slngsht Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Frustrated with the cold weather and work, I decided I'm gonna take Frankn7 out today, and for the first time, see what she can do from 0-60 in an unofficial test. So I drove around until I found a spot on the highway, pulled over and let traffic pass, turned on data acquisition and took off when there was an opening. I started the run directly from the shoulder, in 2nd gear. Tires had 5 minutes of normal driving on them, at 40 degree weather. 0-60 was pretty disappointing at 3.8 seconds My data capture is below... Note % throttle http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/lol.gif http://www.usa7s.com/forum/uploads/slngsht/0to60.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDROCKT Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 HOLY BLACK STREAKS! How did it feel? Loose? Stable? Is the grin still all over your face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted January 27, 2007 Author Share Posted January 27, 2007 I tried to keep wheel spin to a minimum. In the beginning you feel really trapped by lack of traction. If you look at the data, you'll see as I approach 60 MPH, each .2 seconds, i'm gaining 6 MPH, where as when you look up the table, I wasn't able to gain as much (except at 8 MPH, where I had to back off the throttle). There is ALOT more in there. maybe warmer tires and a straight launch will help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scannon Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 That's VERY IMPRESSIVE! There are damn few cars on this planet that can do a 0-60 in 3.8 seconds. To do it on cold pavement and tires, from the side of the road and starting in 2nd gear is even more impressive. Looking forward to seeing what it will do under optimal conditions. Skip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al N. Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I told you guys this car was quick! And that was before the cam install. http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/ack2.gif I've got to find those CSR rear rims quick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rv-4mike Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 The Ariel Atoms with 245HP - 300HP Honda and Ecotec engines are 0 - 60 under 3 seconds. The 245HP cars are actually just as quick because the 300s are traction limited. Anybody know of a Seven that runs sub 3 seconds 0 - 60? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locostv8 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 315 35 17s = 12"+ tred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 The Ariel Atoms with 245HP - 300HP Honda and Ecotec engines are 0 - 60 under 3 seconds. The 245HP cars are actually just as quick because the 300s are traction limited. Anybody know of a Seven that runs sub 3 seconds 0 - 60? 3 seconds is my target. I'll take her out again when it's warmer, and find a place where I can actually be on the road when I start. I may even let some more air out of the tires. I'm running 22 PSI now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 315 35 17s = 12"+ tred I'm trying to take it a little easier on my wallet, but I will really need to upgrade the rear at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slomove Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I suspect when Ariel and the likes go out for acceleration testing to print in their literature they make sure everything is right, like nice warm drag strip, sticky warm tires, an experienced drag racer, shedding all junk from the car, engine optimized etc. Then they may do some dozen runs and pick the best. After all this is one of the most important marketing figures. I guess the chance for the normal driver to get there is pretty slim. The 1/4mile figures are probably more reliable. Gert P.S.: I am happy when I get 4.5 seconds....Even then my times vary wildly +/- 0.3 seconds, depending on how fast I shift. I am also confused because I read the car companies and most magazines use a 12" roll-out before they start the timer. There is already abou 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. slomove2007-01-28 13:24:45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 I suspect when Ariel and the likes go out for acceleration testing to print in their literature they make sure everything is right, like nice warm drag strip, sticky warm tires, an experienced drag racer, shedding all junk from the car, engine optimized etc. Then they may do some dozen runs and pick the best. After all this is one of the most important marketing figures. I guess the chance for the normal driver to get there is pretty slim. The 1/4mile figures are probably more reliable. Gert P.S.: I am happy when I get 4.5 seconds....Even then my times vary wildly +/- 0.3 seconds, depending on how fast I shift. I am also confused because I read the car companies and most magazines use a 12" roll-out before they start the timer. There is already abou 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. Good points... I hadn't heard the 12" roll thing before. In my case, maybe more weight would help... maybe I can have a passenger stand on the rear axle and hold on to the roll bar http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/lol.gif There is no doubt quarter mile numbers are more dominated by power/weight, than by traction ability. I will make another measured run next time it's warm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rv-4mike Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 The 2.7 - 2.8 second times I've read about for the Atoms were from independant testers (magazine articles). A 12" roll isnt exactly 0 - 60 is it? http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/confused5.gif Never heard of that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slomove Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I am not a drag racer but this roll-out business has something to do with the point you stop at when the stage lights triggers at the drag strip. If you stop immediately you stage "shallow" which gives you a good end speed but bad reaction time. If you roll a few inches beyond that point you stage "deep", giving better reaction speed but worse overall time. For me that all means if it gets into the 3 or 4 seconds to 60 everything becomes subjective.... Gert P.S. more info >here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slomove Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Another interesting one (clipped from www.automobilemag.com): Philosophy: Automobile tests cars for a variety of reasons. While many makers offer a few snippets of acceleration, top-speed, and gas-mileage information, many do not. Conducting our own tests fills in gaps and adds trustworthy information about passing ability, cornering grip, and stopping performance. Having accurate performance profiles helps us pass judgment when we compare one contender to the next or draw conclusions at the end of a Four Seasons evaluation. Since there is no industry-wide standard for car testing, every maker has its own pet procedures. Some test with less than a full tank of fuel, some with two passengers and luggage aboard. Doing our own tests is the only means of leveling the playing field. Some publications strive for the quickest, fastest, or most spectacular results. We make no attempt to emulate quarter-mile drag strip results by subtracting the roll-out portion (the 0.3-0.4 seconds required to move the first foot) of the acceleration run. Drag strips divulge nothing but the speed achieved near the end of the quarter mile and the time required to accelerate that distance. Since the strip reports no other time-to-speed information, subtracting roll-out from 0-60 mph results is never warranted. Many magazines do adjust all of their acceleration results by subtracting the roll-out. We do not because, even though that yields quicker, more tantalizing performance figures, it presents a less accurate picture of the car's abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 thanks for the read... For what it's worth, I posted this thread in the offtopic section. There is a guy on corvetteforum who is VERY good at getting excellent 1/4 mile numbers, and he is a nice guy to boot - and from Maryland no less http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/biggrin5.gif. Anyway, he did a write up on what he does, and I cut and pasted it here: http://www.usa7s.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=299&KW=z06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rv-4mike Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I think most magazines use a data acquisition systems when testing cars, at least the ones I read do. I dont know if the mags I read the Atom articles in do. They also usually correct all performance measures to standard atmospheric conditions so you can compare apples to apples. The data acq. would take away any trickery with staging. 10.85 out of stock Z06? I'd have to see that to believe it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 I think most magazines use a data acquisition systems when testing cars, at least the ones I read do. I dont know if the mags I read the Atom articles in do. They also usually correct all performance measures to standard atmospheric conditions so you can compare apples to apples. The data acq. would take away any trickery with staging. 10.85 out of stock Z06? I'd have to see that to believe it! 10.85 is in a C6 Z. He's very well known in the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sb427f-car Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Is this why you started a thread on the STi center diff on the locust board? http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/biggrin5.gif Or are you seriously thinking about going AWD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/lol.gif No AWD... I just wondered if anyone had a rear diff like that. I think I'm just going to go the simple route. My nephew will get me an 8" Toyota rear, we'll load her up with a trutrac diff, and 3.09 rear. With slightly taller tires, I should be able to hit 60 in first, and 100 in second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soareyes Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Anybody know of a Seven that runs sub 3 seconds 0 - 60? Yes, this one at 2.9 seconds: >http://www.tigerracing.com/cars/tiger-z100-main.php Twin bike engines, four-wheel drive (one engine drives the front, the other the rear). Maybe its not a Seven anymore, more like a Fourteen? http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/wink5.gifsoareyes2007-01-29 12:13:47 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now