This is insane!
Moderator
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,166
Likes: 6
From: San Antonio, TEXAS!!!
Vehicle: 01 Tiburon Turbo, 99 Tiburon F2E, 2013 Avalon XLE Touring
The bike may have only been going 184, but that car was pulling a lot faster. More than 6mph faster. So I'd even go as far to say 190 actual mph.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,932
Likes: 0
From: Boston
Vehicle: 2006 Pontiac GTO
QUOTE (i8acobra @ Jun 8 2009, 08:15 PM)
In a light chassis, like an Atom or Caterham 7 and with a turbo... yes.
Unfortunately physics > you. At high speeds mass is not that important, air resistance is what's important. The speed at which you top out is basically a function of the drag and frontal (cross-section) area, mass doesn't even matter. The reason you need massive amounts of power to get to really high speeds is that the force of air resistance grows with the SQUARE of the speed, which means that the power required to overcome it grows with the CUBE of the speed. You want to go twice as fast? You need eight times the power..
Caterham 7 has a drag coefficient of.. drumroll.. A MASSIVE 0.7, compared to most cars' 0.3-0.4! Sure it has less frontal area, but it probably more or less cancels out.
Atom has 0.4 so it's a little better, but I still doubt you are able to get to 190mph with less than ~500hp which is pretty high for even a heavily built beta II.
Super Moderator
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,735
Likes: 3
From: Vegas, Baby, Vegas!!!
Vehicle: '14 Ford F-150
QUOTE (JonGTR @ Feb 26 2010, 01:32 PM)
The bike may have only been going 184, but that car was pulling a lot faster. More than 6mph faster. So I'd even go as far to say 190 actual mph.
Bike was doing about 170, if that.
QUOTE (radu_rd2 @ Feb 26 2010, 05:50 PM)
Unfortunately physics > you. At high speeds mass is not that important, air resistance is what's important. The speed at which you top out is basically a function of the drag and frontal (cross-section) area, mass doesn't even matter. The reason you need massive amounts of power to get to really high speeds is that the force of air resistance grows with the SQUARE of the speed, which means that the power required to overcome it grows with the CUBE of the speed. You want to go twice as fast? You need eight times the power..
Caterham 7 has a drag coefficient of.. drumroll.. A MASSIVE 0.7, compared to most cars' 0.3-0.4! Sure it has less frontal area, but it probably more or less cancels out.
Atom has 0.4 so it's a little better, but I still doubt you are able to get to 190mph with less than ~500hp which is pretty high for even a heavily built beta II.
Caterham 7 has a drag coefficient of.. drumroll.. A MASSIVE 0.7, compared to most cars' 0.3-0.4! Sure it has less frontal area, but it probably more or less cancels out.
Atom has 0.4 so it's a little better, but I still doubt you are able to get to 190mph with less than ~500hp which is pretty high for even a heavily built beta II.
Power and frontal area matter, but to say weight doesn't is ridiculous. Sportbikes have horrid aerodynamics and hit 180mph with less than 160whp. Oh, and 500whp ain't jack. Check out the power those 9-second Betas are pushing in Korea and Puerto Rico.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
From: Perth, West Aus
Vehicle: '97 X3
QUOTE (i8acobra @ Jun 8 2009, 10:42 PM)
That wasn't even close to 190mph as the vid claims. The bike hit an indicated 184, which is about 170-ish in reality.
outa curiousity.....why?
only way i could see that being the case is if it had non standard wheels
i would say it got close to 190mph as the volvo was still pulling away from the bike
btw:
twin-turbo LSX's??......born and bred in australia smile.gif
http://www.ls1turbo.com.au/au/home.html
