Teaser

And your both after me, as a fellow Saab owner, I have some training in unleashing a swedish beast. I would expect Jamesy to be just behind me.

hmmmm 158.7 miles. Busy most weekends up till Christmas, and theres no way i can make a weeknight, so dunno, but either way i'll want a copy of the video!!

Congrats on the sprog BTW (you're a braver man than me ;))

Well if we want to sit down and do some calculations. You and I both know that in terms of linear speed, the 405 has the advantage.

So something like, a stretch of road or track, and then a calculation of %Vmax average speed over it.

Something like the entire stretch of the B1225 from Humberside Airport to the A158, my highest average speed has been 77%. That includes the three junctions where you have to stop.

Good luck.

:)

Nout like buggering about with figures to your advantage, heh :-)

Going by that form of test, on the average reasonably twisty road, your Ka would piss all over something like an M5 or Lotus Carlton.

Peter

Too right! That is one ODD way to "race" cars.

Hmmmm, I'd have to average about 120 mph. An average LeMans racer would have to average about 180 mph.

Oh, and a milkfloat would be "faster" than a Ferrari Enzo.

Thank you kind sir, but at a 640 mile round trip, I feel I'll have to pass :-(

So because its slower - it would be faster.....?

Your logic is different to my earth logic :)

So you up for watching the FP 900 attempt 170mph? I don't wanna be the only to go :)

Relative speed. If an entire car is geared up for a maximum speed of X, surely every other component is also geared up for X?

In a perfectly logical and relative world mayeb - but we both know that isn't true :)

snip

My perspective has something to do with covering the same distance in a shorter time - the premise for all motorsport AFAIK!!!

That it's silly. Oh, and you never advocate the breaking of speed limits, right? In that case, no one could ever beat you unless their car had a /lower/ top speed.

The term "faster" IS relative. Faster /than/ a Ferrari Enzo - i.e. in /relation/ to a Ferrari Enzo, a milkfloat would be "faster"!!!!

Now Dervy, you're onto a loser here - put down the crack pipe and step away...

By this theory - if i got my old scooter back, that topped out at 32mph, and rode it flat out along that round, i'd be faster than Dervy in the Ka cos i would get a rating of 100%? (well, 99% if theres a couple of junctions...).

Dervy, that's a RIDICULOUS test. And I suspect you know it is :P

All you're measuring there, is the handling to power ratio. If something went flat-out all the way, at 15mph, then it would score 100%.

If the journey you are talking about, was a traffic-free motorway run, then most (all ?) cars would score 100%.

Your test is simply dependent on how sharp the road's bends are !

snip

That's irrelevant. What you're saying is, to use our cars as an example :-

The Ka's top speed is some 96mph I think? My T-5, I estimate to be around

On the same bend, by your logic, one should then assume that if the Ka is capable of cornering at say, 50mph, then my car should be capable of taking it at around 84mph (and a McLaren F1 should be capable of taking it at

That's ludicrous logic and you know it!

Well its not comparing that really - because that means a Ka would handle better than a 911 GT3 - because i stuck to a higher percentage of its top speed....

You wont be!!! I'm hoping to go too!!! :D

Alex

Er, yes it is.

No it doesn't. It means the Ka would have a better handling-to-power-ratio.

Meaning it has a better handling-to-power-ratio !

That's precisely why the test is such rubbish. As you already say, the GT3 has better handling, AND more power - but it comes off worse in the DervyTest.

Get back here and defend your loonacy, damnit !