Paul Tegler wrote:
>
> Weight wise the Spit 1500 and the Midget are pretty close.
> There is now doubt... and my co-driver lady friend agrees,
> even with the lower ratio rear in the Spit the 1500 is by far
> much faster over all than my 1275 Midget
> which I use to say was quick.
As mentioned, the Brooklands book is a series of car
reviews in magazines. A lot of them are just reviews of the
midget, but a large chunk of them are reviews of the
Midget against a competitor or two, and the Spitfire is
usually in there.
When comparing 1500cc Midgets versus 1500cc Spitfires (same
engine) the results are always VERY close. Autocar got
that 11.9 for the Midget and 11.8 for the Spitfire.
Where there was a slight difference, the Midget 1500
was SLIGHTLY faster to speed for the lower speeds (like
a tenth) but then fell off as the speeds got higher.
Their explanation, which I agree with, was that the
Midget got a SLIGHT advantage off the start because of
gearing, but the spitfire eventually caught up because
of gearing and aerodynamics. (both cars with soft-tops,
but raised for speed trials)
The top speed of the Spitfire was a little higher,
and the top speed of the Midget actually had an
asterix beside it because they squeezed an extra
few mph by sneaking into the redline a bit. (Something
like 103mph when redline in top was 101mph or
something)
So, for most purposes, performance of the 1500 Spitfire
and the 1500 Midget are identical. So, in my best
semblance of mathematics, your equation can be
reduced to Midget 1500 versus 1275 Midget, and your
observation agrees with mine and the brooklands
reviews. Advantage, 1500. ;>
--
Trevor Boicey, P. Eng.
Ottawa, Canada, tboicey@brit.ca
ICQ #17432933 http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
"Toaster, toothbrush, comb. I just want to go home." - Ajax
|