 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / July 2007338 hp saab 900 2-door
I don't know what to make of this guy: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab Jeremy >I don't know what to make of this guy: > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab > > Jeremy What I see in the vid is a very ugly car, making an incredible noise in a beautiful quiet forest, burning more gas in 10 seconds than I would in a whole week. Lots of fake smoke, he doesnt even go anywhere.... not my way of using a car. The word "loser" comes to mind... Richard. > I don't know what to make of this guy: > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab > > Jeremy All I needed to see was the giant wing on the back. What a douchebag.  Signature-Fred W > I don't know what to make of this guy: > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab > > Jeremy All this slow moving tyre burning means that engine gets very little cooling for the power it produces. Head gasket will be consumed at great speed. Anyway, car is no more powerful than many performance salons you can get these days. >> I don't know what to make of this guy: >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > great speed. Anyway, car is no more powerful than many performance > salons you can get these days. Putting aside the issue of traction, I'll wager that particular Saab is a good deal lighter, though. The average kerbweight of the 2007 Audis with >300 bhp is over 1,800 kg. That's the equivalent of a Saab plus a *lot* of pies. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >> I don't know what to make of this guy: >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab > Anyway, car is no more powerful than many performance > salons you can get these days. ... Although it is, like, 20 years old and a C900 which is quite impressive on both counts. Behaviour-wise, well ... Just shout, "Hooligan!" at him in Swedish and carry on about your day. I warrant the gearbox doesn't last long, despite being a legendary Jorgen Ericsson box. Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ > I don't know what to make of this guy: > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab That's a chap called Hermann (no, I don't know him personally). His website 'Blyføt' (lead-foot) went offline a while ago, but the development of that car's B201 engine is quite something. He has a page on Garaget somewhere. Personally, I like its quirky stylings. <http://www.saabphotos.com/gallery/Orca_Misc/blyfot> Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >I don't know what to make of this guy: > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab > > Jeremy I think this guy needs to invest in a new set of tires. looks like the ones he has on are not giving him sufficient traction to go on down the road. rod > I don't know what to make of this guy: > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab > > Jeremy What a perfect illustration of the limitations of front wheel drive. Under acceleration, the center of mass of the car moves to the rear and there's not enough weight on the front tires to prevent them from just uselessly spinning. riserman > > I don't know what to make of this guy: > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > riserman When i had a car with traditional north-south engine, the car would roll a bit when I blipped the pedal; this is of course angular momentum conservation. Similarly, a transverse engine will pitch the car, but the effect is probably more subtle. Depending on the rotation direction of the crankshaft, it could actually help traction. But the effect is probably quite small. >> What a perfect illustration of the limitations of front wheel drive. >> Under acceleration, the center of mass of the car moves to the rear >> and there's not enough weight on the front tires to prevent them from >> just uselessly spinning. > When i had a car with traditional north-south engine, the car would > roll a bit when I blipped the pedal; this is of course angular > momentum conservation. Similarly, a transverse engine will pitch the > car, but the effect is probably more subtle. Depending on the rotation > direction of the crankshaft, it could actually help traction. But the > effect is probably quite small. Ummm, it's a C900. The engine *is* north-south. > >> What a perfect illustration of the limitations of front wheel drive. > >> Under acceleration, the center of mass of the car moves to the rear [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ummm, it's a C900. The engine *is* north-south. Yes I know. But most modern FWD have transverse. Just wonder about the crankshaft/flywheel rotation direction on transverse FWD cars. >> johannes (johs@[EMAIL PROTECTED] ) gurgled happily, sounding much >> like they were saying : >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Ummm, it's a C900. The engine *is* north-south. >Yes I know. But most modern FWD have transverse. Just wonder about the >crankshaft/flywheel rotation direction on transverse FWD cars. Probably more of a temporary windup issue than much else unless your engine mounts are stuffed. BTW, if you were being pedantic, wouldn't the C900 be considered a south-north? :) Cheers >>> johannes (johs@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ) gurgled happily, sounding much [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > BTW, if you were being pedantic, wouldn't the C900 be considered a > south-north? :) Cheers Depends which was you were driving :) But yes, it is in backwards. Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >> I don't know what to make of this guy: >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not enough weight on the front tires to prevent them from just uselessly > spinning. Probably wrong, but I saw it as him holding the car on the hand-brake for maximum [childish] smoke. I mean, with that amount of alleged power he'd either be stopped dead from wheelspin or troubling the horizon, not in imminent danger of being outdragged by an Amish buggy. >> I don't know what to make of this guy: >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > there's not enough weight on the front tires to prevent them from just > uselessly spinning. The center of mass does not move under acceleration (except for a small shift if the tank is not full). Signatureth >>> I don't know what to make of this guy: >>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The center of mass does not move under acceleration (except for a small > shift if the tank is not full). If it's not the center of mass that shifts to the rear under acceleration, and you may well be right, what resolution of vectors shifts to the rear? Is it center of gravity or something else? Front wheel drive cars lose traction easily under maximum acceleration. I know this because it wasn't hard to do even in my 1983 900 turbo. That's why you rarely see front wheel drive race cars. riserman >>>> I don't know what to make of this guy: >>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > riserman It's a torque issue. The tires put a force to the pavement (braking, turning, accelerating). The force is not through the CG, so it creates a torque with the height to the CG as the torque arm (the lower the CG, the less the torque). The only way that the torque can be balanced is by re-distributing the weight force of the car on the tires. Since acceleration creates a clockwise torque that diminishes the force on the front tires [in extreme cases even lifting them off the ground] and increases the force on the rear. Braking does the opposite. Wheel base [or track for turning] and the location of the center of gravity are also factors since they effect the torque arm for the normal force on the tires. Bill > It's a torque issue. The tires put a force to the pavement (braking, >turning, accelerating). The force is not through the CG, so it creates [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >are also factors since they effect the torque arm for the normal force >on the tires. Adding to that... In a car, there's also the issue of sprung and un-sprung. A car is not a fixed position weight. The unsprung suspension is relatively fixed but the body is a movable weight. As you accelerate, the springs allow the body to move up in the front and down in the back effectively increasing the weight on the rear of the car and decreasing the weight on the front. While the front tires may lift slightly as you described, the amount is usually minimal. More of the traction reduction is generally attributed to the shifting of the body upward in front and downward in back In a FWD car, stiffer rear springs can help with this issue. (Actually, they help contain the shift in RWD too, but it's not an unwanted effect there). A stiffer rear sway bar will help with the issue that one wheel tends to come up if you accelerating but not going in a straight line (but it will not decrease the overall effect). > >>> I don't know what to make of this guy: > >>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I know this because it wasn't hard to do even in my 1983 900 turbo. > That's why you rarely see front wheel drive race cars. FWD works well i everyday driving. In this case it is mostly beneficial to have the engine weight over the driving wheels. I don't race my Saab. However, ultimately RWD gives more control when sliding the car around. In salon car racing, most of the cars are FWD because that is what you get in the compact car class. It was acknowledged that the RWD BMWs in the race had an advantage, this was counteracted by a requirement of carrying an added extra weight. True performance salon cars are 4 wheel drive. >> >>> I don't know what to make of this guy: >> >>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > in the race had an advantage, this was counteracted by a requirement of > carrying an added extra weight. > True performance salon cars are 4 wheel > drive. All wheel drive is a compromise most of the time, in use on everyday cars because the chassis and suspension engineers couldn't contain the power. It works well in adverse conditions but increases drivetrain friction the rest of the time and adds weight and complexity. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >>>> I don't know what to make of this guy: >>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > know this because it wasn't hard to do even in my 1983 900 turbo. That's > why you rarely see front wheel drive race cars. well my rwd ford sierra with 110bhp had worse traction in the wet than my FWD 185 bhp saab.... pulling off on wet roundabouts I'd get wheelspin through 3rd gear... >> I don't know what to make of this guy: >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7570206935258612439&q=saab [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not enough weight on the front tires to prevent them from just uselessly > spinning. that was delibrate pointless tiresmoking, on the quarter mile he seemed to put the power down OK..... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.