Miguel Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Dude I think you're trying to make the same point as me..... 200mph on a budget with a british car was the premise... I know Alex, i'ts called sarcasm the lowest form of wit come on man break out the smile once in a while and there i thought you knew me by now! The point had been made moons ago ..I just like dragging it out LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 No that was Fensport...and the gearbox blowing isn't exactly amazing is it? 4WD and it broke on launch.... Ahhh yes my mistake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 For the cheapest Cerbera with an MOT, you are talking 17k. Tuning the AJP8 costs a bloody fortune for sod all gain- the post powerful 4.5 I know of barely has more than 415bhp iirc. As far as I know, no TVR before the Sagaris ever went near a wind tunnel, and they have a habbit of trying to blow their bonnets off over 150mph- rather you than me mate. But all I can say is Nitrous! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 I know Alex, i'ts called sarcasm the lowest form of wit come on man break out the smile once in a while and there i thought you knew me by now! The point had been made moons ago ..I just like dragging it out LOL I thought you were...but it can be hard to determine tone when reading text Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 I thought you were...but it can be hard to determine tone when reading text Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 But all I can say is Nitrous! Do you require a wheelbarrow to get around? cos your balls must be huge! I've driven a TVR Tuscan at 165mph, and it feels like re-entry, not as bad a Chimp500 with the roof down at 150 though, that was truely terrifying... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Do you require a wheelbarrow to get around? cos your balls must be huge! I've driven a TVR Tuscan at 165mph, and it feels like re-entry, not as bad a Chimp500 with the roof down at 150 though, that was truely terrifying... LOL Like many others on this board, high speed does nto bother me one bit, as long as it feels safe in the car your driving. Im hoping to go to VMax next year with my new one for the 200 run, Nitrous included! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 For what it's worth I got a response from ch5 and Fifth gear: -- Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding Fifth Gear. We have noted your suggestion in our Viewer Enquiries Report, which is circulated throughout the company. For future reference you can contact the production team via the following e-mail address: [email protected] Thank you for your interest in Five. Yours sincerely VIEWER ADVISOR -- If this has been suggested before then I don't hold out any hope (probably not much chance anyway) but wouldn't it be excellent if they did decide to take up the challenge again with a supe, heres for hoping anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 LOL Like many others on this board, high speed does nto bother me one bit, as long as it feels safe in the car your driving. Im hoping to go to VMax next year with my new one for the 200 run, Nitrous included! As you may know, Vmax is bloody, bloody hard to get onto due to the numbers involved- even TerryS hasn't got a place yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Sherwood Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Hope to have a go at 200+ next year. My sone tells me the car will go off the clock in 5th @ 8500 rpm down a short bypass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethr Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 If they HAD to use a British car, wouldn't they have been better off with a different Lotus? There are several Carltons on Autotrader for less money than that Esprit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Coefficiency..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethr Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Coefficiency..... True.... but would it be worse than the Esprit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Posted November 14, 2005 Author Share Posted November 14, 2005 Co-efficiency?? That Sierra has the Co-efficiency of a brick! Surely a Carlton may have been a better bet, nice thought - they do look the doggies danglies in black and are pretty quick in standard trim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Esprit :- 0.360 Frontal Area Carlton:- 0.381 Some notable examples: 2.1 - a smooth brick 0.9 - a typical bicycle plus cyclist 0.7 to 1.1 - typical values for a Formula 1 car (wing settings change for each circuit) at least 0.6 - a typical truck 0.57 - Hummer H2, 2003 0.51 - Citroën 2CV 0.42 - Lamborghini Countach, 1974 0.39 - Dodge Durango, 2004 0.38 - Volkswagen Beetle 0.372 - Ferrari F50, 1996 0.36 - Citroën DS, 1955 0.36 - Ferrari Testarossa, 1986 0.36 - Citroën CX, 1974 (the car was named after the term for drag coefficient) 0.34 - Ford Sierra, 1982 0.34 - Ferrari F40, 1987 0.33 - Dodge Charger, 2006 0.31 - Citroën GSA, 1980 0.30 - Saab 92, 1947 0.30 - Audi 100, 1983 0.30 - Porsche 996, 1997 0.29 - Porsche Boxster, 2005 0.29 - Honda Accord Hybrid, 2005 0.29 - Lotus Elise, 1958 0.28 - Porsche 997, 2004 0.27 - Infiniti G35, 2002 (0.26 with "aero package") 0.26 - Toyota Prius, 2004 0.25 - Honda Insight, 1999 0.212 - Tatra T77, 1938 0.19 - Mercedes-Benz "Bionic Car" Concept, 2005 (based on the boxfish) 0.137 - Ford Probe V prototype, 1985 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Posted November 14, 2005 Author Share Posted November 14, 2005 Nice one! But, you really must get out more. Isn't there a significant frontal shape difference between the normal Sierra and the Cossie - wasn't the Sierra pointy and the cossie saphire fairly flat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Esprit :- 0.360 Frontal Area Carlton:- 0.381 Some notable examples: 2.1 - a smooth brick 0.9 - a typical bicycle plus cyclist 0.7 to 1.1 - typical values for a Formula 1 car (wing settings change for each circuit) at least 0.6 - a typical truck 0.57 - Hummer H2, 2003 0.51 - Citroën 2CV 0.42 - Lamborghini Countach, 1974 0.39 - Dodge Durango, 2004 0.38 - Volkswagen Beetle 0.372 - Ferrari F50, 1996 0.36 - Citroën DS, 1955 0.36 - Ferrari Testarossa, 1986 0.36 - Citroën CX, 1974 (the car was named after the term for drag coefficient) 0.34 - Ford Sierra, 1982 0.34 - Ferrari F40, 1987 0.33 - Dodge Charger, 2006 0.31 - Citroën GSA, 1980 0.30 - Saab 92, 1947 0.30 - Audi 100, 1983 0.30 - Porsche 996, 1997 0.29 - Porsche Boxster, 2005 0.29 - Honda Accord Hybrid, 2005 0.29 - Lotus Elise, 1958 0.28 - Porsche 997, 2004 0.27 - Infiniti G35, 2002 (0.26 with "aero package") 0.26 - Toyota Prius, 2004 0.25 - Honda Insight, 1999 0.212 - Tatra T77, 1938 0.19 - Mercedes-Benz "Bionic Car" Concept, 2005 (based on the boxfish) 0.137 - Ford Probe V prototype, 1985 Hang on, are you talking about frontal area, drag coefficient or Cda (the product of the two)? The figures above must be drag coefficients, but you havn't put up any frontal area data to go with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethr Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Google tells me that the Carlton and Esprit have about the same drag coefficient (if I can believe what I read on the web), although the Esprit presumably has a lower frontal area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilli Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 didn't the carlton do 177mph standard anyway? not too much further to go and I think it's quite strong overall to take the extra power. Good stealth car, maybe the ultimate in that respect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 didn't the carlton do 177mph standard anyway? not too much further to go and I think it's quite strong overall to take the extra power. Good stealth car, maybe the ultimate in that respect? Its all exponential from about 150 I Used to work for Matra BAE Dynamics and all I can tell you is..... I dont care anymore.... LOL Yes the overall is what matters, but the frontal area is what shapes the air going through so it matters when rear spoilers are involved. Example: DTM rear wing on a Esprit and a Carlton. The esprit's nose would not move the air over the car as effeciently enough to flow over the spoiler thus having 2 areas of drag. Hard to explain in writing so I drew a simple pic. Obviously not os basic as that but hopefully you get the idea. IT s all about how it pushes the air on Frontal, and Co-ff'ct is total by all bodies...!?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilli Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 I realise that just a few mph more takes a lot more power, IIRC isn't it a ^2 or ^3 V law, force is proportional to ^2 V and power is ^3 V, something like that anyway. Feel free to correct me, thats just my rusty memory in a hurry lol I guess taking the wing off would be the very first thing to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 I realise that just a few mph more takes a lot more power, IIRC isn't it a ^2 or ^3 V law, force is proportional to ^2 V and power is ^3 V, something like that anyway. Feel free to correct me, thats just my rusty memory in a hurry lol I guess taking the wing off would be the very first thing to do Thats how they acheived the 17% loss together with removing extremities! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.