raced a 2010 SS
06-13-2009, 07:28 PM
#23
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: edmond,ok
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the race was from a roll right? i'm just having a hard time to believe OP car which i'd say around 325 rwhp? with the lid and catback, beat a car with 422 crank hp which would be around 360-370 rwhp from a roll which negates the weight factor a bit
06-14-2009, 12:54 AM
#25
10 Second Club
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Royal Palm Beach FL.
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kinda dissapointing from all the hype surrounding the new SS. Good kill OP makes me want a light weight Vette that much more. By the way, weight hurts everything, from a dig, from a roll and in the handling and braking department. Hell that thing almost weighs as much as my Explorer.
06-14-2009, 11:27 AM
#28
Additional weight hurts everywhere. I see guys on CF talk about weight all the time and IMHO, weight may not be as much a factor from an 80+ mph roll. From a 40-50 roll, weight will be a penalty as well as a dig where the 1/8 mile traps would be affected. It's going to take alot to overcome 3900lbs when there are plenty other cars under 3500lbs. It's going to take 600rwhp to even run with a stock/mild C6Z from a roll, the same as a GT500. Screw that.
06-14-2009, 11:34 AM
#29
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: edmond,ok
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try carry 2 bricks from standing still they'd feel heavier to carry compare to when you get the bricks when you're running
06-14-2009, 11:37 AM
#30
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: edmond,ok
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Additional weight hurts everywhere. I see guys on CF talk about weight all the time and IMHO, weight may not be as much a factor from an 80+ mph roll. From a 40-50 roll, weight will be a penalty as well as a dig where the 1/8 mile traps would be affected. It's going to take alot to overcome 3900lbs when there are plenty other cars under 3500lbs. It's going to take 600rwhp to even run with a stock/mild C6Z from a roll, the same as a GT500. Screw that.
I guess I'll have to take your word on that one. 
06-14-2009, 03:39 PM
#33
On The Tree
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inertia
06-14-2009, 04:27 PM
#34
Launching!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wanted to make this post to help clear up some ideas I have seen floating around about power to weight ratio, acceleration from a dig and acceleration from a roll. Suppose we have two cars, Car A, and Car B with specifications given below:
Car A:
300 wheel hp
3000 lbs
Cd(Coefficient of Drag) = .34
Frontal Area = 25 sq feet
Car B:
500 wheel hp
5000 lbs
Cd(Coefficient of Drag) = .34
Frontal Area = 25 sq feet
This comparison is not 100% accurate since I am holding the power constant in real life power will vary, I did this for simplicity. The concept is not affected by doing this.
Instantaneous Acceleration = (Net Power)/(Mass * Velocity)
Net Power = Power of the Engine - Drag due to Air Resistance
I calculated drag at 20 degrees C i.e. 68 F sea level.
Attached is a graph of how the curves look. Anyways here is my conclusion, Car A and Car B will have almost identical low speed acceleration since there power to weight ratio is identical. However as speed increases the car with more power will accelerate faster.
Why does this occur?
The cause for this phenomenon is Air resistance, the Net Power for Car A decreases faster than the Net Power for Car B. The Air resistance affects Car A more.
Here is a simple example of the idea:
Lets compute the rate of change between for Cars A and B for Drags of 20 hp and 50 hp:
Car A:
300-20 = 280
300-50 = 250
Decrease = 30/280 = 10% decrease in net power
Car B:
500-20 = 480
500-50 = 450
Decrease = 30/480 = 6.25% decrease in net power
Thus as speed increases, the Net Power of Car A decreases faster than Car B, hence Car B accelerates faster.
Hope this helps clear things up a little...
Car A:
300 wheel hp
3000 lbs
Cd(Coefficient of Drag) = .34
Frontal Area = 25 sq feet
Car B:
500 wheel hp
5000 lbs
Cd(Coefficient of Drag) = .34
Frontal Area = 25 sq feet
This comparison is not 100% accurate since I am holding the power constant in real life power will vary, I did this for simplicity. The concept is not affected by doing this.
Instantaneous Acceleration = (Net Power)/(Mass * Velocity)
Net Power = Power of the Engine - Drag due to Air Resistance
I calculated drag at 20 degrees C i.e. 68 F sea level.
Attached is a graph of how the curves look. Anyways here is my conclusion, Car A and Car B will have almost identical low speed acceleration since there power to weight ratio is identical. However as speed increases the car with more power will accelerate faster.
Why does this occur?
The cause for this phenomenon is Air resistance, the Net Power for Car A decreases faster than the Net Power for Car B. The Air resistance affects Car A more.
Here is a simple example of the idea:
Lets compute the rate of change between for Cars A and B for Drags of 20 hp and 50 hp:
Car A:
300-20 = 280
300-50 = 250
Decrease = 30/280 = 10% decrease in net power
Car B:
500-20 = 480
500-50 = 450
Decrease = 30/480 = 6.25% decrease in net power
Thus as speed increases, the Net Power of Car A decreases faster than Car B, hence Car B accelerates faster.
Hope this helps clear things up a little...
Last edited by Cgillies86; 06-14-2009 at 07:16 PM. Reason: For got to mention that the horsepower numbers would have to be wheel horsepower
06-14-2009, 05:17 PM
#35
.35 - 5th gen (SS)
.34 - 4th gen (using the LT1... .33 is the 'assumed' LS1 Cd but there is no data to confirm since GM never flowed it)
Frontal Area
23ft - 5th gen (Unconfirmed..its the only number i've seen posted...for giggles I will assume 22ft)
22ft - 4th gen
.35 x 23 = 8.05
.35 x 22 = 7.7 - Assuming 22ft frontal on the 2010 Camaro SS
.34 x 22 = 7.48 - Assuming Cd is equal to the LT1 with it's square headlights.
.33 x 22 = 7.26
Take the aero diference and toss in heavier rims (more rolling resistance) and then add the general weight difference into it and it doesn't seem to be too hard to believe.
Who knows what will happen once these LS3s are broken in but so far it's not a blowout against the 4th gen.
06-14-2009, 05:31 PM
#36
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: edmond,ok
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the 400 lbs man in comparison have more energy than the 170lbs man thenn yes, look man, i'm just saying that based on my personal experience weight matters more when you race from dead stop.
we can agree to disagree.
Cgillies86:
that's some impressive analysis you provide, thanks for clearing things up for me
S8ER95Z:
still remember e36 m3 vs e46 m3? weight difference vs hp difference between the 2 of them give the edge to the e46 m3 from a roll
06-14-2009, 05:54 PM
#37
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an 01-02 LS1 car with a lid and cat back can easily see 108+ mph trap speeds. A z28 could fair better pending options (weight).
A brand new owner in a high hp car doesn't always mean that its going to come out on top, regardless of the numbers. Especially considering the OP claimed one car. Not greyhound bus-lengths, but ONE car... Totally believable as driver error could definitely be the cause of this.
OP, great kill.
A brand new owner in a high hp car doesn't always mean that its going to come out on top, regardless of the numbers. Especially considering the OP claimed one car. Not greyhound bus-lengths, but ONE car... Totally believable as driver error could definitely be the cause of this.
OP, great kill.
06-14-2009, 07:50 PM
#38
Curbs
e36 - 3219 lb
e46 - 3415 lb
Power
e36 - 240hp/236trq
e46 - 333hp/262trq
93hp difference and 200lbs...
We are talking about a 75hp difference and 472lb difference.
2010 SS - 425hp - 3902lbs
2002 SS - 350hp - 3430lbs
That's assuming 350hp (298rwhp) for the 4th gen and 425 (362rwhp) for the 5th gen. It's certainly in the 5th gens favor on paper but it's close enough that a well driven 4th gen could pull out a win from a roll.