View Single Post
Old 11-07-2002, 11:11 AM   #7
Conman
Registered Member
 
Conman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by JohnnyG

Oh yeah, one last thing... Balls!

-John
hahaha
you need balls that clank

it could be done with a lot of work but I don't think the 60's stangs are even remotly a good place to start from.

as far as weight goes, it affects acceleration, NOT top speed.
it will a little bit but the difference between a 2500 lb car and a 3500 lb car would be negligable.

you would seriously need to work on aerodynamics and make sure EVERYTHING is balanced perfectly so that it doesn't vibrate you right off the road.

as far as frontal area goes, Stand in front of the car and look at it perfectly straight on. now ignore the 3-d and pretend it is just a 2-d image. The area of the car that you see is the frontal area. Notice that the roof line of ferrari's and corvettes is much lower to the ground and the car isn't much wider so the area is smaller.
one more thing is the smoother the contour from front to back, the less turbulence is created.

now for a little personal experience, I once did about 170 mph on a suzuki GSX-R 1100. The thing only had about 135 rwhp. Now the frontal area is tiny compared to a car and it had aftermarket fairings that were much improved over the stock ones. The sport bike is also very well balanced so there was hardly any vibrations but the wind force was INTENSE. I was scared and I felt way more safer on that bike at high speeds than a car at high speeds. I've never riden in a super car though so they are probably even better.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg conradbike.jpg (86.9 KB, 24 views)
__________________

'88 lx, Black on Black, check it out here

Spent all my money on school, what a dumb mistake

I'm old enough to know better, but still too young to care.
Conman is offline   Reply With Quote