Hi Mayf:
Your point about aerodynamics and top speed is rather timely. I just got
a book on Lotus 7 'alternatives'--cars that were light and quick, but
not, I gather, terribly fast.
One case where a 7 was light, quick AND fast was as follows: A Caterham
7 had got badly beat up in a race. The bits were purchased and set up
for something called modsport racing. The owner went through about 4
iterations over several years, changing the bodywork each time. A
picture in the book of the final iteration has the front and rear wheels
tightly enclosed, an integrated spoiler on the front, steeply raked
windshield, fiberglass hardtop--well, suffice it to say that from the
front it looks more like a Can-Am car than a Lotus 7. The thing had a
210 h.p. 1.5 liter engine and was clocked at over 150 mph.
Hence its nickname--The Slippery Brick.
Gotta love those aerodynamics.
Speaking of aerodynamics and really fast Sunbeams--words that don't
usually appear in the same sentence--How's the Bonneville 'brick'
commencing? :-)
Best Regards
David Sosna
DrMayf wrote:
>ahhh, um, er...a car wil not go faster with lighter weight. It will be
>quicker to reach a top speed. But top speed is an aero thing with rolling
>resistance thrown in. It may be faster in a given drag race but not over all
>faster. And yes, removing weight for a drag race is one of the most
>effective ways to become the first to the finish line (quicker, not faster,
>although some speed increases are expeced). The old standby equation of F=m
>* a with drag forces thrown in is the governing equation for quickness.
>
>mayf, no flames intended, hope no offense is taken.
|