Not sure it it's the whole difference, but it sure is not helping. A lot track guys I know installed an angled piece of lexan between the seat and rear of the window openings to cut down drag/buffeting.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Fast
Not sure it it's the whole difference, but it sure is not helping. A lot track guys I know installed an angled piece of lexan between the seat and rear of the window openings to cut down drag/buffeting.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Fast
Yes indeed, their Cd during testing on the salt flats was 0.10 lower than ours. Their car was documented at producing 670whp and weighed 3900lbs at the time of testing. On day one their top speed was 197mph. On day three they averaged 211mph.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyTurbo
With their stock Cd, which is the same as ours, their previous record was 183mph with a 600hp Ecotec engine.
I agree with you. After reading that I dont think its possible to break 200+mph with under 600 with a stock Cd.
Yoyre forgetting you lose a ton of top speed on the salt. You need something like 20% more power to go the same speed on salt as on pavement.
Rethink that statement
JFast, lower your car, put in windows, lose the big wing, put on a first gen front bumper and try again; willing to bet you do better.
Edit: maybe try blocking off your side mount openings also. Probably a parachute when it hits your wheel well linings and tires.
Also, citing your corrected numbers when making hp to speed performance comparisons (top speed, trap speed, etc) is irrelevant at your altitude. Glad to see you eventually stated your uncorrected numbers.
If everything is ready, I plan on hitting the Texas Mile in March.
Going to past events there and seeing which cars are in the 190-200 bracket makes me feel that I can achieve my goal of 200mph in the mile.
For some reason I feel compelled to say this... Don't you have a wife and kid(s)? You're pegging your car at 180+ mph for long stretches of public road? My speedo claimed 180 mph twice -- once in '03 and once in '05. Each time for only a second with seemingly lots of speed left on tap... Glad I grew out of that lunacy.
It all comes back the the first gen stealths being faster.
Well this real world data proves different...Quote:
Originally Posted by R/T93
205mph on concrete
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sM7f...e_gdata_player
202mph on Bonneville Salt Flats (and he spun at 200+mph due to traction)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9P-pnkusSk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
These ZR1's reported 570 at the wheel on DJ's. Acording to GM have a Cd of .36 and a frontal Area of 22.6sf.
When you enter in the top speed recorded and specs into Norwood's setup it calcs out as correct.
And all the guys that give thanks to this mindset like to have discussions about impeding progress... How come my car knocks at 15 PSI on pump gas...lol...? Mis-information man.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamVR4
Adam, I'm just sharing my results as you were so kind to do in the past.
Just like you, I own a racecar and am quite conscious of the inherently dangerous nature of said activity. I love it, and will live a long life doing it and watching my children, and children's children, do it.
Idk but to me that large fmic opening in your front bumper seems very anti aerodynamic at higher speeds like 150+mhp.. it's just a huge gaping airtrap.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Fast
I'm sure it's better for track though since aerodynamics are not as important at the speeds you hold at the track. so the benefits of keeping the engine cool outweighs the little gain in aerodynamics. but 180+ mph is a different ballgame for sure...