 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Turbo-charging a V8 Mustang: $6000
Saw that on SpikeTV. Wheel HP went up from 270 to 370. Parts cost over $6000, and it was a labor intensive job. Cool, but it doesnt appear to make financial sense. (V8 Mustang invoice + $ 6000) is more than the invoice on a Pontiac GTO or a SRT-8 series Hemi-equipped Chrysler/Dodge. And you never know about the reliability of these bolt-on mods. Brakes designed for 270 WHP may not be appropriate for 370 WHP. Etc. It seems that it makes more sense to purchase a more expensive car from the beginning than to modify a cheaper car to bring its performance to the level of the expensive car. Am I missing something?! "223rem" <223remi@gmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >It seems that it makes more sense to purchase a more expensive car from >the beginning than to modify a cheaper car to bring its performance to >the level of the expensive car. Am I missing something?! Nope. :)  SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Saw that on SpikeTV. Wheel HP went up from 270 to 370. Parts cost over > $6000, and it was a labor intensive job. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of these bolt-on mods. Brakes designed for 270 WHP may not be > appropriate for 370 WHP. Etc. Sorry, but I hate this kind of sloppy non-thinking. The brakes don't know about horsepower. > It seems that it makes more sense to purchase a more expensive car from > the beginning than to modify a cheaper car to bring its performance to > the level of the expensive car. Am I missing something?! Signature'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > > Saw that on SpikeTV. Wheel HP went up from 270 to 370. Parts cost over > > $6000, and it was a labor intensive job. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The brakes don't know about horsepower. He must be considering *speeding* then ! Graham Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >> Saw that on SpikeTV. Wheel HP went up from 270 to 370. Parts cost over >> $6000, and it was a labor intensive job. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >The brakes don't know about horsepower. More horesepower => more likely to drive fast => higher average speeds when the brakes are applied => more kinetic energy than the stock brakes were designed to dissipate. Seems pretty straightforward to me... SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Seems pretty straightforward to me... If you were talking about a car on a racing circuit I'd agree. But one public roads it's more like: More horsepower => accelerate more quickly to same speed as always => same braking at the next light. Signature'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > In article <rvasq29pl2nk29tfrg1qsqj2a50hgrqaqt@4ax.com>, > But one public roads it's more like: > > More horsepower => accelerate more quickly to same speed as always => > same braking at the next light. Why the hell would anyone spend thousands of dollars on extra horsepower if they'd just do that?! And even if you dont go much faster, you drive much more aggressively (more frequent acceleration/decceleration cycles) and that requires better brakes. > > In article <rvasq29pl2nk29tfrg1qsqj2a50hgrqaqt@4ax.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > faster, you drive much more aggressively (more frequent > acceleration/decceleration cycles) and that requires better brakes. How do you get more frequent cycles? Any trip is going to consist of the same points for stopping/starting (lights and stop signs) and slowing/accelerating (corners and yield signs). Unless one's particular trip has a *lot* of corners linked quite closely, you are going to approach stops and slowdowns at the same speed *regardless* of the horsepower of the vehicle involved. Hence, the amount of braking necessary remains constant. All that changes with increased horsepower in typical driving on public roads is how quickly you reach your personal limit for velocity on any give stretch of road. Signature'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > How do you get more frequent cycles? By vigorously accelerating (for the fun of it) on straightaways on which you didnt use to before. > > How do you get more frequent cycles? > > By vigorously accelerating (for the fun of it) on straightaways on > which you didnt use to before. Really? Would you really spend much time on this: accelerating on a straightaway and then getting on the brakes so you could do it again? And for how long would you do that before the novelty wore off? Signature'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > > > How do you get more frequent cycles? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Would you really spend much time on this: accelerating on a straightaway > and then getting on the brakes so you could do it again? I'd just brake once, before the corner. But I'd accelerate much harder than before the upgrade. This would increase my average speed. > > > > How do you get more frequent cycles? > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'd just brake once, before the corner. But I'd accelerate much harder > than before the upgrade. This would increase my average speed. Your average speed, yes. But would it increase the speed at which you'd next be braking? The answer is that unless that next braking point is close enough to where you last accelerated, no. Because on public roads, we accelerate up to a limit. It is mostly likely a self-imposed limit, but it is there. So when you accelerate more quickly to that limit, you *do* raise your average speed, but you don't raise your *maximum* speed at braking points, except in the few cases where the next braking point occurs before you reach your personal limit for a stretch of road. And because of that self-imposed limit, you don't raise your average speed enough to make the braking cycles come much closer together in time either. Take a Miata as a for instance: For the sake of argument, we'll assume that 30mph my the personal limit for a stretch of Granville Street here in Vancouver, because road tests very rarely give 0 - 42 figures. A Miata can do 0 - 30 in about 2.7 seconds. As it happens, the very methodical british laid out Vancouver with precisely 16 blocks per mile of road and a major street every 8 blocks or one half mile. So, assuming I perform a maximum acceleration start from every light, constant acceleration and assuming I hit every light: I accelerate for 2.7 seconds to 30 mph at an acceleration of 11.1 mph/second or 16.3 ft/sec^2. The formula for distance from acceleration is d = (at^2)/2, which in this instance equals 59.4 ft. Then for the other (2640 - 59.4) feet I do a constant (30*5280/3600) = 44 feet/second which equals (2640-59.4)/44 = 58.65 seconds. So my entire time from light to light (assuming infinite braking) is 61.35 seconds and my average speed is (2680/61.35)*(3600/5280) = 29.8 mph. Now, let's double the horsepower, which ignoring corrections for air resistance, etc. will double the rate of acceleration. 1 now accelerate to 30 mph in 1.35 seconds using ((30*5280/3600)/1.35*1.35^2)/2 = 29.7 feet after which I travel 2609.3 feet in 2609.3/44 = 59.3 seconds for a grand total of 60.65 seconds, light to light. Not really much of a difference, is it? Sure, the acceleration is fun, but if you're driving on public roads, unless you happen to be on a bit which lets you accelerate pretty much all the way to the next braking point, you're not going to change the workload on your brakes very much. Signature'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) What you're ignoring is that with a powerful car you tend to accelerate hard and before you know it you've exceed the speed that appropriate for the situation. That means you have to brake. A powerful car invites a more aggressive style of driving = more frequent acceleration & braking. > What you're ignoring is that with a powerful car you tend to accelerate > hard and before you know it you've exceed the speed that appropriate > for the situation. That means you have to brake. A powerful car invites > a more aggressive style of driving = more frequent acceleration & > braking. Nonsense. That might happen for, like, a day -- a week, tops, but then you're going to get used to the new rate of acceleration and most of the people I've observed don't jump on the brakes after a playful burst of acceleration, they just let the speed drift down again. Sorry, but the idea that a road car suddenly needs better brakes because you upped its horsepower just doesn't fly. You simply just don't end up decelerating from higher velocities very often and you don't brake with any greater frequency either. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > Sorry, but the idea that a road car suddenly needs better brakes because > you upped its horsepower just doesn't fly. Heh. Explain why most OEM applications with higher HP have bigger brakes. E.P. > > Sorry, but the idea that a road car suddenly needs better brakes because > > you upped its horsepower just doesn't fly. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > E.P. Two reasons: 1. In most cases, higher horsepower is correlated with higher vehicle mass. 2. In high performance vehicles, they can charge you more. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > Sorry, but the idea that a road car suddenly needs better brakes because > > > you upped its horsepower just doesn't fly. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 1. In most cases, higher horsepower is correlated with higher vehicle > mass. LOL. What a load of crap. In the same vehicle, up and down the vehicle line? > 2. In high performance vehicles, they can charge you more. Here's a business lesson: if you can get away with using parts from your bin, you'll get more money slapping on those parts, instead of purpose-built ones for one model in your line. If a car is driven aggressively at all, it'll need braking performance to match it's ability to accelerate. If all you do is slotherate up to the speed limit, then you don't need extra HP or extra brakes. Some folks actually *drive* their cars. E.P. > > > > Sorry, but the idea that a road car suddenly needs better brakes because > > > > you upped its horsepower just doesn't fly. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > E.P. Sorry, but no. The brakes don't know how fast you accelerated. This is fact. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > Sorry, but no. The brakes don't know how fast you accelerated. This is > fact. Some actually do since they are used in traction control systems. > > > > > Sorry, but the idea that a road car suddenly needs better brakes because > > > > > you upped its horsepower just doesn't fly. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Sorry, but no. The brakes don't know how fast you accelerated. This is > fact. But they would know, if I did it more than a couple of times. You must have missed the "driving agressively" part of the post. Or you are deliberately ignoring it. In any case, I would imagine that the Porsche engineers know a little bit more about cars than you, and that the put bigger brakes on their *lighter weight, higher-HP* cars for a reason. And considering that adding unsprung mass is a serious proposition in any sort of sporting car, there must be a *really* good reason. E.P. > > > > > > Sorry, but the idea that a road car suddenly needs better brakes > > > > > > because [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > But they would know, if I did it more than a couple of times. You must Not unless you did it with sufficient frequency. > have missed the "driving agressively" part of the post. Or you are > deliberately ignoring it. In any case, I would imagine that the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > proposition in any sort of sporting car, there must be a *really* good > reason. First of all, it is seriously reaching to call a Porsche "lighter weight". Porsches have gotten fatter and fatter over the years and thus have needed larger and larger brakes, and as sprung mass goes up, so too can go unsprung mass and maintain the same ratio and thus performance. Second, Porsche is engineering their vehicles for the one situation I clearly described as an exception to the general rule: that the car is driven on roads such that you arrive at corners before you reach the limit you would impose on yourself in the absence of the corner. In that situation, more horsepower means arriving at each corner at greater velocity, thus needing to dissipate more energy more frequently (because in this situation average velocity *will* actually increase significantly). However, that doesn't make it automatically necessary to enlarge the brakes on a Mustang because you've added to the horsepower. The Mustang's forte has never been the kind of roads where corners are occurring that often and it is highly doubtful that it ever gets that kind of workout. In actuality, it's highly doubtful that most Porsches get that kind of workout either; most driver's are simply not going to drive at the level it takes to truly tax their brakes. The fact that remains that in normal public road driving brake workload is determined by the self-limited speed at which one approaches corners, yields, stop signs and lights. And the spacing of such features is typically so far apart that they don't arrive with significantly greater frequency even if acceleration to the limiting velocity were to be made infinite. Hence in general, for public roads, more horsepower just doesn't require more brakes. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > But they would know, if I did it more than a couple of times. You must > > Not unless you did it with sufficient frequency. I guess you're deliberately not reading what I'm writing. > > have missed the "driving agressively" part of the post. Or you are > > deliberately ignoring it. In any case, I would imagine that the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > First of all, it is seriously reaching to call a Porsche "lighter > weight". Again, not actually reading what I write... > Second, Porsche is engineering their vehicles for the one situation I > clearly described as an exception to the general rule: that the car is > driven on roads such that you arrive at corners before you reach the > limit you would impose on yourself in the absence of the corner. Oddly, it works *the very same way* for any street car driven in the way you describe. > In that > situation, more horsepower means arriving at each corner at greater > velocity, thus needing to dissipate more energy more frequently (because > in this situation average velocity *will* actually increase > significantly). Imagine that - a car with more HP might get driven a little harder. Where have I heard this before? Wait, don't tell me - I'll remember sooner or later... > However, that doesn't make it automatically necessary to enlarge the > brakes on a Mustang because you've added to the horsepower. Necessary <> desireable. > The > Mustang's forte has never been the kind of roads where corners are > occurring that often and it is highly doubtful that it ever gets that > kind of workout. In actuality, it's highly doubtful that most Porsches > get that kind of workout either; most driver's are simply not going to > drive at the level it takes to truly tax their brakes. Wow, you mean one might want to install brakes to take care of *potential* driving situations? Gosh, I've heard that somewhere before... > The fact that remains that in normal public road driving brake workload > is determined by the self-limited speed at which one approaches corners, > yields, stop signs and lights. And the spacing of such features is > typically so far apart that they don't arrive with significantly greater > frequency even if acceleration to the limiting velocity were to be made > infinite. Like any of that has meaning, except to a pedant... > Hence in general, for public roads, more horsepower just doesn't require > more brakes. Required <> recommended. But I do appreciate you eventually agreeing with me. E.P. >> Sorry, but the idea that a road car suddenly needs better brakes because >> you upped its horsepower just doesn't fly. > >Heh. > >Explain why most OEM applications with higher HP have bigger brakes. Marketing, mostly. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> Sorry, but the idea that a road car suddenly needs better brakes because > >> you upped its horsepower just doesn't fly. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Marketing, mostly. We have a winner! Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > Marketing, mostly. > > We have a winner! Positive and negative acceleration have to be balanced. That's not marketing, it is a natural requirement. > > > Marketing, mostly. > > > > We have a winner! > > Positive and negative acceleration have to be balanced. That's not > marketing, it is a natural requirement. No, they don't, and no, it isn't. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. >> > Marketing, mostly. >> >> We have a winner! > >Positive and negative acceleration have to be balanced. That's not >marketing, it is a natural requirement. It's not so. Your required brake size depends on things like how heavy the vehicle is, how hard you want to stop, from what speed you want to stop, and for how long you'll need to be braking hard or how often you'll brake hard within a short period. The amount of acceleration the drivetrain can provide just isn't a factor in the required brake size for street driving. Positive and negative acceleration are never balanced; you always have more braking than acceleration. For race driving it's another story because the faster you can accelerate the faster you're going to be going at the end of the straightaway and thus the harder you'll have to brake. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> > Marketing, mostly. > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > accelerate the faster you're going to be going at the end of the > straightaway and thus the harder you'll have to brake. We have another winner! Thank the fates for someone who gets it. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > >> > Marketing, mostly. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > stop, and for how long you'll need to be braking hard > or how often you'll brake hard within a short period. This is all true. And all must be taken into account when one designs a balanced car. You don't design a car based on how the guy who merely drives it back and forth to work drives, however. You design it such that if the car is pushed, it will be able to stand up to the pushing. > The amount of > acceleration the drivetrain can provide just isn't a factor in the > required brake size for street driving. But the two things are not entirely disconnected, because not all "streets" are the same. Not all drivers are the same, either. > Positive and negative > acceleration are never balanced; you always have more braking than > acceleration. Not if the braking system isn't up to the challenge you don't. Too small, and the braking power can go away, and rather dramatically. (Fade.) Less braking torque via smaller rotors can mean more pedal effort, regardless of fade characteristics. > For race driving it's another story because the faster you can > accelerate the faster you're going to be going at the end of the > straightaway and thus the harder you'll have to brake. Not only racing. Driving hard on mountain roads can be a significant challenge for a braking system. More HP means that before the next curve, you can potentially have much more velocity. Now, if you drive your car everywhere like you've got a motorhome, then Geo Metro brakes are plenty enough. But that's not how you do automotive design. You don't design for best-case scenario. You design for heavy use. Again, necessary <> desireable. And pedantic arguments that separate cars into components are reflective of the real world. E.P. > >> > Marketing, mostly. > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > acceleration the drivetrain can provide just isn't a factor in the > required brake size for street driving. But stronger available acceleration increases " from what speed you want to stop, and for how long you'll need to be braking hard or how often you'll brake hard within a short period." Unless you're a grandma, that is. A powerful car invites a more aggressive driving style, and this has nothing to do with racing. > Positive and negative > acceleration are never balanced; you always have more braking than > acceleration. Fine, but increasing available acceleration will lead to increasing available decceleration, in any sane engineer's designs. > > >> > Marketing, mostly. > > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > powerful car invites a > more aggressive driving style, and this has nothing to do with racing. No, it doesn't. Stronger acceleration means that you get to your limited speed more quickly. > > Positive and negative > > acceleration are never balanced; you always have more braking than > > acceleration. > > Fine, but increasing available acceleration will lead to increasing > available decceleration, in any sane engineer's designs. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > No, it doesn't. Stronger acceleration means that you get to your limited > speed more quickly. The problem lies in your understanding of the 'limited speed' idea. While there certainly is a upper bound on the speed (which depends on 'context'), it does not mean that you have to reach it very frequently. In fact, with a car that's not too powerful, there is no point in constantly accelerating up to this limit every time you start from a light or turn a corner. A car that's fun to accelerate, you may want to frequently accelerate it to this limit. > > No, it doesn't. Stronger acceleration means that you get to your limited > > speed more quickly. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > light or turn a corner. A car that's fun to accelerate, you may want to > frequently accelerate it to this limit. Please. It just doesn't happen. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > Please. It just doesn't happen. How do you know? I recently drove a new Jetta GLI turbo, a loaner from my dealer. I drove it exactly as I described, and for a full week too. > > Please. It just doesn't happen. > > How do you know? I recently drove a new Jetta GLI turbo, a loaner from > my dealer. I drove it exactly as I described, and for a full week too. Really? You'd accelerate up beyond a speed which was appropriate for the conditions and then you'd brake to get back below it so you could do it again? And what was the tempo of this behaviour? Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > You'd accelerate up beyond a speed which was appropriate for the > conditions and then you'd brake to get back below it so you could do it > again? You still dont get it. You never accelerate beyond the appropriate speed, but you do accelerate TO that speed much more often with a fun car than with a car with little power. OK? (And you dont brake just so you can accelerate again (?!), you brake for corners and lights.) > > You'd accelerate up beyond a speed which was appropriate for the > > conditions and then you'd brake to get back below it so you could do it > > again? > > You still dont get it. No, he's not getting it on purpose in order to be argumentative. Or because he's a pedant. Or both. E.P. > > > You'd accelerate up beyond a speed which was appropriate for the > > > conditions and then you'd brake to get back below it so you could do it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > E.P. You've cleverly clipped what he said, but I had a little more guts and actually addressed it. Go look at that. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > You'd accelerate up beyond a speed which was appropriate for the > > > conditions and then you'd brake to get back below it so you could do it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Or both. yeah, I should have known better than argue with him > > > > You'd accelerate up beyond a speed which was appropriate for the > > > > conditions and then you'd brake to get back below it so you could do it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > yeah, I should have known better than argue with him Make a logical argument and support it. So far, you have failed. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > You'd accelerate up beyond a speed which was appropriate for the > > conditions and then you'd brake to get back below it so you could do it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > car than with a car with little power. OK? (And you dont brake just so > you can accelerate again (?!), you brake for corners and lights.) I'll go really slowly so that you can get this: If you don't brake just so that you can accelerate again, and you brake for the same corners and light you always brake for, and you do so from the same speed, then where is anything putting a greater demand on the brakes? Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > and you do so from the same speed, You do so from the same speed? I wrote three posts explaining that you brake from a higher speed in a more powerful car. And, yes, that higher speed is still <= maximum safe speed for the context. With a less powerful car you very often do NOT accelerate to the maximum safe speed in that context. > > and you do so from the same speed, > > You do so from the same speed? I wrote three posts explaining that you > brake from a higher speed in a more powerful car. And, yes, that higher > speed is still <= maximum safe speed for the context. Then what prevents you from getting to that speed with less horsepower? > With a less powerful car you very often do NOT accelerate to the > maximum safe speed in that context. Nonsense. Do you mean to tell me that there are many times in your day to day driving when the speed you reach on a public road is *less* because you have less horsepower? You drive more slowly on the freeways because you have fewer excess ponies over those necessary to maintain a constant 78mph? You drive slower on the way to work because with less horsepower you can't accelerate to 45mph before the next light. Dude: it just doesn't happen that way. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > Then what prevents you from getting to that speed with less horsepower? Nothing, it's just that accelerating to that max speed is not as fun with less horses. It may also be the case that it is pointless in many cases (timed lights, traffic ahead, etc) so if it is not enjoyable (=being pushed hard in the seat) I wont do it. > Do you mean to tell me that there are many times in your day to day > driving when the speed you reach on a public road is *less* because you > have less horsepower? Exactly. See above. > You drive more slowly on the freeways because you > have fewer excess ponies over those necessary to maintain a constant > 78mph? Who wants to drive a 'constant 78mph'? When I'm shielded from radar I sometimes accelerate to 90-100 mph, and I'd so more often in a more powerful car, even if it were pointless in the end. > > Then what prevents you from getting to that speed with less horsepower? > > Nothing, it's just that accelerating to that max speed is not as fun > with less horses. It may also be the case that it is pointless in many > cases (timed lights, traffic ahead, etc) so if it is not enjoyable > (=being pushed hard in the seat) I wont do it. So you're claiming you drive slower than a speed which you feel to be safe... ...so that you can take more time on a trip which you claim is "not as fun"? This is what passes for logic in your world? > > Do you mean to tell me that there are many times in your day to day > > driving when the speed you reach on a public road is *less* because you > > have less horsepower? > > Exactly. See above. I saw. And it's bullshit. > > You drive more slowly on the freeways because you > > have fewer excess ponies over those necessary to maintain a constant [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sometimes accelerate to 90-100 mph, and I'd so more often in a more > powerful car, even if it were pointless in the end. Ah, yes. Address a tree, avoid the forest. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > So you're claiming you drive slower than a speed which you feel to be > safe... > > ...so that you can take more time on a trip which you claim is "not as > fun"? Maximum safe speed is not the same as the most efficient speed. Example: you may accelerate hard (to the max. safe speed) only to be forced to brake behind a semi. I'd only do that in a car that's fun to accelerate. Otherwise, I'd just coast at a speed < maximum safe speed. > > So you're claiming you drive slower than a speed which you feel to be > > safe... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > forced to brake behind a semi. I'd only do that in a car that's fun to > accelerate. Otherwise, I'd just coast at a speed < maximum safe speed. Again, please. You're taking edge cases again. The fact is that one's speed on public roads is *not* governed by horsepower, it's governed by road conditions, and as such we end up traveling the same speed regardless of whether we've got 100 or 400 horsepower available. Traveling at the same speed, to the same corners and stops means the same workload on the brakes. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > The fact is that one's speed on public roads is *not* governed by > horsepower, it's governed by road conditions, and as such we end up > traveling the same speed regardless of whether we've got 100 or 400 > horsepower available. Driver personality tends to play a tiny role too. Lots of people like to drive faster in more powerful cars, a concept you cant seem to grasp. Again, not everybody drives like a grandmother. > Traveling at the same speed, to the same corners and stops means the > same workload on the brakes. How many times do you need to write this? > > The fact is that one's speed on public roads is *not* governed by > > horsepower, it's governed by road conditions, and as such we end up [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to drive faster in more powerful cars, a concept you cant seem to > grasp. Again, not everybody drives like a grandmother. Again, nonsense. People drive at a speed at which they feel comfortable. Why would you *choose* to drive more slowly in a car which was making your trip "less fun"? > > Traveling at the same speed, to the same corners and stops means the > > same workload on the brakes. > > How many times do you need to write this? Until you understand it. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > The fact is that one's speed on public roads is *not* governed by > > horsepower, it's governed by road conditions, and as such we end up [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to drive faster in more powerful cars, a concept you cant seem to > grasp. And can actually put that HP to work. On a curvy mountain road, you can absolutely reach higher velocities with a more powerful car, because the portions between the curves are relatively short, and lower HP cars might not be able to attain max safe speed before the straight runs out. > Again, not everybody drives like a grandmother. Baker does. Otherwise, he wouldn't argue the daily commuter position. > > Traveling at the same speed, to the same corners and stops means the > > same workload on the brakes. > > How many times do you need to write this? Didn't you know? Repetition make a lie the truth. Also, if you repeat a position that is non sequitur to the discussion enough, the discussion can become about the non sequitur writings. Ooops. :) Of course, since the premise is faulty, then all that follows is junk as well. The premise is that cars are mainly used for the pedestrian activity of getting from A-B, the same way, every day. And for such activity, one needs neither additional braking nor additional HP. Nor anything greater than T-rated tires, cloth interior and automatic transmission. Why bother with all that performance crap when it's not needed for daily commuting, right? E.P. > > > The fact is that one's speed on public roads is *not* governed by > > > horsepower, it's governed by road conditions, and as such we end up [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > HP cars might not be able to attain max safe speed before the straight > runs out. Which is why I said that was the once exception... ...next strawman. > > Again, not everybody drives like a grandmother. > > Baker does. Otherwise, he wouldn't argue the daily commuter position. LOL The "daily commuter position" is the case 99.9% of the time, so saying that more horsepower automatically requires more brakes is kind of... ..stupid. > > > Traveling at the same speed, to the same corners and stops means the > > > same workload on the brakes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a position that is non sequitur to the discussion enough, the > discussion can become about the non sequitur writings. Ooops. :) The truth is the truth. > Of course, since the premise is faulty, then all that follows is junk > as well. The premise is that cars are mainly used for the pedestrian [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > transmission. Why bother with all that performance crap when it's not > needed for daily commuting, right? The premise is not faulty. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > The "daily commuter position" is the case 99.9% of the time, so saying > that more horsepower automatically requires more brakes is kind of... How about this... because you drive a car with more horsepower it attracts morons to start screwing with you and you need the brakes to avoid a collision. In practical terms you can only use the horsepower you have the brakes for. Being able to use short straights that end with curves is one of many ways to shake tailgaters and other arseholes on the road. > > The "daily commuter position" is the case 99.9% of the time, so saying > > that more horsepower automatically requires more brakes is kind of... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for. Being able to use short straights that end with curves is one of > many ways to shake tailgaters and other arseholes on the road. Hey now, don't get all logical, and stuff. And some folks actually commute to work on curvy roads. Like me. Around here. And yeah, especially security-blanket tailgaters - the kind that don't care who they're tailgating, as long as they're tailgating SOMEONE. Anyone. But they won't punch it up to 100 to keep sniffing your fumes. :) E.P. > > > The "daily commuter position" is the case 99.9% of the time, so saying > > > that more horsepower automatically requires more brakes is kind of... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And some folks actually commute to work on curvy roads. Like me. > Around here. Really? What's the road? What is its speed limit? What speed do you feel is its maximum safe operating speed at its fastest point? How many bends does it have that actually require you to drop below that maximum? > And yeah, especially security-blanket tailgaters - the kind that don't > care who they're tailgating, as long as they're tailgating SOMEONE. > Anyone. But they won't punch it up to 100 to keep sniffing your fumes. > :) I find all that is necessary is to go through the corners faster than their comfort zone. That zone usually so far below the capabilities of modern automobiles that doing so in a Miata easily causes them to fall behind even if I never accelerate so much as briskly. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. >And yeah, especially security-blanket tailgaters - the kind that don't >care who they're tailgating, as long as they're tailgating SOMEONE. >Anyone. But they won't punch it up to 100 to keep sniffing your fumes. One of these days, one of those losers (likely driving an SUV) is going to be so inattentive that they tailgate me at 60mph through a 30mph (for their SUV) curve and go sliding off the road. And then I will know the meaning of "schadenfreude". SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > One of these days, one of those losers (likely driving an SUV) is > going to be so inattentive that they tailgate me at 60mph through a > 30mph (for their SUV) curve and go sliding off the road. And then I > will know the meaning of "schadenfreude". One time I had a SUV tailgating me in the right most lane which was an exit only lane. Posted speed at the time was 50 mph. I was going 65 mph. I accelerated to 70 mph, and the tailgater didn't budge. I then took the exit (that was posted at 40 mph) at 70. In my rear view mirror, I could see the SUV's front end dive quite a bit. It didn't appear to skid though. > One time I had a SUV tailgating me in the right most lane which was an > exit only lane. Posted speed at the time was 50 mph. I was going 65 > mph. I accelerated to 70 mph, and the tailgater didn't budge. I then > took the exit (that was posted at 40 mph) at 70. In my rear view > mirror, I could see the SUV's front end dive quite a bit. It didn't > appear to skid though. There is one off-ramp I used to take fairly often. Approaching it I would hold the posted speed limit with a tailgater behind me and then take the ramp without braking or slowing. The tailgaters (especially SUV drivers) would fall way behind as they had to brake to make the curve. It was always amusing to be able to see that. Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving: >> One of these days, one of those losers (likely driving an SUV) is >> going to be so inattentive that they tailgate me at 60mph through a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >mirror, I could see the SUV's front end dive quite a bit. It didn't >appear to skid though. Heh heh, I've done that a couple of times too. Some SUV drivers like to think that their big hulking machine can intimidate other drivers into letting them have their MFFY way. They tailgate you and try to bully you into speeding up or moving over or whatnot. So if they want me to speed up, I speed up - and take the turn like a rocket sled on rails. Be careful what you wish for, MFFY - you might get it. :) SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > > and you do so from the same speed, > > You do so from the same speed? I'm telling you - he's just being argumentative. He's describing Nissan Sentra driving conditions. Of course, Nissan Sentra brakes are completely appropriate in that context. You and I have been describing limit condtions, which he is attempting to turn into the previous Sentra conditions, in order to perpetuate the argument. Discussion with him is valueless. E.P. [Re: Alan Baker] > Discussion with him is valueless. Precisely one of the reasons I killfiled him. > [Re: Alan Baker] > > > Discussion with him is valueless. > > Precisely one of the reasons I killfiled him. That and the the fact that you were losing the argument... LOL Nym shifting troll wrote: >> Precisely one of the reasons I killfiled him. > That and the the fact that you were losing the argument... Except for the fact that I cited a state speed limit FAQ written in 1997 that confirmed by assertion that WV interstates speed limits were changed by mid September 1997. The fact that you're a nym-shifting loser who has to get the last word says more about you than anyone else ever could. > Nym shifting troll wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The fact that you're a nym-shifting loser who has to get the last word > says more about you than anyone else ever could. Which is why you had to reply, right? Because you knew I'd want to get the last word... LOL > The fact that you're a nym-shifting loser who has to get the last word > says more about you than anyone else ever could. Indeed. I didnt realize I was arguing with a troll. > > > and you do so from the same speed, > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > He's describing Nissan Sentra driving conditions. Of course, Nissan > Sentra brakes are completely appropriate in that context. No. I'm describing *reality*. > You and I have been describing limit condtions, which he is attempting > to turn into the previous Sentra conditions, in order to perpetuate the > argument. Limit conditions on public roads are almost always the self-imposed limit of the driver as to what speed is appropriate for the conditions. As such, you brake from the same speed pretty much regardless of horsepower. > Discussion with him is valueless. Which is why you're here, discussing me "behind my back" as it were... LOL Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > >> Sorry, but the idea that a road car suddenly needs better brakes because > >> you upped its horsepower just doesn't fly. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Marketing, mostly. Yeah - those guys at Porsche - all talk and no action. :rolls eyes: E.P. > Sorry, but the idea that a road car suddenly needs better brakes because > you upped its horsepower just doesn't fly. You simply just don't end up > decelerating from higher velocities very often and you don't brake with > any greater frequency either. Sure, but not everyone drives like a granny. > > Sorry, but the idea that a road car suddenly needs better brakes because > > you upped its horsepower just doesn't fly. You simply just don't end up > > decelerating from higher velocities very often and you don't brake with > > any greater frequency either. > > Sure, but not everyone drives like a granny. It's got nothing to do with driving like a granny. Come on: after you get a car that has more power to weight than your last one had, how many times to you really accelerate and then brake for the hell of it? Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > Come on: after you get a car that has more power to weight than your > last one had, how many times to you really accelerate and then brake for > the hell of it? I watched my driving tonight, and there was a lot of pointless accelerating and braking. And I drive a relatively lame Nissan Maxima, I'd be much more aggressive in a powerful car. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >> > How do you get more frequent cycles? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >And for how long would you do that before the novelty wore off? I've been doing it for 6 years now, and the novelty hasn't worn off yet. :) SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I've been doing it for 6 years now, and the novelty hasn't worn off > yet. :) Really? You accelerate above the speed you'd normally travel and then use the brakes to slow down again? Right. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > You accelerate above the speed you'd normally travel and then use the > brakes to slow down again? No. You accelerate knowing full well you'll have to brake a little later. The alternative is to just coast. OK? >> You accelerate above the speed you'd normally travel and then use the >> brakes to slow down again? > >No. You accelerate knowing full well you'll have to brake a little >later. The alternative is to just coast. OK? Why would you be braking later ? You are theoretically getting up to your maximum speed SOONER which gives you a bigger window of "when should I brake". If you CHOOSE to brake later, that's a choice you made, not something inherent in the greater power. It seems the entire basis for your driving profile is that you are going to accelerate to a higher top speed before starting to brake if you have a more powerful vehicle. It's true you *could* do that but why would you? As Alan laid out, any normally powered car will achieve normal max velocity well before it's time to brake. Look, it is a fact that when I drive more aggressively I hit both the gas and the brakes more frequently. Gimme a more powerful car and I'll drive it more aggressively. That's another fact. > Look, it is a fact that when I drive more aggressively I hit both the > gas and the brakes more frequently. Gimme a more powerful car and I'll > drive it more aggressively. That's another fact. Again: why will you hit the brakes more frequently? Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > Look, it is a fact that when I drive more aggressively I hit both the > > gas and the brakes more frequently. Gimme a more powerful car and I'll > > drive it more aggressively. That's another fact. > > Again: why will you hit the brakes more frequently? Because of pointless acceleration. I just love being pushed back in my seat, ok? >Look, it is a fact that when I drive more aggressively I hit both the >gas and the brakes more frequently. Well, duh, that's the definition of more aggressive driving. No one ever said if someone drives more aggressively they won't use more power and more brakes. The question is whether, after the first few days of "gee wiz", putting 100 more hp under the hood of an *already" powerful car, would require better brakes for anything people would be doing on the public streets. I remain of the opinion that it would not since (after the gee wiz period) there is no reason why the extra 100 hp would get used more then a trivial amount of the time. >Gimme a more powerful car and I'll >drive it more aggressively. That's another fact. I doubt it would be true to any extent unless you are making the comparison between driving an econobox v a sports car. The difference between driving a Corvette with 450 hp or 550 hp ON THE STREET will not require an increase in brake size. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >> >> > How do you get more frequent cycles? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >You accelerate above the speed you'd normally travel I accelerate above the speed I would normally travel in a car with lesser stopping ability, yes. Having better brakes means I can go faster and still not overdrive my line of sight. >and then use the brakes to slow down again? When there's a turn I want to make, or a red light ahead, absolutely. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > lesser stopping ability, yes. Having better brakes means I can go > faster and still not overdrive my line of sight. Sorry, but better brakes *don't* mean you can stop faster. > >and then use the brakes to slow down again? > > When there's a turn I want to make, or a red light ahead, absolutely. And as I said, you approach those turns at a speed which essentially doesn't change dependently on horsepower. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > Sorry, but better brakes *don't* mean you can stop faster. Ah, I guess there we have it. Baker, you don't know sh.t from Shinola. E.P. > > Sorry, but better brakes *don't* mean you can stop faster. > > Ah, I guess there we have it. > > Baker, you don't know sh.t from Shinola. Alright, explain the physics. I dare you... Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > Sorry, but better brakes *don't* mean you can stop faster. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Alright, explain the physics. I dare you... Do your own research. The key word is "modulation." I doubt you're adult enough to admit that you're mistaken, so I'll just leave you to either your further education, or your self-delusion. E.P. > > > > Sorry, but better brakes *don't* mean you can stop faster. > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do your own research. The key word is "modulation." No, no. Please go on! > I doubt you're adult enough to admit that you're mistaken, so I'll just > leave you to either your further education, or your self-delusion. Show me I'm mistaken and I'll admit it. If your belief that I am mistaken is based on your knowledge of the subject let's at least have a qualitative analysis... Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > > > Sorry, but better brakes *don't* mean you can stop faster. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No, no. Please go on! Look it up yourself. You can either chose to be uneducated and self-delusional, or not. I'm done arguing with your stupid a.s. E.P. > > > > > > Sorry, but better brakes *don't* mean you can stop faster. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Look it up yourself. You can either chose to be uneducated and > self-delusional, or not. I'm done arguing with your stupid a.s. You don't mind if I replace what you snipped, do you? > > Show me I'm mistaken and I'll admit it. If your belief that I am > > mistaken is based on your knowledge of the subject let's at least have a > > qualitative analysis... There. Thanks for admitting you don't have the knowledge. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. > > > > > > Sorry, but better brakes *don't* mean you can stop faster. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > E.P. Tell you what: you must at least be able to suggest a source, right Ed? I mean, if you really know what you're talking about... Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone. >> > > Sorry, but better brakes *don't* mean you can stop faster. >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >E.P. This line of thought that you better brakes are essential addition to the power would logically mean that back when fast cars only had drum brakes that no one drove them fast since they clearly did not have sufficient braking to use the available horsepower. > >> > > Sorry, but better brakes *don't* mean you can stop faster. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > brakes that no one drove them fast since they clearly did not have > sufficient braking to use the available horsepower. Another person who has never seen what cars had for high-performance brakes back in the day. Go look up what those Italian race cars had on them for brakes. And tires. And then the horsepower those cars had. E.P. >> >> > > Sorry, but better brakes *don't* mean you can stop faster. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >E.P. I'm talking American iron on public highways. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message