Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: ABDC 2017 - Acceleration Results & Video

  1. #21
    7753 - 5030 HSE2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Falco View Post
    4V, Did you see what I wrote above in response to you? Did you find Justin's response on that FB page? If you couldn't find it do you want me to copy it here for people to read? . . . he lays it out pretty plainly and logically, from someone who has been on both sides of a good and bad performance result, he says.
    If this is the page I think it is, no dont post it.

    You can however put it in your own words.
    History is a statement, the future is a question.

  2. #22
    7753 - 5030 HSE2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,773
    Scrap that. Norm just confirmed its not the secret squirrel, dont remove content Jeff page but the other page.

    That's fine. I am an admin there. I will slap myself
    History is a statement, the future is a question.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Futura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    722
    Has it been posted yet?

  4. #24
    Miami Sprint. 4Vman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    18,809
    Guys,

    The maths just didnt work for me.

    If the 0-100kmh time and the 400m time were done in one run. ABDC have broken the rules of physics.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ca...on-d_1309.html

    if you go to this page, it will do the majority of the calculations yourself

    take the 0-100 time first...

    to get from 0-100kmh in an 1850kg vehicle, you need to have travelled around 82m

    that leaves 318m to travel.

    Now the car at that 82m meter mark is doing 100kmh, it hits the 400m mark at 194kmh according to ABDC.

    next type into the same link.

    Start speed - 100kmh
    Final speed - 194kmh
    Time taken - 6.428 (or whatever it was i cant check)- difference between the 0-100kmh time and the ET for the 0-400m mark
    The distance taken was 262m - a bit short of the 310(ish) meters that the car needs to finish the quarter mile....

    Basically to hit the 6.4 seconds to do the 310m to close out the quarter mile, the car would have needed to be doing around 250kmh at the end of the quarter.
    My Falcon family heritage: XY V8 Falcon 500, XYGT, XBGT, XC 351 GS, XD 4.1 Spack, EF wagon, AU Wagon, AU2 Wagon, AU2 XR8, BA XR8, BF XR8, FG XR6, Lucky last: Sprint 8. Oh wait, AU3 XLS Marlin Ute!

  5. #25
    Miami Sprint. 4Vman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    18,809
    Motoring have come out this morning with an article titled


    "ABDC 2017: Stats never lie – ABDC by the numbers"

    http://www.motoring.com.au/abdc-2017...umbers-107345/

    Then proceed to type this:




    So did the HSV get a 5.9 or 2.7? 0-100?

    In fact which car got a 2.7?

    If they can't get their numbers right in an article put out their to defend the accuracy of their own results who's to say they haven't completely screwed up the 0-100 testing or numbers.....
    My Falcon family heritage: XY V8 Falcon 500, XYGT, XBGT, XC 351 GS, XD 4.1 Spack, EF wagon, AU Wagon, AU2 Wagon, AU2 XR8, BA XR8, BF XR8, FG XR6, Lucky last: Sprint 8. Oh wait, AU3 XLS Marlin Ute!

  6. #26
    Senior Member Futura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    722
    Could it be that they have mismatched the car aceleration times?

  7. #27
    Senior Member Futura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    722
    What we really need are 60 footer times, and the half track times/with speed.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Futura For This Useful Post:

    Randel (29th May 2017)

  9. #28
    Senior Member Falco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by HSE2 View Post
    Scrap that. Norm just confirmed its not the secret squirrel, dont remove content Jeff page but the other page.

    That's fine. I am an admin there. I will slap myself
    OK, I don't know what "secret squirrel" means but I'm assuming you say it is OK to copy and paste from the 'other site' but not Jeff's. I should say too that I was in error in my comment to 4V; it wasn't Jeff's FB page where we'd had some chats but it was another one.

    Justin said:
    "Yeah but there's a fair bit wrong with all of their times here.

    Not that I'm not happy about their failures, this is at least 1.5 seconds slower than a competitive time for a W1 and about the same for a Focus RS. Even the GTR at 3.9 is nearly a second slower than it should be.

    I did a bit of math. If their 0-100kmh time was done on the same run as the 400m time, then they have actually broken the laws of physics.
    0-100kmh in 5.9s that's 89m taken to get to 100kmh. Which means it took them 6.5s to do 311m - but the car trapped at 194kmh.

    Simple D=SxT means that speed and time = 210m travelled

    Basically... that commodore has travelled 100m at the speed of light."

    . . . and then in another response he continued:-

    " I've been on the bad side of times and dyno's - to be fair to HSV. This time is no where near as fast as what the car is. It's just either bad track, bad driving, or can't be bothered getting the best out of the car".
    - Winter White XR6 Sprint #141 with 3M Carbon tint & Koya SF-06 19" silver machined-face rims; original PZeros -

  10. #29
    Senior Member Futura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by Falco View Post
    OK, I don't know what "secret squirrel" means but I'm assuming you say it is OK to copy and paste from the 'other site' but not Jeff's. I should say too that I was in error in my comment to 4V; it wasn't Jeff's FB page where we'd had some chats but it was another one.

    Justin said:
    "Yeah but there's a fair bit wrong with all of their times here.

    Not that I'm not happy about their failures, this is at least 1.5 seconds slower than a competitive time for a W1 and about the same for a Focus RS. Even the GTR at 3.9 is nearly a second slower than it should be.

    I did a bit of math. If their 0-100kmh time was done on the same run as the 400m time, then they have actually broken the laws of physics.
    0-100kmh in 5.9s that's 89m taken to get to 100kmh. Which means it took them 6.5s to do 311m - but the car trapped at 194kmh.

    Simple D=SxT means that speed and time = 210m travelled

    Basically... that commodore has travelled 100m at the speed of light."

    . . . and then in another response he continued:-

    " I've been on the bad side of times and dyno's - to be fair to HSV. This time is no where near as fast as what the car is. It's just either bad track, bad driving, or can't be bothered getting the best out of the car".
    Sorry Who is Justin?

  11. #30
    Miami Sprint. 4Vman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    18,809
    So in a nut shell Motoring are standing by their claim that the W1 did a 5.9 second 0-100 and 12.4 second @194kph in the same run.

    What they're effectively saying is a W1 is capable of a 10.7 second 400m.

    Working backwards:

    The math in reverse: It's going from 100kph to 194kph in 6.5 seconds, 12.4 - 5.9 = 6.5, yes?

    We all know a W1 can get from 0-100 kph in 4.2 seconds at least, but lets use 4.2.

    If you add that 0-100 time to the 100 - 194 time ABDC got that equates to a combined best potential time of approx 10.7 seconds for the 1/4 mile.

    IMPOSSIBLE.

    The times are odd for most of the other cars too but they won't have a bar of it.
    My Falcon family heritage: XY V8 Falcon 500, XYGT, XBGT, XC 351 GS, XD 4.1 Spack, EF wagon, AU Wagon, AU2 Wagon, AU2 XR8, BA XR8, BF XR8, FG XR6, Lucky last: Sprint 8. Oh wait, AU3 XLS Marlin Ute!

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to 4Vman For This Useful Post:

    383gxl (30th May 2017)

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •