Hehe just a wee bit =) On a smaller course they would lose their advantage but still it would be one great race to watch =)

True the ACR is above the standard Viper. Springrates and damper rates are higher with the option to adjust the rollbars, camber, toe, dampening (seperatly IIRC) but still =) I wish my SRT-4 ACR had 1/2 the adjustments you can do in the SRT-10 ACR.

There is a cost factor involved yeah if you get a crate engine from a manufacturer that runs near or at the amount of HP allowed thats a huge cost savings which can be spent in other parts of the car.

I wouldn't say either of these cars are exceptionally heavy. I thought the DBR9 was about the same?

Back to drag racing, anyone going to be running anything at Santapod or Stratford next year? I have a bit of extra cash coming in now and could probably go out and run 1 day. Want to see what my new 3" TBE will give me. Run 13.7's @ 101 in factory trim, thinking it would put me in the 6's @ 102-103.

Want to get back onto a track, but don't like the idea of warping my rotors again. I tried to do hard braking and then let off to prevent dragging when I was on silverstone. But I don't think it helped...

Last edited by Christopher Raemisch, Tue 11 Nov 2008, 18:15.

So it is agreed then that the Vette and Viper can actually 'handle' and are capable cars that can easily keep up with any 'supercar'. Which is what the disagreement started as =)

I agree that even a fiesta can easily be turned into a monster to go against anything, but the vette and Viper are Factory vehicles that outperform even the fastest 'supercars' on a track. I agree that all the other cars under 8 minutes are very capable cars and perform very well, no disagreement there =) But I was simply trying to point out that the Viper and Vette do 'handle' and should not be branded as cars that cannot 'handle' when they get onto a track and are faster on a track where HP is supposed to mean so much yet these cars with more HP

Where would you grab a comparision from to show that the Vette and Viper does or does not handle? In the production classes where the Vette and Viper race they are winning races over the other classes. Their 'stats' are equivelent to any other factory performance vehicle on the market. Yet they are branded as vehicles that cannot handle? I am not saying that European cars do not drive or corner as well as these cars, I am saying they deserve to be shown as vehicles that do indeed perform well both in acceleration but handling as well. To say otherwise is simply untrue and innaccurate and people who think that they are not capable are falling prey to the fallacy that anything from America cannot handle, it's untrue.

Even though these cars have more power than some of the European cars, I think you will find that the Power to weight ratios are not that much different than each other, nor is any of the other performance stats. So much effort and engineering get put into every one of these cars that they all have been placed onto our current limitations in vehicle handling.

Hehe I am good at going OT...

It's fun for a day out if your driving, but I don't think I could sit and watch it all day, maybe the top fuelers for a while...

Then if it is, why isn't the koenniggg on the top of the list?

Quote from Hyperactive :

Nah, it was the clonky gearbox that was limiting his pace. With that Viper you need triple clutching and oil change every time you upshift.

Anyways, the 'ring is probably not the best track for measung a car's capabilities simply because the track is so fast. It's a horsepower track where you go long times in straight line

? Huh? Just because there are two decent straits it's a HP track? It's one of the most complex and challenging tracks in the world with over 70 turns (can't be asked to look for exact figure) If it's a HP then why isn't the Koenigsegg number 1 on the list, afterall it has the highest HP and one of the best HP/weight ratios. To discredit both cars because they have high HP... why? Why isn't the DBR9S on there? It has almost the same HP?

LOL triple clutching on a viper, you have not driven one then =)

Where would you look at then? Nobody really thinks that stats really tell what the car is capabable of, then when they do goto a track people say well, you can't use that track because it has two long straits Isn't speed part of performance? And sure two decent straits that go up and down with the terrain, but inbetween those are 70plus corners ranging from hairpins to fast corners. I don't understand how you can say that the ring doesn't give a good indication of performance.

The Viper has and always had a great suspension from day one, thanks to McLaren who who helped design it and continue to help Dodge with it IIRC. It won virtually every GT1 race it entered in since what 98 until Dodge pulled the funding for the cars in 01. It took porshe until this year to finally pass it in the record books for all time wins. And the Viper hasn't raced in GT1 for nearly 7 years. Sure it had a big lump in the front, sure it was a beast to drive, but you would find throttle modulation a bit hard too when you are trying to control 600ft/lbs of torque with only your right foot =)

The vette also has a great suspension after years of perfecting it in their racecars, which are still winning races and championships over their competition. These two cars can 'handle' and will easily keep up with anything the European manufacturers can produce.







You could say that because of McLarens influence on the Viper that it's not really an American car and would you be wrong? I don't know, you would have to ask the SRT engineering crew how much they had help with the latest Viper. It wasn't until the Viper came out that the Vette really moved on making great suspension changes. They were using the traversal leaf then, but it was nothing like it is today.

Here is a list of the fastest times for the ring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_lap_times Hehe my cars big brother is number 1 =) The radical is only road legal in the UK and is not considered a production vehicle, hence it's not on the list =)

Last edited by Christopher Raemisch, Tue 11 Nov 2008, 03:13.

ahh so everyone has to be an expert to post questions, but then if they were an expert why would there need to be any questions?

Sam if you haven't figured out by now people usually expect snotty comments from core people on the forums when people ask questions that these people feel don't need to be asked...

To get power down on a FWD you need LSD, preferably one that never actually 'locks' like a type of unit Quaife makes for my car. You will then need solid motor mounts to take away the 'slap' that happens with stock mounts as the engine is rocked back into the mount on acceleration.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

Well, you haven't even said what boost level it would be running. For a two liter engine, I'd guess 1 bar of boost to make about 240HP or so. That is just a very rough estimate though.

If you had to guess that doesn't sound too far off. I have a 2.4 that runs 1 bar of boost and makes between 230-240.

I agree nobody needs more than 125HP for a street car, but where's the fun in that? =)

Hehe I agree about the quad =)

I would take an N/A anyday, I miss driving V8's.

Well the ZR1 is a totally different class of car so they can't 'really' be compared to each other =P

I would take the vette over rex anyday too.

Between these three forced induction types I guess you have to ask what your aim is.

Smooth Powerband: Roots
Fuel Economy: Turbo
Highest HP: Turbo
Highest Torque: Roots
Instant Response: Roots

An in-between of all of these: Centrifuge

For DD's a turbo is your best option, you get greatest power output, but also the greatest MPG. When toodeling you don't need a ton of torque or power in the low RPM ranges and the turbo don't make much in the low RPM.

Drag racing you can use either, I have seen quad turbo setups on buick gran nationals run 8-9 second 1/4's but a roots would probably be better because torque is whats needed to launch a car properly.

Fuel economy is shiet with a roots so people have started moving to the centrifuge. They sacrifice low RPM torque for a little more high end HP with better fuel economy thrown in because a centrifuge doesn't load down the engine as much.

Cost is a huge factor for this, ideally they should have gone turbo, it would give the greatest HP gain with the best fuel economy, but with a turbo you now you have to buy an exhaust and intake and possibly an intercooler as well as the turbo instead of just an intake with a new accessory belt and couple brackets to hold the centrifuge.

I can keep going but basically people use a centrifuge because of the costs involved with turbo's. Initial purchase is higher as well as maintenance.
.

I know I Know what Iracing does over other sims. It's cuts your leg off and says you have any other body parts you wish to sell? Cause thats how much it's going to cost you to play. That's revolutionary, I guess it's a good thing too, at least people make it out to be. I know I will pay more for something thats already available....hmmm

Quote from ajp71 :

...which can barely run for 5 seconds. When you've got that much power and that short a run the slight efficiency loss of a supercharger is academic compared to any lag.

They use 1600 HP just to turn that blower over, then the engines get a full rebuild after those 5 seconds. To get a turbo to run that kind of HP numbers it would hae to be so large that I doubt that it would be fully spooled by the time the car made it to the end of the track =)

Last edited by Christopher Raemisch, Sun 9 Nov 2008, 05:16.

Quote from Lateralus :

I know that; I was referring more to the other previously-mentioned tracks than that one.



Er, when?

No not Road Atlanta, Road America =)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=__ByotKbusU This is a Champcar crash in 06.

Da Matta was the one that hit the deer in 06.

Quote from count.bazley :

Actually that was Road America ironically enough, and if I remember rightly another car ended up in the forest a few years previously after going off track.

Yeah sorry, I meant RA but I didn't word it very well. Meant to say that Portland is the only racetrack that I know of that is built in a city.

Cheers for spotting that =)

Quote from ajp71 :

Road America, Watkins Glen, Road Atlanta, Mid Ohio and Virginia could all host Grand Prixs without being micky mouse tracks with little or no development of the tracks themselves. Given the size of the US I should imagine dealing with the logistical issues of a Grand Prix would be much less of an issue than they are in the UK.

Road America would do nice, it has good runoffs with a lot of technical corners and braking zones.

Err Laterus FYI Road America is in the boonies with trees all around, not sure where you are getting that the tracks are near built up areas. Portland I know is in the city, but they would never host anything the state the track is in. Infact they had a deer hit by a single seater a while back and seriously injured a driver.

RA's facilities would need a major facelift, there is no paddok other than a pad of concrete to park semitrailers, but then most teams run out of their trailers that run RA now. There would need to be more stands in place ect. but the track itself IMO is top notch and could handle GP cars, Cart/IRL runs there/used to run there.

The Glen http://maps.google.com/maps?hl ... h&z=13&iwloc=addr
Doesn't look very built up to me, looks like a bunch of farmland.

VIR http://maps.google.com/maps/ms ... 145.000441ed57050f64ad489

Road Atlanta http://roadatlanta.com/directions.lasso

Can't be arsed to look for more tracks but to me most of them seem to be out away from built up areas and could easily be upgraded to work well for F1.

Last edited by Christopher Raemisch, Sat 8 Nov 2008, 17:32.

Mods for Rf... haha most are laughable and the others are pathetic. There are only a few worthy of driving but Rf just doesn't feel right.

Quote from MAD3.0LT :

lol u musent know what a centrufigle and vortex superchager is they dont even attach any bolts to a head the ones your thinking of are tunnel ram superchagers like the 671 :P

and for outright power nothing beats a superchaged V8

personaly id rather have a TT V8 for a useable car

oh and some superchagers run at 60+ psi

For anyone wanting to make any sort of power they would not be using a centrifugal supercharger. They are primarily used in low boost situations where high air volume is needed to achieve efficiencies. These chargers do not provide low RPM boost like a roots, so they behave like a turbo, but they also are parasitic to engine HP, requiring more HP to turn faster, so the top of the RPM powerband is cut off as well. They incorporate both negative effects from both the supercharger and turbocharger into 1 package, not sure why anyone would want to do that but go knock yourself out. They are also prone to air backtracking back past the centrifuge during low RPM deaccel.

I know some Mustang owners use them but if your going to supercharge the roots is where it’s at, at least then you get the low RPM power. True a centrifuge will have linear boost, but you could get a turbo to do that too if you really wanted to with changing the tune and using a wastegate at competition RPM levels.

Turbo’s can run up to that man PSI too if they have enough exhaust flow, not sure why running 60PSI is an advantage for a supercharger.

A v8 will make the most power on a turbo setup, but it would be more peaky than a supercharger and thats one reason why you see more V8's blown than turbo'ed.

I always thought LFS had the biggest playerbase and most active races held during a day? I don't know about you but to me that seems like a very large part of the market. About a year ago I did a search through Rf's and GTR's online racing server list. Between the two of them they couldn't match the number of races and racers using LFS at the same time. Jeez CTRA alone runs 400-500 races a day alone and see's something like 2k people a day...

It's not marketed but then it's not a finished product. The reason Iracing cna get away with marketing is that it's subscription based and one of the reasons for the subscription is having the ability to have 'free' updates regularly.

Was LFS influiencial in Sim Racing, I think it shows that quality wins over quantity, but IMO it hasn't really changed the market a ton, afterall it's hard to influince something when your not marketing.

Only way to solve this is to get a better IP, if your gaming on wireless shame on you and run wired =P

Yep, thats racing multiclass style =)

I did say there are a select few engines that are able to be run over 300BHP but the vast majority of mass produced engines do not have the tolerances or materials required to operate at that much HP. For those people that do get those engines they are lucky indeed =)

The advantage of water-meth is lower air temps which increases air density, the same idea behind a turbo, this allows you to throw more fuel into the mix, thus increasing your compression during the power stroke which gives you the increase in power.

A big downfall of superchargers is at higher RPM's they lose a good portion of their efficiency because the faster the screws turn the more power is needed to turn them. They routinely go from 90% to 40% or less in the higher RPM's.

Superchargers are great for making tons of torque but not so great at making HP when HP is made in the higher RPMs. V8's work fairly well on superchargers and GM even put one on their cobalt i4, but the engines powerband has to be low enough not to fall too far down the screws efficiency.

Superchargers are good for broad power figures, they cut the peak off and feed it to the lower end of the spectrum, but a turbo will always give you more power.

I find it hard to believe a turbo is heavier than a supercharger. A supercharger sits over the whole head, or most of it, while the turbo sits back in a corner somewhere, usually lower than that of a supercharger. When racing even 10 pounds in the wrong spot can throw off handling enough to reduce your times. This is professionally; club level would see less of a difference.

I think you are right that it might take more engergy to turn a turbo thinking about it good, but I am not sure. Screws on a supercharger are heavier than a turbo and thats not including the pulleys, belt, and housing. The major weight though is the rotating mass. True turbo's spin at a much higher RPM than a super, 15,000 compared to 130,000 but there is less mass in a turbo which makes this revolution possible. This operating RPM though may make the turbo use more energy than a supercharger though, advantage though it's using otherwise wasted energy instead of leeching it from the power coming from the crank.

Heat is more on a turbo for sure, turbo's do increase backpressure from between the engine and the turbo but not to a huge degree. But even a roots at a boost level of 10+ PSI makes enough heat to almost require an intercooler to keep efficiency up.

Superchargers are easier to tune, there isn't much to it besides changing out pulleys and they are easier to install, guess it what a driver wants =) They usually live longer too =)

Last edited by Christopher Raemisch, Sat 8 Nov 2008, 11:44.

Weight is a factor for supercharging racecars as well. They take a bit of weight and it's all placed on the topside of the engine where it's the worst place to put weight.

A supercharger will always lose efficiency the higher the RPM when compared to a turbo. They have much more rotating mass that the engine has to overcome before it can increase power.

A turbo is small and light, making it ideal for small cars. Turbo lag is still a factor, but nothing like it used to be back in the 'old' days. Keep the revvs up and with a steady foot you can keep boost positive, making for a much quicker spool.

Turbo's are positive feed, meaning the more boost the faster, until maximum efficiency is reached, it will spool so even a couple pounds pressure will give you a lot less turbo lag. WOT (Wide Open Throttle) shifting helps keep the turbo spooled on shifts. My car cuts the spark but keeps the fuel going so when the fuel hits the exhaust manifold it explodes, spooling the turbo during shifts.

IMO for efficiencies a turbo is much more efficient over a supercharger.

Turbo's are finicky things though and must be set up properly for each engine. Turbo's typically operate up to 100,000- 130,000 RPM and require lubrication, usually run off the oil pump, some turbo's if your lucky enough also run the engine coolant through it to keep temperatures reasonable.

You can get kits for certain cars that let you operate two turbo's but like Jeff said they are rare, but I think there is a cost factor involved =) Heat also prevents turbo's from making unlimited amounts of power. Because the inlet air is passing right next to the exhaust it heats up and the turbo makes for a great heatsink. Air also warms up as flow increases. Intercoolers help but they can only do so much.

In theory turbo's are 'limitless' but engines can handle so much and for a factory engine you would be lucky to get past 300BHP with an aftermarket turbo before having to change out internal parts. A lucky few engines can go past 400BHP before the engine becomes a ticking timebomb.

With enough money you can get I4's to run over 1200HP with a big turbo setup, but compression rates are so high and stresses so strong that it's not practical to go much higher.

I have seen utube vis of 2k HP Viper running twin turbo's, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NOcI4U1sb4 I am sure there are engines making more.

Last edited by Christopher Raemisch, Sat 8 Nov 2008, 09:07.

Or maybe he did?

Hehe welcome to random =)

What is the chance of that happening? 1:50 or so?

LOL well thats one way to have a good record!