Did a high speed run
Sorry but you're an idiot if you did a 200+ run in your car.
Basically you battled with death and won but that doesnt make you a "winner".
There are soo many factors that coulda lead that run to your death. Wrong tire pressure, imperfection in the road, wind, a blowout, not enough downforce, anything anything that coulda sent you dead, especially since you were going past the MAX limit.
Idk, you were lucky. Im sure if you show off that i did a 200+mph run, 90% of the reactions would be similar to mine.
Not trying to be a dick but we dont need a dead person doing this especially driving an FD.
Basically you battled with death and won but that doesnt make you a "winner".
There are soo many factors that coulda lead that run to your death. Wrong tire pressure, imperfection in the road, wind, a blowout, not enough downforce, anything anything that coulda sent you dead, especially since you were going past the MAX limit.
Idk, you were lucky. Im sure if you show off that i did a 200+mph run, 90% of the reactions would be similar to mine.
Not trying to be a dick but we dont need a dead person doing this especially driving an FD.
Originally Posted by howard coleman
this is all simple stuff.
200 mph in an FD.
coefficient of drag (there are a few numbers as there's the 93-95 stock nose, the R1 splitter, the 99 bulldozer front end. there's a no rear spoiler, and there's a couple of different spoilers) so let's use one of the factory numbers for the FD.
coefficient of drag = .30
times frontal area that'd be 19.26 sq feet
times speed CUBED
divided by 146,600
equals required rwhp beforer a few additions for driveline losses 11% and 60 hp.
so:
.3 X 19.26 X 200 mph/146,600 = 315 rwhp plus 11% = 350 plus 60 hp = 410 rwhp to drive an FD to 200 mph.
how much hp does it take to reach the advertised 159 mph of the stock fd?
.3 X 19.26 X 159 cubed/146,600 = 158 plus 11% =175 plus 60 = 235.
note that the speed is CUBED so each mph gets much much tougher.
for instance 260 mph is 30% faster than 200 but requires about twice the hp (828).
a final thought.... at 150 on up you generally have about 5% slippage from the tire.
howard coleman
200 mph in an FD.
coefficient of drag (there are a few numbers as there's the 93-95 stock nose, the R1 splitter, the 99 bulldozer front end. there's a no rear spoiler, and there's a couple of different spoilers) so let's use one of the factory numbers for the FD.
coefficient of drag = .30
times frontal area that'd be 19.26 sq feet
times speed CUBED
divided by 146,600
equals required rwhp beforer a few additions for driveline losses 11% and 60 hp.
so:
.3 X 19.26 X 200 mph/146,600 = 315 rwhp plus 11% = 350 plus 60 hp = 410 rwhp to drive an FD to 200 mph.
how much hp does it take to reach the advertised 159 mph of the stock fd?
.3 X 19.26 X 159 cubed/146,600 = 158 plus 11% =175 plus 60 = 235.
note that the speed is CUBED so each mph gets much much tougher.
for instance 260 mph is 30% faster than 200 but requires about twice the hp (828).
a final thought.... at 150 on up you generally have about 5% slippage from the tire.
howard coleman
This is pretty crazy... That is damn fast. Cannot say that I have ever done that, my best is only about 155ish and it was on the bike. I'm not crazy enough yet to do that in the FD. But maybe it will come later this year. But then again, there really isnt any reason too, and roads around here really don't get straight enough to do it either....
All I can say is....your crazy man.....
Blithering Idiot
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 354
Likes: 5
From: NE Pa
Originally Posted by mirabile
I still say bs. It seems like it was pretty easy to try again at 630am, but I dont wana ask him to do it because it is so f+ckin nuts and he might crash.
EDIT: lol, this is from the OP's profile:
Car:
FD Mazda RX-7 GT1 (i made it up)
Originally Posted by Fritz Flynn
These high speed runs are way beyond ballsy I'd say these ***** are just plain crazy in their ***.
I get scared going 165 at the track and my *** is pretty crazy in fact sometimes I have to turn around and tell the little bastard to calm the **** down.
I get scared going 165 at the track and my *** is pretty crazy in fact sometimes I have to turn around and tell the little bastard to calm the **** down.
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane Aust.
Originally Posted by killswitch
Also remember something like the Veyron is likely to have better aerodynamics than the FD so it would take more HP to push the FD through the air.
I think you wil find the FD would take LESS power to reach the same speed as a Veyron.. the CD wouldnt be much less compared to an FD, BUT the frontal area of the veyron would be a good margin more..its a WIDE car. also the FD wasnt designed to run at such high speeds, meaning less need for downforce..downforce also =drag.
With the tyre expansion this will only make his reading underestimate the speed he is doing. its not going to slow the car down (well maybe increasing ride height increases drag) but it means he can reach a higher ACTUAL speed than just estimating through static tyre diameter, gears etc.
completely physically possible
Rotary Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
From: Austin TX.
have you guys ever checked out the RACING BEAT FD at BONNEVILLE vid its on one of there sites, FDs GO airbourne around 225 mph, just like an airplane. all opinions aside, an FD aero could make 200mph with about 550hp, OH yeah! also big *****. but any real racer would come equipped with them anyway!! I said real racer!!
Originally Posted by fastcarfreak
i though ratincat was only making like 380 at the wheels... I do remember a video of him on the way to rotary revolution where he had his needle barried past 180 for a good 20 seconds... It was pretty crazy...
fastest ive been was 185... calculated by rpm, wheels size and gearing...
i do plan to hit 200, possibly this year, but i have to be feeling pretty crazy...cuz going that fast really is just stupid....
fastest ive been was 185... calculated by rpm, wheels size and gearing...
i do plan to hit 200, possibly this year, but i have to be feeling pretty crazy...cuz going that fast really is just stupid....
he told me he was making 415 at the wheels, then returned and made 498.he's running a T-78, btw.
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
From: Niagara Falls
Jeromy, you got me there. I had the math backwards, increasing the diameter decreases the tire rev's at a given speed therefore reducing the speed readout. Still, it's been proven that it only takes around 410hp to reach this speed. +1 for "winning" over death though. Honestly, the fd was not designed to put down massive amounts of down force and at those speeds turns into a wing. I get pictures in my head of those youtube videos of cars going end over end 20 feet in the air.
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/aerohpcalc.html
Fill in the blanks.
Hope the poster doesn't try it again.
Fill in the blanks.
Hope the poster doesn't try it again.
Originally Posted by Fritz Flynn
These high speed runs are way beyond ballsy I'd say these ***** are just plain crazy in their ***.
I get scared going 165 at the track and my *** is pretty crazy in fact sometimes I have to turn around and tell the little bastard to calm the **** down.
I get scared going 165 at the track and my *** is pretty crazy in fact sometimes I have to turn around and tell the little bastard to calm the **** down.
:-) neil
BTW: On the FD's speedo's I saw 170 MPH in 5th with a fresh tune & dyno of 285 RWHP.
penurious
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
From: College Park, Maryland
just a fun fact about sleep since he did this at 6am (im assuming he never went to bed)
"Seventeen hours of sustained wakefulness leads to a decrease in performance equivalent to a blood alcohol-level of 0.05%."
"Seventeen hours of sustained wakefulness leads to a decrease in performance equivalent to a blood alcohol-level of 0.05%."
Originally Posted by montego
he clearly stated that he wasn't sure but yet you broke out with a calculation?
is that reading too much into it? I don't think so.
But whatever. I does not really matter either way.
is that reading too much into it? I don't think so.
But whatever. I does not really matter either way.
At least we both agree in one thing.. It doesn't matter to me either way! LOL!
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,279
Likes: 728
From: Florence, Alabama
o k we know what hp is required... actually it isn't alot due to the FDs small frontal area and excellent drag coefficient.
gearing is the other piece of the puzzle. as usual we have to make certain assumptions.
tire diameter. let's assume 26 inches so we have 81.68 inches circumference.
7000 rpm times fifth gear inverse 1.39 (overdrive) / 4.1 final gear ratio.
that means the rear tires are spinning at 2374 revs per minute at 7000.
they cover 81.68 inches each rev times .95 for slippage or 77.59 net of slip times 2374 times 60 to get to 11,051,919 inches per hour /63,360 inches per mile or
174 mph.
so gearing is a limit assuming a 4.1 and 7000 rpm. feel free to plug in a 3.9 rear... 184 mph, or 8000 rpm and the 3.9..... 210 mph
BTW, i have raced lots at Brainerd Int'l Raceway which has a 6000 ft straight then a banked wide radius 90 degree turn one. i enter onto the straight at about 85 mph and routinely go through turn one at 165. my car is so stable i could almost take my hands off the wheel on the banking. on Toyo TS 1 street tires. i lift just a touch entering the turn as i don't have a roll bar, fuel cell and am on street tires. it is all in setup. i have never been beaten at Brainerd and it is a fun track in Minn. the only reason i mention this is i want to emphasize what a fabulous car the FD is properly setup. if your car is all over the place above 120 it is a setup problem.
howard coleman
gearing is the other piece of the puzzle. as usual we have to make certain assumptions.
tire diameter. let's assume 26 inches so we have 81.68 inches circumference.
7000 rpm times fifth gear inverse 1.39 (overdrive) / 4.1 final gear ratio.
that means the rear tires are spinning at 2374 revs per minute at 7000.
they cover 81.68 inches each rev times .95 for slippage or 77.59 net of slip times 2374 times 60 to get to 11,051,919 inches per hour /63,360 inches per mile or
174 mph.
so gearing is a limit assuming a 4.1 and 7000 rpm. feel free to plug in a 3.9 rear... 184 mph, or 8000 rpm and the 3.9..... 210 mph
BTW, i have raced lots at Brainerd Int'l Raceway which has a 6000 ft straight then a banked wide radius 90 degree turn one. i enter onto the straight at about 85 mph and routinely go through turn one at 165. my car is so stable i could almost take my hands off the wheel on the banking. on Toyo TS 1 street tires. i lift just a touch entering the turn as i don't have a roll bar, fuel cell and am on street tires. it is all in setup. i have never been beaten at Brainerd and it is a fun track in Minn. the only reason i mention this is i want to emphasize what a fabulous car the FD is properly setup. if your car is all over the place above 120 it is a setup problem.
howard coleman
3rd motors a charm I hope
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,054
Likes: 0
From: Central New York
Originally Posted by 93VRTouring
he told me he was making 415 at the wheels, then returned and made 498.he's running a T-78, btw.
Ratincat = mike is a pretty cool dude, and is a crazy *** dude when driving his car... so i wouldnt doubt him doing 200 in the car...
Supra Smasher
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
From: indiana
Originally Posted by fastcarfreak
i guess its possible he is making that now... last i checked he didnt install the 3 bar map sensor i traded to him... which would limit his boost to around 17 psi, so its definitely possible he is making the 415 he claimed...i dont think he is making 498 though... thats a lot of horsepower for a T78 to handle unless he is running high 20s for boost... im making 461 at around 22-25 psi fluctuating on the t78...
Ratincat = mike is a pretty cool dude, and is a crazy *** dude when driving his car... so i wouldnt doubt him doing 200 in the car...
Ratincat = mike is a pretty cool dude, and is a crazy *** dude when driving his car... so i wouldnt doubt him doing 200 in the car...
Traitor
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
From: UNCC, NC
This thread is a joke.
The guys PFC reads 331 kilometers per hour, and all this forum has to say is "You weren't really going 200mph, ONLY 192." Than back it up with math equations which results would be incorrect if a simple 10mph wind was blowing his way.
QUICK, somebody tell him how dangerous this was because surely he didn't pick up on that as he propelled his 2800lb vehicle to 200mph.
The guys PFC reads 331 kilometers per hour, and all this forum has to say is "You weren't really going 200mph, ONLY 192." Than back it up with math equations which results would be incorrect if a simple 10mph wind was blowing his way.
QUICK, somebody tell him how dangerous this was because surely he didn't pick up on that as he propelled his 2800lb vehicle to 200mph.