top speed

That's easy enough to change. TG

It's true that a given shape with a given amount of power behind it will have a fixed top speed. But add more power and it will *always* go faster.

I don't know how fast a WRX will go if you drop it out of an aeroplane, but I do know that it will go a lot faster if you fill the cabin with water first, and faster still if you fill it with lead.

But they're sold here in NZ :-)

The terminal velocity falling from a plane is a function of the aerodymaics of the vehicle and mass. A human body, I believe, is about

That's about right in the spread-eagle position with your body horizntal and limbs extended.

Head first with arms by your sides and legs straight you do more like

I thought TV for a human was about 80 for either spread eagled with floppy clothing or tumbling. Head down easily 120+. With streamlined helmet and 'proper' position and spandex clothing I could see 180+.

Carl

Bruce Hoult wrote:

There is an article in March '05 "Air&Space" magazine about a engineer who skydives and clocks his pet falcon on the way down.

Spread eagle and horizontal terminal velocity is 120 mph. He began "pulling in his arms and legs as experienced skydivers do"..."and soon they were falling together at more than 240 mph."

Carl 1 Lucky Texan wrote:

SoCal: weekdays, most daylight hours, maybe 25 mph? :D

Rick

Jason

Your fast-autos.net was an interesting site.

Reading about the Subarus, the 2004 STI-WR1 had the fastest top speed (155) at 320hp. I'll believe you that is controlled by the ECU. I would argue that this is barely a 'stock' car, after all only 500 are built. It is such an even number. A 2002 WRX had a top speed of 147 at 300hp and I find that in the realm of believability.

Now, compare that to the new 'Vettes. Very aerodynamically slick, lighter in weight than a Subaru. They hit 190+ but they are also doing it with an engine putting out 500hp or 166% of the power of a WRX engine. That pretty well sums up the problem of high speed. Aerodynamic forces build up with an inverse square ratio. It doesn't just take more power to go faster, it takes a lot more power.

I am not trying to be difficult in this (well maybe I am, but there is no malice in it), I just am having a trouble believing that stock Subies (even with turbos) are regularly running over 150 mph. (I'm not even sure about the driving skills needed to drive 150+ mph, but I don't want to even start that discussion)

What would a new GT do with modifications to put out 450hp do, don't know, but it wouldn't be stock.

Jack

The Gadget Sh> They are definitely ECU limited to 155mph and there's plenty of real world

Well, there is a guy with a big electric motor and the prop from a DC-3 (IIRC) that operates a vertical wind tunnel and rents folks a helmet and some floppy clothes to walk out onto the wire mesh and 'float' on, again IIRC, an 80 mph stream of air. Also, wind tunnel tests of hurricane force indicate people can not remain standing above about 80-90 mph.

It does appear that VWT users were dissatisfied with early VWTs howvere and now they operate around 120+ mph. A small person with a very big 'ballon suit' might have a TV around 80. I'd probably 200mph! hah!

check;

thestick wrote:

Yeah, the WR1 was a 2004 UK limited release at 320BHP:

Petter Solberg uses it to do his grocery shopping in!

Certainly AFAIK stock STi will still hit the 155 mph limit, just take a little longer. From personal experience, I doubt a stock WRX would - I have been 125mph (200kmh) in a stock MY02 with some to spare, but I doubt there would be another 30mph there... btw it felt amazingly stable at that speed - next to no lift, just enough to lighten the steering. Ideally you'd have better suspension and/or more of a front lip for stability.

I have been passenger in another car (6 cylinder Ford Falcon circa 1993) doing 150mph (240kmh) and the car was floating like a hovercraft - scary as hell and totally ridiculous to let such an unstable car reach that speed! (they now speed limit them I think)

Cheers, Jason

Believe it...

Ive had my type UK STi at over 150! Wasnt really interested in studying the speedo to get the exact figure but my garmin gps said 151 was the highest recorded speed.

Top speed of the PPP Type uk STi is not quoted but 160 or just a shad under would sound about right.

Remember the Aerodynamics of the STi are probably pretty good, The newer ones IIRC have a flat undertray (Like Ferrari) and the bodyshell is based on the hugely successfull Subaru WRC. Im sure the guys at SWRT are spending just as much time developing Aerodynamics as Porche are.

Ross

Type UK Sti, is rock solid at 150, and the wipers still work!!!

Interesting Link, Noticed that the STi can stop from 60 in almost the same distance as a Ferrari 360 Modena (110 vs 111 feet)

Oh, ow. Oh my goodness. I'm hurt. Spare me, God, from the amazing wit, the panache, the razor-sharp tongue.. Ooo.. ow..

That's not true. Your assumption here is that the limiting factor is the friction between the tires and the road, and that once the top speed is reached, attempting to go any faster will spin the tires, and thus more weight is needed to increase the friction between the tires and the road.

The reality is that the aerodynamics of the car push back on the hard as hard as the engine can push it forward, and it goes no faster. The tires usually have nothing to do with it.

If we did fill the cabin with water, not only would the top speed decrease, but the weight distribution would probably be screwed up, which may make it more difficult to control at higher speeds.

Density has a lot to do with it, because density is usually a function of volume. Also, average surface area which faces windward (down in the falling case) at any point in time also has to be considered. Since there is no anchor (i.e. tires touching the pavement) there is no clean way to calculate the terminal velocity of a vehicle like the STi without actually dropping one out of a plane or mostly destroying the STi's body in a wind tunnel.

Anyway the point I was trying to make was that a falling body's terminal velocity has very little to do with its top land-speed except that they are related by the same underlying principle. Thus it's useless to consider terminal velocity of a falling body when trying to consider its top land-based speed.

Gravity accelerates bodies of different mass at the same rate. The difference between a 3000lbs car and a falling feather is only aerodynamic drag.

Are you saying it takes a 3000lbs automobile 1200hp to reach 150mph or that the formula does not apply?

florian /FFF/

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to remember Newton. :-)

-John O