Gears
08-23-2005, 09:03 PM
#71
Registered User
and ryan (overbooster) brought up a very good point. i'm willing to bet you've never even ridden in a geared S2000, much less tried racing one. go do that with even a half decent driver, and then come back and tell me there's no difference.
08-23-2005, 09:30 PM
#72
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: █ SF, CA █
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wisconsin S2k,Aug 23 2005, 09:56 PM
sure, if you want to pick nits.
[QUOTE=Wisconsin S2k,Aug 23 2005, 09:56 PM]the point is, those "variables" which you are referring to are, as a whole, smaller than the advantage the gearing provies.
08-23-2005, 09:32 PM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: █ SF, CA █
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wisconsin S2k,Aug 23 2005, 10:03 PM
and ryan (overbooster) brought up a very good point. i'm willing to bet you've never even ridden in a geared S2000, much less tried racing one. go do that with even a half decent driver, and then come back and tell me there's no difference.
08-23-2005, 09:38 PM
#74
Registered User
Wisconsin, you may not be a big proponent of the "butt dyno", but don't you see that is exactly what you are arguing from?
"i'm willing to bet you've never even ridden in a geared S2000, much less tried racing one. go do that with even a half decent driver, and then come back and tell me there's no difference."
Put up an accel v. time plot from two cars, all else being the same.
Physics says that your increase in kinetic energy is 1/2 M V^2. That energy can only come from the engine. Power is energy/time. Gears don't provide power, the engine does.
If you take your agument to the extreme (and going back to the original question), a 6:1 gear ratio would be even quicker. Why aren't you running that?
"i'm willing to bet you've never even ridden in a geared S2000, much less tried racing one. go do that with even a half decent driver, and then come back and tell me there's no difference."
Put up an accel v. time plot from two cars, all else being the same.
Physics says that your increase in kinetic energy is 1/2 M V^2. That energy can only come from the engine. Power is energy/time. Gears don't provide power, the engine does.
If you take your agument to the extreme (and going back to the original question), a 6:1 gear ratio would be even quicker. Why aren't you running that?
08-23-2005, 09:45 PM
#75
Registered User
Originally Posted by jasonw,Aug 23 2005, 11:32 PM
Ah yes, the good old butt dyno...
In other words GO RACE AGAINST ONE with even half a decent driver, then come back and say there is no difference.
Wisconsin, you may not be a big proponent of the "butt dyno", but don't you see that is exactly what you are arguing from?
"i'm willing to bet you've never even ridden in a geared S2000, much less tried racing one. go do that with even a half decent driver, and then come back and tell me there's no difference."
"i'm willing to bet you've never even ridden in a geared S2000, much less tried racing one. go do that with even a half decent driver, and then come back and tell me there's no difference."
08-23-2005, 09:58 PM
#76
Registered User
Beats the hell out of claiming there is no gray area to your conclusions which are based on faulty logic. Which is the only thing I've taken issue with here.
You have obviously given up on the truth if you think eliminating or minimizing independent variables and getting a large enough sample size(set of measurements) from a representative population pool is not important when trying to prove something.
It's not that hard to point out where this could happen. If you are forced to take turns in a higher gear because of your lower final drive, it is likely to hurt your times.
the outcome would be that we'd either be even, or one of us is slightly ahead of the other. however, that's one turn on an entire track. if you think that you can find an entire track based off of this exact scenario, and that can also somehow even negate the advantage of the initial acceleration off the starting line, then you may have a case to argue.
however, this again, is the real world, and i'm willing to bet that overall, at 99% of the tracks you can find, the 4.57 geared S2000 has an overall advantage.
Again, I never said gearing doesn't make a difference, I just felt the need to point out the logical fallacies you used to state the case for the unchallenged superiority of 4.57s over stock.
so far, you have done neither of the two. you've done no calculations, nor have you done any real world experience tests or examples.
It sounds like you aren't taking into consideration the fact that the power curve is not flat... If it were horizontal, it would be a lot easier to justify your claims.
This reminds me of the Downing street memo that talks about how the "facts were being fixed around the policy". Consider how many people got the facts wrong about WMDs because of that type of policy. A graph is not likely to mean much to you if you don't understand what it represents.
08-23-2005, 10:08 PM
#77
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: █ SF, CA █
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wisconsin S2k,Aug 23 2005, 10:45 PM
ahem. emphasis on MUCH LESS RACED ONE.
In other words GO RACE AGAINST ONE with even half a decent driver, then come back and say there is no difference.
In other words GO RACE AGAINST ONE with even half a decent driver, then come back and say there is no difference.
08-23-2005, 10:10 PM
#78
Registered User
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Aug 23 2005, 11:38 PM
Physics says that your increase in kinetic energy is 1/2 M V^2. That energy can only come from the engine. Power is energy/time. Gears don't provide power, the engine does.
F=ma
(Force = Mass X Acceleration)
Work from there. If we accept that a gearset acts as a torque multiplier, and we accept torque as twisting force that we use as a linear action force for the car (where rubber meets the road, so to speak), then we know that the force accelerating the car will be greater.
As the car's mass is roughly the same (maybe the gears are a bit heavier, but this could be offset by the passenger losing his/her lunch from repeated acceleration runs), then we have no choice in maintaining this equality but to increase acceleration.
Basically, if 'F' goes up and 'm' stays the same, 'a' *has* to go up. Energy is part of the game, but you should really care about force in this case.
(Force = Mass X Acceleration)
Work from there. If we accept that a gearset acts as a torque multiplier, and we accept torque as twisting force that we use as a linear action force for the car (where rubber meets the road, so to speak), then we know that the force accelerating the car will be greater.
As the car's mass is roughly the same (maybe the gears are a bit heavier, but this could be offset by the passenger losing his/her lunch from repeated acceleration runs), then we have no choice in maintaining this equality but to increase acceleration.
Basically, if 'F' goes up and 'm' stays the same, 'a' *has* to go up. Energy is part of the game, but you should really care about force in this case.
Let's say that we're going to get to 100mph. We'll skip friction and efficiency losses for a moment.
You're going to do it by accelerating at 1mph/s. (Say, a stock S2000 in sixth gear wink.gif )
I'm going to do it by getting hit by fast-moving semi truck.
We both have the same amount of kinetic energy at 100mph, and we, thus, both have the same amount of applied energy. The accelerative forces applied are far different. In fact, if we were having a frictionless drag-race in which we each stopped gaining speed at 100mph, my remains would win regardless of the length of the race, because I would have been in front of you for what can be regarded as the entire time.
Your initial connection between mass, energy, and acceleration is based on a fallacious assumption.
Here are a couple of rules:
F = ma
(Force = Mass * Acceleration)
KE = 1/2 m * v^2
(Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity squared)
This is a unit-based equation, and you could merely take note that Kinetic Energy is proportional to mass and, far more importantly, proportional to the square of Velocity.
The first rule here is the most important. The relationship between mass, acceleration, and force is important. No term for energy is applied here.
You're going to do it by accelerating at 1mph/s. (Say, a stock S2000 in sixth gear wink.gif )
I'm going to do it by getting hit by fast-moving semi truck.
We both have the same amount of kinetic energy at 100mph, and we, thus, both have the same amount of applied energy. The accelerative forces applied are far different. In fact, if we were having a frictionless drag-race in which we each stopped gaining speed at 100mph, my remains would win regardless of the length of the race, because I would have been in front of you for what can be regarded as the entire time.
Your initial connection between mass, energy, and acceleration is based on a fallacious assumption.
Here are a couple of rules:
F = ma
(Force = Mass * Acceleration)
KE = 1/2 m * v^2
(Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity squared)
This is a unit-based equation, and you could merely take note that Kinetic Energy is proportional to mass and, far more importantly, proportional to the square of Velocity.
The first rule here is the most important. The relationship between mass, acceleration, and force is important. No term for energy is applied here.
F = ma
We know the mass is constant. which means if the F (force) goes up, then so much the acceleration. Do you know how to calculate the F (force)? I'll give you a hint. it involves the gear ratios.
08-23-2005, 10:10 PM
#79
Registered User
by the way, this information came from the very first thread I had made regarding my 4.57 gears.
someone, like yourself, was using the kinetic energy argument, and an engineer stepped in and corrected them.
someone, like yourself, was using the kinetic energy argument, and an engineer stepped in and corrected them.
08-23-2005, 10:14 PM
#80
Registered User
Originally Posted by jasonw,Aug 24 2005, 12:08 AM
Who's gonna lend me an AP1 with 4.11 gears? Do I get to choose the speed interval and conditions? It brings little to the discussion to say your claims can be settled by adding independent variables and sticking to a small population pool.
by the way, see my little equation above? this is the first part to plotting out the end result, ignoring all variables.
if you take the F = ma and calculate the force, which uses gearing, torque at a given rpm, etc, do it for the ENTIRE rpm range. THEN plot in the shift points, and you can determine which car is faster from any speed, ignoring all factors such as drivers, drag losses, etc. you will find that the 4.57 geared S2000 is substantially faster.