I Need To Go On A Diet
#16
10-26-2006, 08:03 PM
Originally Posted by Jean
I can tell you that a GT2 vs a TT has about a 23% time advantage over a 62-124mph run. About 20% from hp/weight advantage and a net of about 3% between advantage of 4WD losses and offset by worse aerodynamics.
#17
10-26-2006, 08:05 PM
Originally Posted by MARKSKI
This leads me to point out how much of a difference a GT2 on a slight diet can make at the 1/4 track...
Unfortunately we categorize tts and gt2s in the same pool.... Clearly GT2s have an advantage at the 1/4 track... not to mention it doesnt have PSM which really hurts us guys at the start... LSD is another plus that we do not have...
I think there are only 4 non tuner cars on 6speed that ran 10s.... 2 of which are GT2s... And Im pretty sure 3 out of the 4 are on a decent diet...
Im only speculating...
markski
Unfortunately we categorize tts and gt2s in the same pool.... Clearly GT2s have an advantage at the 1/4 track... not to mention it doesnt have PSM which really hurts us guys at the start... LSD is another plus that we do not have...
I think there are only 4 non tuner cars on 6speed that ran 10s.... 2 of which are GT2s... And Im pretty sure 3 out of the 4 are on a decent diet...
Im only speculating...
markski
#18
10-26-2006, 08:19 PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Michigan
Age: 55
Posts: 2,726
Rep Power: 414 
Originally Posted by Jean
Hummm....KPG....so all those questions about impact of weight vs performance......were not only out of curiosity.... 
Kevin
#19
10-26-2006, 08:24 PM
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
That's right. I forgot that the GT2 has a higher drag coefficient than the TT. .34 for the GT2 vs .31 for the TT.
#20
10-26-2006, 08:29 PM
Originally Posted by vincentdds
The GT2 height is normally lower with better flow from front to back spoilers. How come it has .34 vs .31?
Last edited by Divexxtreme; 10-26-2006 at 08:31 PM.
#24
10-27-2006, 11:10 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: MPLS, MN USA
Age: 63
Posts: 5,710
Rep Power: 464
Grussel,
that was funny!
I weigh 184 (have for 20 years), and the last roll I volunteered to do
was against a 70 Chevelle SS with built up big block. I did "HAPPEN"
to notice the two guys weighed in excess of 575 when paired together...
One must know what they are up against!!
Good luck KPG, are you saying you need more power??
MK
that was funny!
I weigh 184 (have for 20 years), and the last roll I volunteered to do
was against a 70 Chevelle SS with built up big block. I did "HAPPEN"
to notice the two guys weighed in excess of 575 when paired together...
One must know what they are up against!!
Good luck KPG, are you saying you need more power??
MK
#25
10-27-2006, 12:44 PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Michigan
Age: 55
Posts: 2,726
Rep Power: 414
Originally Posted by WOODTSTER
Grussel,
that was funny!
I weigh 184 (have for 20 years), and the last roll I volunteered to do
was against a 70 Chevelle SS with built up big block. I did "HAPPEN"
to notice the two guys weighed in excess of 575 when paired together...
One must know what they are up against!!
Good luck KPG, are you saying you need more power??
MK
that was funny!
I weigh 184 (have for 20 years), and the last roll I volunteered to do
was against a 70 Chevelle SS with built up big block. I did "HAPPEN"
to notice the two guys weighed in excess of 575 when paired together...
One must know what they are up against!!
Good luck KPG, are you saying you need more power??
MK
My hat is off to 9Eleven. As for needing more power....why not? Kevin
#26
10-27-2006, 12:50 PM
Originally Posted by iLLM3
CF roof :P
If one were to ditch the steel roof (w/ sunroof, sunroof motor, etc) for a carbon fibre roof and new hole-less headliner, would it present a potential safety hazard on a street car?
#27
10-27-2006, 01:00 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Delawhere?
Age: 44
Posts: 3,725
Rep Power: 228
I think the new M5 or M6 has a CF roof. (distant memory from Top Gear). It would certainly lower the center of gravity.
#28
10-27-2006, 01:02 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne Beach, Fl
Age: 61
Posts: 1,477
Rep Power: 116
Originally Posted by KPG
Marty, I am just organizing and graphing a whole battery of GPS data from 9Eleven's red GT2 with ECU programming to post today. The data makes it abundantly clear that weight hurts... and hurts a great deal.His car flew and although he beat my GPS times in some areas and I beat him in others it is clear that these 2 cars are dead even. Between these two cars at the drags it comes down to this.... the driver who makes a mistake loses, plain and simple. A 0-160 run is going to be posted My hat is off to 9Eleven. As for needing more power....why not? Kevin
My hat is off to 9Eleven. As for needing more power....why not? Kevin
I couldn't agree more with your comments, the cars are almost dead even. The best driver wins in this case. Weight is a very important variable in this comparison, more than we ever thought. Did you ever get a trap speed? I think my best was 127.1. Like I said, when you come out in March, dinner is on me.
Last edited by 9Eleven; 10-27-2006 at 01:08 PM.
#29
10-27-2006, 01:05 PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Michigan
Age: 55
Posts: 2,726
Rep Power: 414
Originally Posted by 9Eleven
Kevin, you're true gentlemen. I really enjoyed using the Racelogic, although I did test fate on several occasions. I don't think I had the car floored all the way up 160 mph, so I probably could have bested that time. I think my self preservation instincts kicked in and I laid off the throttle slightly.
I couldn't agree more with your comments, the cars are almost dead even. The best driver wins in this case. Weight is a very important variable in this comparison, more than we ever thought. Did you ever get a trap speed? I think my best was 127.1. Like I said, when you come out in March, dinner is on me.
I couldn't agree more with your comments, the cars are almost dead even. The best driver wins in this case. Weight is a very important variable in this comparison, more than we ever thought. Did you ever get a trap speed? I think my best was 127.1. Like I said, when you come out in March, dinner is on me.
Kevin
#30
10-27-2006, 01:10 PM
Originally Posted by vincentdds
The GT2 height is normally lower with better flow from front to back spoilers. How come it has .34 vs .31?
The 996TT has a CD of 0.31 however an area of 2 sq. m. which makes it a CDa of 0.62 sq.m.
The 996GT2 has worse aerodynamic drag of 0.34 (wing, tire sizes, front lip etc..) but lesser area of 1.96 sq. m. (30mm lower) the resulting CDa is 0.67 Sq. m., which is worse than the 996TT.