[johnta1]

Stan, no one has told them that Pontiac HP is the same as any other brand HP.

Power adder HP is the same as NA HP.
NOS HP is the same as Blower HP.

It's all in how you make the HP that tells the story.



PS: In the ET of the car, it only shows what HP it used to make that ET, not the total HP of the engine.

[Jeff Kinsler]

Stan and John what should Brand X's twin turbo car run in the quarter??

[johnta1]

What is his HP and weight?

[johnta1]

OK, from another thread:

Nos??? That's prehistoric **** lol. No nos!

Made a hit today at track rental......

1.20
3.25

Then catch cans overfilled and started moving around so I lifted. Coasted thru to a 4.97 at 140.....leaving at 7 lbs and ramping to 24 lbs at 1.3 second. Shifted at 7100. Creeping up on it. This thing is an animal. No bars....10.5w tires.

His 60' and 330' are sucky, his 'coasting' 4.97 and 140 MPH shows a LOT of potential.

Just from them possibly 7.6x - 7.7x seconds in 1/4?
On a track probably better with get traction full length.

[Travis Q]

Originally Posted by johnta1

What is his HP and weight?

If you want a rough number, just take Rod's 6.27@228, which was run at 2760 lb, and then change the weight to 3500 lb.

Jack's car is going to FLY. He has eliminated one of the big roadblocks that have plagued nitrous powered Pontiacs. I fully expect the car to run mid-low 7s when sorted out. More power to him!

[Aaron Quinton]

That should put Justin in a ~7.1 sec @ ~190 mph. I'd say there's a lot more in it. I didn't realize his engine was a duplicate of the engine in Rod's car. Very cool.

Originally Posted by Travis Q

If you want a rough number, just take Rod's 6.27@228, which was run at 2760 lb, and then change the weight to 3500 lb.

Jack's car is going to FLY. He has eliminated one of the big roadblocks that have plagued nitrous powered Pontiacs. I fully expect the car to run mid-low 7s when sorted out. More power to him!

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by johnta1

Stan, no one has told them that Pontiac HP is the same as any other brand HP.

Power adder HP is the same as NA HP.
NOS HP is the same as Blower HP.

It's all in how you make the HP that tells the story.



PS: In the ET of the car, it only shows what HP it used to make that ET, not the total HP of the engine.

Quoted for the ridiculous ignorant post it is. While hp is hp may be true. make 800hp that peaks at 6500 rpm and compare it to 800 hp that peaks at 9500rpm and compare them in the same car both na with no other changes. Let us know how it works out....

I truly think you know better than this. you just really want jack to lose or be wrong. You may get to see him struggle for a bit with a new combo. for a while. but he will figure it out. If he hits it outa the park right outta the gate are you gonna need counseling?

[johnta1]

Quoted for the ridiculous ignorant post it is. While hp is hp may be true. make 800hp that peaks at 6500 rpm and compare it to 800 hp that peaks at 9500rpm and compare them in the same car both na with no other changes. Let us know how it works out....

I truly think you know better than this. you just really want jack to lose or be wrong. You may get to see him struggle for a bit with a new combo. for a while. but he will figure it out. If he hits it outa the park right outta the gate are you gonna need counseling?

What are you drinking?

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

Quoted for the ridiculous ignorant post it is. While hp is hp may be true. make 800hp that peaks at 6500 rpm and compare it to 800 hp that peaks at 9500rpm and compare them in the same car both na with no other changes. Let us know how it works out....

I truly think you know better than this. you just really want jack to lose or be wrong. You may get to see him struggle for a bit with a new combo. for a while. but he will figure it out. If he hits it outa the park right outta the gate are you gonna need counseling?

Mike,
Can you please explain your physics to me.

Mine goes like this.

800 HP @ 6500 = 646.4 torque

800 HP @ 9500 = 442.2736842105263 torque

What is important is what we can delivery to wheel to accelerate the car.

9500 / 6500 = 1.461538461538461

1.461538461538461 * 442.2736842105263 = 646.3999999999997

So at 6500 axle RPM they both produce torque of 646.4

Now if you want to talk about 2 engines producing the same torque but at different RPM you are on to something.

Stan

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
Can you please explain your physics to me.

Mine goes like this.

800 HP @ 6500 = 646.4 torque

800 HP @ 9500 = 442.2736842105263 torque

What is important is what we can delivery to wheel to accelerate the car.

9500 / 6500 = 1.461538461538461

1.461538461538461 * 442.2736842105263 = 646.3999999999997

So at 6500 axle RPM they both produce torque of 646.4

Now if you want to talk about 2 engines producing the same torque but at different RPM you are on to something.

Stan

Quoted for (I'm trying to be nice)Ignorance. Any person that portrays themselves as smart as you do, KNOWS the point of my post. In the real world the car that peaks higher has 2 advantages 1,higher average power 2,more power "events". It will go faster in a "REAL" car unless the person running it is a dolt.
The problem with calculator racing is you can manipulate the inputs to try and make your point or outcome whatever you want. The parameters were engine rpm not torque at the tire at axle rpm. Using your "brilliant" calculations why would they not have the same torque at 9500 axle rpm? They will NOT perform the same and if you and john think so...get a room at the CV1 notel, where fantasies abound and everyone hates Jack and believes whatever they like is true.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

Quoted for (I'm trying to be nice)Ignorance. Any person that portrays themselves as smart as you do, KNOWS the point of my post. In the real world the car that peaks higher has 2 advantages 1,higher average power 2,more power "events". It will go faster in a "REAL" car unless the person running it is a dolt.
The problem with calculator racing is you can manipulate the inputs to try and make your point or outcome whatever you want. The parameters were engine rpm not torque at the tire at axle rpm. Using your "brilliant" calculations why would they not have the same torque at 9500 axle rpm? They will NOT perform the same and if you and john think so...get a room at the CV1 notel, where fantasies abound and everyone hates Jack and believes whatever they like is true.

Mike,
Thank you for your reply. It shows your clear ignorance of the laws of physics and the relationship between between HP, RPM and torque. Also stop swinging from Jack's balls and put away your clear CV-1 BS. While I did not do the Photoragphy, they did have my name so it could be listed in the article. I have no head preference, but I post up a response when people like you post up BS about someone's product.

Stan

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
Thank you for your reply. It shows your clear ignorance of the laws of physics and the relationship between between HP, RPM and torque. Also stop swinging from Jack's balls and put away your clear CV-1 BS. While I did not do the Photoragphy, they did have my name so it could be listed in the article. I have no head preference, but I post up a response when people like you post up BS about someone's product.

Stan

You sir are lost on the reality of the topic. If you truly believe its the same you are lost on practical application of physics. Matters not how great you are at designing simulators. I understand all about how the horsepower is calculated and torque is measured. You aren't the only one with an engineering background. The NUMBER is the same, not the usable power when applied over seconds of the engine running and doing work. If your point is valid then why do all engine builders in corporate a higher rpm into their engine designs when trying to improve or maximize et potential in a vehicle? So they can spend more money and increase the work load on parts only to achieve the same results. I'm not ignorant of physics at all Stan, but if you think that saying that makes it so then I understand why you think what you do about this any many other subjects.
As far as swinging from jack. I do t think anybody does that. I think jacks upgrades will take some trial and error to achieve the results he expects. And I'm not and never have bashed a product.... Just the nut swingers that all jump on the band wagon for emotional reasons. Sorry you fit right in with the group. Feel free to help an na car of similar weight and your beloved c 1 wool my a$$. I'll accept defeat with grace.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

You sir are lost on the reality of the topic. If you truly believe its the same you are lost on practical application of physics. Matters not how great you are at designing simulators. I understand all about how the horsepower is calculated and torque is measured. You aren't the only one with an engineering background. The NUMBER is the same, not the usable power when applied over seconds of the engine running and doing work. If your point is valid then why do all engine builders in corporate a higher rpm into their engine designs when trying to improve or maximize et potential in a vehicle? So they can spend more money and increase the work load on parts only to achieve the same results. I'm not ignorant of physics at all Stan, but if you think that saying that makes it so then I understand why you think what you do about this any many other subjects.
As far as swinging from jack. I do t think anybody does that. I think jacks upgrades will take some trial and error to achieve the results he expects. And I'm not and never have bashed a product.... Just the nut swingers that all jump on the band wagon for emotional reasons. Sorry you fit right in with the group. Feel free to help an na car of similar weight and your beloved c 1 wool my a$$. I'll accept defeat with grace.

Why are the Pickett's running a 428 ci engine and shifting at 10000 plus RPM?

Oh Oh Oh Oh I know. They want to run Tom's race.

Which is based on Pounds per Cubic Inches

Stan

PS - So you are Ass hurt by CV-1s

[LiL Jack]

Originally Posted by mike leech

Quoted for (I'm trying to be nice)Ignorance. Any person that portrays themselves as smart as you do, KNOWS the point of my post. In the real world the car that peaks higher has 2 advantages 1,higher average power 2,more power "events". It will go faster in a "REAL" car unless the person running it is a dolt.
The problem with calculator racing is you can manipulate the inputs to try and make your point or outcome whatever you want. The parameters were engine rpm not torque at the tire at axle rpm. Using your "brilliant" calculations why would they not have the same torque at 9500 axle rpm? They will NOT perform the same and if you and john think so...get a room at the CV1 notel, where fantasies abound and everyone hates Jack and believes whatever they like is true.

I LMAO @ CV notel !!!!!!

[Aaron Quinton]

Mike,

I have the utmost respect for you and the numbers your car runs. I hope my car can achieve what you've done in the future.

In theory, hp is what moves a vehicle. It doesn't matter if it's an 800 hp Pontiac at 6000 rpm or an 800 sbc at 9000 rpm moving the car. If the cars are able to deal with the power applied, they should run the same numbers. The difference may be in the instantaneous torque levels applied by the crankshaft to the rear end. The torque measured during a dyno pull is the average torque vs. rpm. The running engine produces a sine wave torque pulse that has highs and lows vs. the average. The higher rpm engine will have more pulses that have lower highs and lows as compared to the lower rpm engine. Maybe this is enough difference to allow the higher rpm engine to have traction to accelerate the car vs. the lower rpm engine due to the lower torque pulses applied to the tires. What do you guys think?

This never occurred to me until I had a discussion with a seasoned motorcycle road racer years ago. I'm a big 2 stroke GP fan that has been disappointed ever since 4 stroke engines took over GP. I had a discussion with this guy and never understood why the 4 stroke engines took over. He had ridden both 2 stroke and 4 stroke engines with similar power and was faster on the 4 stroke bike. His feedback was the 4 stroke bike had higher torque pulses which let the rider know better when the bike was closer loosing traction as compared to the 2 stroke. The 4 stroke bike provided more rider feedback on traction limitations than the 2 stroke providing more confidence for the rider and faster track times. This was a revelation to me as a novice 4 stroke rider.

Maybe the lower torque pulse engine (higher rpm) allows a traction limited car to run faster (the opposite of the motorcycle example in a real world applciation)?

Stan, can you modify your code to take into account the torque pulses if it doesn't have this capability?

Maybe Mike and Stan are both right and we just have to bridge a minor gap in experience vs. practical application.

Let's pull together and move forward instead of pissing at each other!

Merry Christmas to the PY crew,

Aaron

Originally Posted by mike leech

Quoted for (I'm trying to be nice)Ignorance. Any person that portrays themselves as smart as you do, KNOWS the point of my post. In the real world the car that peaks higher has 2 advantages 1,higher average power 2,more power "events". It will go faster in a "REAL" car unless the person running it is a dolt.
The problem with calculator racing is you can manipulate the inputs to try and make your point or outcome whatever you want. The parameters were engine rpm not torque at the tire at axle rpm. Using your "brilliant" calculations why would they not have the same torque at 9500 axle rpm? They will NOT perform the same and if you and john think so...get a room at the CV1 notel, where fantasies abound and everyone hates Jack and believes whatever they like is true.