's important.

What you are quoting is peak power and peak torque. It would be possible to have a 650lbft (peak) car and a 500lbft (peak) car both with the same power, but the 500lbft car could lap much faster.

It's the area under the torque curve that matters, which funnily enough is the power.

You faster accelerating car (hence all else equal probably faster around a track) is the one with a larger area under its torque curve. ie. nothing to do with peak torque numbers.

Actually, I've got another example for you.

Imagine you have a gearbox within infinite ratios, like a CV gearbox where you fix the engine speed and the gearbox slides through different ratios to accelerate the car.

For the fastest acceleration, would you want your engine to sit at peak torque or peak power?


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

Adamantium said:


> Nothing. Absolutely nothing!
> 
> 55chev, what ever happens, we would never call torque power. It's like calling apples, pears. They are related because they are both fruit, but they are not the same thing.
> 
> ...


Were just going backwards and forwards here,you can call it power and ill will analyze that as 2 figures consisting of horsepower and torque,were both saying the same thing.just in our own way of understanding it.so lets just say were both correct,and get back to the OP thread please.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

No, you aren't correct. Power consists of torque and rpm.


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Think OP has been answered - if it was 500kgs lighter it would be quicker - 100kgs probably not - carry on chaps i have a works tractor so find it quite interesting  although i have got through a box of headache tablets in 2 days


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> The physics of tyre traction is highly complex. I have to pick borat up on one thing though, we are talking about straight line tractive force and hence traction, not grip (generally relates to lateral loading).
> 
> There's no question that a smaller radius tyre for the same power will be transmitting more torque, in the same way that a guillotine has its blade near the pivot for maximum cutting force.
> 
> ...


Actually the reason tyres are tall in drag racing is that if you have the power/torque to turn one in x amount of time it will throw the car forward y amount of ft, for example if a 33" tall slick has a rolling radius of about 8.7ft whereas a 185/60/13 would be 5.7ft so every time the tall tyre turns it throws the car 3ft further forward than if the tyre were smaller, now add gearing, for example a road car might have a diff ratio of 3.0:1 (everytime prop turns once wheels turn 3 times) a drag car (typical yank type for simplicitity)might run a 4.88:1 so now its throwing the car MUCH further forward for each turn of the prop, most purpose built drag cars do not run a narrow slick at all, any 'big tyre' car will be running a 15X33 slick, before you say look at a pic of a top fuel dragster then I would say yes, but look at it at rest, the tyre 'grows ' massively as the car goes down the strip, thats what gives it its gearing the increasing tyre height, it has no gearbox just a clutch that slips the whole way down.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

You are correct, but that's not why it's tall. If it were just gearing they could just change the final drive.

Yes the tyre grows in diameter but it also narrows making the long thin contact patch i mentioned.

The growth of the tyre is factored in when they choose the gearing but they don't use big tyres because they cover more ground per revolution. That's just arbitrary, they could simply turn faster in the first place.


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> You are correct, but that's not why it's tall. If it were just gearing they could just change the final drive.
> 
> Yes the tyre grows in diameter but it also narrows making the long thin contact patch i mentioned.
> 
> The growth of the tyre is factored in when they choose the gearing but they don't use big tyres because they cover more ground per revolution. That's just arbitrary, they could simply turn faster in the first place.


Sorry adam but you are wrong here, a tall tyre is used to throw the car forward as far as possible AND have a decent Terminal speed, if you ran smaller tyres and gearing to suit you would still need either a 15,000+ rpm motor AND a 10 speed gearbox!! Yes ive seen small tyre cars run 10's even 9's but the terminal is always relatively low, a fast car at the top end is always good for chasing down cars. The top fuel car starts off with massively wide tyres and they narrow and grow to give gearing, its factored into the design, the rear tyres NEVER are responsible for traction on Top Fuel car that comes soley from the amount of slip put into the clutch, even at 300mph if there is too little slip the tyres will go up in smoke !!! Get 'Blown off' as they say

Some pics of my old car with wide and tall tyres on the rear






and skinny tyres up front lol


What is amazing about the 35 is that these 8 sec xcars can on to run 230 ++ at 1/2 mile and mile events , they dont need to be geared down like an NA drag car, in fact over gearing a turbo drag car makes the turbos work harder by loading the car up so to speak.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

dudersvr,

small tyres have much shorter wider contact patches than big tyres.

That aside, why do you think small tyres would require more gears? all the diameter of the tyre does is change the final drive ratio it doesn't require an engine that spins faster to do the speeds, it just needs a different final drive. Edited to add - I can accept that there isn't room for a big enough final drive in the rear diff, so big wheels might be required.

It's not a good solution because of the points I made above and also the friction increases exponentially with the rotation speed of the wheels, so it's inefficient to drive things at silly speeds.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

ps. your car looks mental.


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> ps. your car looks mental.


Thanks, had to let it go when I ended up in a coma !!!


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> dudersvr,
> 
> small tyres have much shorter wider contact patches than big tyres.
> 
> ...


Well if you had small tyres and a diff to allow say 150mph et will be crap, if it accelerates well dure to high numerical diff it will have no top speed and rubbish terminal as well as revving really high


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

dudersvr said:


> Well if you had small tyres and a diff to allow say 150mph et will be crap, if it accelerates well dure to high numerical diff it will have no top speed and rubbish terminal as well as revving really high


It would be crap - the contact patch would mean the tyres spin.

Coma?? - you can't let that pass without telling that story.


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Evo9lution said:


> What has any of this got to do with the OP?


Nothing, but they are all most likely having slow days at work and come on here to flex their intellectual muscles

At ease men.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

screw that, I want to hear about the coma!


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> It would be crap - the contact patch would mean the tyres spin.
> 
> Coma?? - you can't let that pass without telling that story.


Well I was on my way to Santa pod on my hayabusa, Aug 2012 late as usual and had to pick someone up in Essex, ran a red light in the bus lane and hit a taxi that got to his green at 30 mph, police said I was doing 70 mph, I hit the cab a proper london taxi and wrote it off, the bike didnt touch it, I bent the whole roof over resulting in 

Both lungs badly punctured by broken ribs
Shattered sternun
shattered clavicle
broken femur in 3 places
liver in 2 bits
bruised heart
bruised brain

Induced coma and family told zero chance of making first night !!!
Fatal accident for 2 months on police records
1 month coma and a lot of work back in the gym, my family lied to me and said 100% recovery, doctors said lucky for 60%, no one told me and im back to normal 100kgs gym 5 days a week. I weighed under 10 stone when I woke up, body 10-12 degrees over temp heart going 150bpm for about 3 weeks, they kept me under a refrigerated blanket the whole time
Just a flesh wound really


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

I was aware of people that came to see me but due to the drugs I was in a fantasy land ...the underworld I called it, apparently the brain does this to stop going mad, some of it was good some very real and frightening, staff looking after me were integrated into the dreams but i had never seen them when concious !!! Weird. They pulled me out before I could finish 'The Game' as I called it, like all the star wars type films rolled into one but you compete for a prize, I had a fighter and you could pay to be like invincible in a fight and other powers proper starnge, funny thing is I was transfered to another hospital about 3 weeks afetr coming out of the coma for another operation, I told the anaesthetist about the game and he said im giving you a similar anaesthetic, you might be able to finish 'The Game' guess what I did !!!!!


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Let me get this straight. You wrote off a London cab by hitting it with your body?


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> Let me get this straight. You wrote off a London cab by hitting it with your body?


Yup bent the roof over, hit it A pillar pass side and the poor driver got cuts and bruises on his right side due to the impact, bike survived as well.


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

Adamantium said:


> Let me get this straight. You wrote off a London cab by hitting it with your body?




With one perfect flying kick. Who needs Chuck Norris

That's pretty shocking to see an image like that and with injuries it's amazing you made it as many bikers have had lesser injuries and not been here to tell the story.

Guessing the bikes gone now and the car is the new toy?


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

TREG said:


> With one perfect flying kick. Who needs Chuck Norris
> 
> That's pretty shocking to see an image like that and with injuries it's amazing you made it as many bikers have had lesser injuries and not been here to tell the story.
> 
> Guessing the bikes gone now and the car is the new toy?


SWMBO has put a ban on bikes:banned: I might get away with a track bike but I have a titanium rod up the inside of my right femur and that's painful and a bit of recovery to have taken out. So yes a 200+ mph R35 is considered much safer, the bike survived and I stretched it nitroused it and put an air shifter on it, then got caught by SWMBO out on it, same with a GSXR1000 last year, thought she may have calmed down but Oh no. LOL Yet she is quite happy for me to do a white collar MMA fight !!! Go figure.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

To be fair, I agree with the wife.

To be told you had a 0% chance of making it through the night, I think she deserves a medal for letting you have a GT-R!


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> To be fair, I agree with the wife.
> 
> To be told you had a 0% chance of making it through the night, I think she deserves a medal for letting you have a GT-R!


Shes fine with the car even though the 911 I had got totalled this time last year while datalogging, that hit black ice in 5th gear (730hp 996 turbo) she is as much a speed junkie as me but unfortunately seen my bike videos so thats a no even though she loves them.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Are you noticing a pattern in the fate of the vehicles you drive.

Maybe it's time to change something so that your vehicles/you stay in one piece?


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> Are you noticing a pattern in the fate of the vehicles you drive.
> 
> Maybe it's time to change something so that your vehicles/you stay in one piece?


Now where would the fun be in that ????


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

I did forget to mention that I died 3 times and had a 2 hour operation on the A13 before being airlifted to hospital !!!!! So if anyone wants to know what its like to die i can tell you !!! I was awake for 20 mins before the doctor turned up and it wasnt pleasant !!! Still what doesnt kill you makes you stronger....apparently!


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

The A13? sounds like you might be from my original neck of the woods.


----------



## Evo9lution (Aug 24, 2013)

terry lloyd said:


> Think OP has been answered - if it was 500kgs lighter it would be quicker - 100kgs probably not - carry on chaps i have a works tractor so find it quite interesting  although i have got through a box of headache tablets in 2 days





TAZZMAXX said:


> Nothing, but they are all most likely having slow days at work and come on here to flex their intellectual muscles
> 
> At ease men.


The point is, it's a good discussion but wouldn't it be better in an appropriately titled thread so that somebody may be able to find it via the Search option in the future should they wish to?

Wasn't it Mook who was previously talking about the content of an e-mail having little or no relevance to the subject line?


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

I have been following this wondering whether to split it, but didn't want to interrupt an active discussion that actually was quite respectful (if a little tedious:chuckle. If you guys want an appropriately titled thread I can sort it out.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

I really don't care. If you think it needs cleaning up, I'm not going to be offended!


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> The A13? sounds like you might be from my original neck of the woods.


I was visiting, happened right outside the olympic village, caused havoc


----------



## Evo9lution (Aug 24, 2013)

tonigmr2 said:


> I have been following this wondering whether to split it, but didn't want to interrupt an active discussion that actually was quite respectful (if a little tedious:chuckle. If you guys want an appropriately titled thread I can sort it out.


I'm not that bothered Toni, just thought that it may be easier for others to find in the future. Otherwise, someone will someday ask a question about power or torque and someone else will surely respond that they should try using the search function and ...


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

Evo9lution said:


> I'm not that bothered Toni, just thought that it may be easier for others to find in the future. Otherwise, someone will someday ask a question about power or torque and someone else will surely respond that they should try using the search function and ...


and they will get can you survive a coma and death LOL


----------



## Evo9lution (Aug 24, 2013)

dudersvr said:


> and they will get can you survive a coma and death LOL


Maybe three separate threads then ...  LOL


----------



## Trevgtr (Dec 24, 2012)

dudersvr said:


> and they will get can you survive a coma and death LOL


...only now do I fully understand your footnote! Congratulations on still being alive! Take it easy dude!


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

Trevgtr said:


> ...only now do I fully understand your footnote! Congratulations on still being alive! Take it easy dude!


LOL well to quote Ian Flemming, you only twice, once when your born and once when you look death in the face.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

tonigmr2 said:


> I have been following this wondering whether to split it, but didn't want to interrupt an active discussion that actually was quite respectful (if a little tedious:chuckle. If you guys want an appropriately titled thread I can sort it out.


If you can split it cleanly, I'd favour doing so. I'm not finished


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

borat52 said:


> . I'm not finished


Oh good Ill request to go back in a coma !!!!!:squintdan:wavey:


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

dudersvr said:


> Actually the reason tyres are tall in drag racing is that if you have the power/torque to turn one in x amount of time it will throw the car forward y amount of ft, for example if a 33" tall slick has a rolling radius of about 8.7ft whereas a 185/60/13 would be 5.7ft so every time the tall tyre turns it throws the car 3ft further forward than if the tyre were smaller


Respectfully you have broken energy conservation laws with this assertion. If what you said is true then you have solved the energy problems of world as you have created energy from nothing.

Specifically assuming same weight, same axle power output, no energy losses in the system then:

For a particular drive axle power output the taller tyre will accelerate (in terms of increase in rpm) slower than the smaller tyre but because the circumference of the taller tyre is greater the linear acceleration is the same. 

We're still confusing torque and power, it is a really hard concept to grasp. Maybe it helps to thing of torque a unit. 1Lbft can be visualised the force generated by 1lb (of sugar for example) acting under gravity hanging from a horizontal bar exactly one foot from the axis of rotation (ie crank or axle).

A force of 1lb at 1ft only generates 0.5lb at 2ft, and generates 2lb at 0.5ft (so we can now imaging bigger or smaller tyres, the force at the contact point with the ground varies with tyre size) but the torque value is always 1lbft in that situation.

The tractor really is the ideal model for this, as it demonstrates that if one axle is spinning faster than the other (even though the vehicle is at the same speed) then applying the same torque to each axle results in a different power output. It's very counter intuitive but it's exactly the reason why torque and power are not the same thing.

Thinking of it in the reverse, to get the same power output at a given speed we'd need to apply more torque to the larger wheel and less torque to the smaller wheel.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

Adamantium said:


> It's the area under the torque curve that matters, which funnily enough is the power.



I'm going to bow to your explanation of grip, dark art that one.

This statement needs quantifying. The area under the torque curve is average power - so really we're not interested in the whole curve, only the portion which is being rev'd through in each gear. With that caveat area under the curve hits the nail on the head.

EG if we calculated the entire area under the curve from 1000rpm, it wouldn't give us anything useful if our gearchanges meant we were working from 5000-7000rpm. You'd need the area under 5k-7k for your comparison in that case.

It's a really good question, what makes a good engine? A big part of the answer is what gearboxes are available.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

dudersvr said:


> Oh good Ill request to go back in a coma !!!!!:squintdan:wavey:


Be careful what you wish for, I might turn up at the foot of your bed with a chalk board:chuckle:


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

Adamantium said:


> No, you aren't correct. Power consists of torque and rpm.


Ill grab me coat then


----------



## 55chev (Mar 4, 2015)

dudersvr said:


> Well I was on my way to Santa pod on my hayabusa, Aug 2012 late as usual and had to pick someone up in Essex, ran a red light in the bus lane and hit a taxi that got to his green at 30 mph, police said I was doing 70 mph, I hit the cab a proper london taxi and wrote it off, the bike didnt touch it, I bent the whole roof over resulting in
> 
> Both lungs badly punctured by broken ribs
> Shattered sternun
> ...


Wow,wasnt expecting that!gave me the hebee gebbees,looking at you.**** knows how you survived that,best of luck from now on eh!!!


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

2017 nismo v 2009 stage 4 ( host is a bit of a [email protected] - and the last bit is stupid but you get the idea power is not everything ) and nobody dies or gets comatized 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCzurKVyQeU


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

borat52 said:


> Respectfully you have broken energy conservation laws with this assertion. If what you said is true then you have solved the energy problems of world as you have created energy from nothing.
> 
> Specifically assuming same weight, same axle power output, no energy losses in the system then:
> 
> ...


He absolutely will not stop..........ever


----------



## dudersvr (May 7, 2003)

55chev said:


> Wow,wasnt expecting that!gave me the hebee gebbees,looking at you.**** knows how you survived that,best of luck from now on eh!!!


Yeah not pleasant, heres the missing 2


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

terry lloyd said:


> 2017 nismo v 2009 stage 4 ( host is a bit of a [email protected] - and the last bit is stupid but you get the idea power is not everything ) and nobody dies or gets comatized
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCzurKVyQeU


The driver praised the brakes on the Nismo in particular, are they different to the standard GTR?


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Not that i am aware of - also the early car has MPSS would have thought it would have had more grip in the damp conditions


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

terry lloyd said:


> 2017 nismo v 2009 stage 4 ( host is a bit of a [email protected] - and the last bit is stupid but you get the idea power is not everything ) and nobody dies or gets comatized
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCzurKVyQeU




Cheers Terry I enjoyed thatopcorn:


----------



## -SeanS (Apr 10, 2012)

Adamantium said:


> Are you noticing a pattern in the fate of the vehicles you drive.
> 
> Maybe it's time to change something so that your vehicles/you stay in one piece?


Beat me to it :chuckle:

Wrote off the 911, crashed the GTR into a bush, nearly popped your cloggs on a bike and took a taxi out, insurance companies must love you!

Joking aside that was a lucky escape, just stick to four wheels now much safer, Stage 4/5 is quicker than a lot of bikes and you don't have to wear a gimp suit to drive it


----------



## Mr.B (Feb 18, 2016)

terry lloyd said:


> 2017 nismo v 2009 stage 4 ( host is a bit of a [email protected] - and the last bit is stupid but you get the idea power is not everything ) and nobody dies or gets comatized
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCzurKVyQeU



Probably the Nismo's better suspension. 

Here's a similar one - Power vs Suspension. The grey car is behind the red car which has the camera: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d3qZnxeM8Q


----------



## Trevgtr (Dec 24, 2012)

terry lloyd said:


> 2017 nismo v 2009 stage 4 ( host is a bit of a [email protected] - and the last bit is stupid but you get the idea power is not everything ) and nobody dies or gets comatized
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCzurKVyQeU


The driver said the Nismo brakes felt a lot better, but doesn't it just have standard MY11+ brakes?

The music was annoying (why do they do that) so I couldn't quite make out if the Nismo has active sound enhancement. Most reviews of the basic MY17 don't mention it, I don't think the 'expert' drivers even know it's there!

Bronzilla was good in the drag races, must admit I thought it would have won the track race too, maybe it was down to poor brakes as the driver mentioned.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

I think it's very rude of some posters on this thread attempting to steer it back in the direction of the original post.


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Mr.B said:


> Probably the Nismo's better suspension.
> 
> Here's a similar one - Power vs Suspension. The grey car is behind the red car which has the camera:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d3qZnxeM8Q


Think this clip shows it better - red car is so much quicker even with a stock engine 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuLWj40NDb8


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

terry lloyd said:


> Think this clip shows it better - red car is so much quicker even with a stock engine
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuLWj40NDb8


Not sure it's a fair comparison, the guy driving the grey car is being far more cautious.

Check out the braking zone into copse (approx 1.35 on both video's, and again at about 4.15)

The grey car is on the brakes with 2 whole red and almost 2 white paint marks on the inside track boundry.

The red car has only one white and one red before he hits the brake pedal (much harder).

The red guy is gaining lots of time in the braking zones and his lines look much quicker (to me at least)


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

terry lloyd said:


> Think this clip shows it better - red car is so much quicker even with a stock engine
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuLWj40NDb8




Grey car kept over doing that same tight corner but enjoyed that one


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

I dont think that grey car had the brakes to brake any later - maybe the better suspension helps, keeps the car settled so you can brake later ? as borat said red cars lines looked so much better


----------

