Thank you, you just backed up everything I tried to say.

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: by far the majority of HP is used to move the air out of the way.. with a 60mph tailwind you would get ALMOST a 60mph increase in top speed.. the only reason you don't is because of rolling resistance..

Exactly. Somehow I think the last half of my post got cut off ( )... Basically I said "a 60mph tailwind would probably get you at least 30mph extra in a top speed run". Possibly more. I don't honestly know. Lets test it out!!

Toddster, where did you go? This was starting to get interesting. Explain the see saw theory again.

quote Originally posted by crzyone: Toddster, where did you go? This was starting to get interesting. Explain the see saw theory again.

We all "saw" it but he still can't "see" it.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: Look, We all understand about the fulcrum. The problem isn't gearing or the fulcrum, The problem is you keep assuming that ALL Fiero's are exactly the same as your Formula.

NO, My SEVEN Formulas, THREE 88 GTs, ONE 86 SE, THREE 86 GTs, etc.

ok well i never ment to flame this topic up but it did... im going to get my camera and take a top end pic the next decent day that i get... note it is snowy and crappy here so this might take a week or so... im not trying to say anyone is right but technicly with the yellowfiero running atleast 125 at 4700 that still leaves 1300 rpm for speed before redline... i understand you then have hp restrictions and wind drag and such but i have gotten up to 5300 rpm in 5th gear when she just couldnt push any harder... now do the math. technicly at 3000 rpm with my tranny in 5th gear i am moving at about 80 mph so i figured with a double in rpm the car could travel 160 at 6000 rpm (give or take) and with a higher redline you could get higher rpms hence my tread on a 200 mph fiero (just an idea) so everyone can yell all they want and i will get proof of my speed and rpm the next farly neutral test day

quote Originally posted by Oreif: a 1986 V-6 4-spd Fiero was timed at 126mph in October of 1987. That alone dispells your 123.77mph limit.

More mythical references Oreif?

cite the source so I can shoot you down again. Since the Fiero can't go 126 MPH you can't cite the source.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Wrong. Oh boy, here we go again. It is not approximately 30000 lbs and it is not a measure of work. Work is meaured in foot pounds. If you lift a 3ft weight 2 feet in the air you have performed 6 foot lbs of work. POWER is the meaure of the rate at which work is performed. It is EXACTLY 33,000 FOOT POUNDS per minute. Horsepower is defined as the RATE at which work in performed, not work itself. One horsepower is 33,000 ft lbs of work in one minute (the rate). The unit of measure was originated by James Watt who found that a strong horse could hoist 366lbs of coal up a mine shaft at a rate of 1 foot per second. In one minute the horse would have raised the 366lbs 60 feet (uh, because there are 60 seconds in a minute). This equates to 21,960 lbs., ONE foot, in ONE minute! per previous post. Watt arbitrarily changed the figure to 33,000. No reason. HP = DW/33,000 t where : D = distance W = force in pounds required to move the weight through that distance t = time in minutes required to move the weight through that distance SO, using this formula, how many horsepower would be required to move a weight of a 5,000 lbs a distance of 60 ft in the 3 minutes? 60*5000/33,000*3= 3.03 HP Now lets try crazybrain's Battleship: The USS Missouri displaces approximately 53,000 tonnes. We want to move it 123 miles in 60 minutes (123 MPH) After converting miles to feet and tonnes to pounds we get 649,440*106,000,000/33,000*60 = 68,840,640,000,000/1,980,000 = 34,768,000 HORSEPOWER REQUIRED! Hmmmm, I guess the Fiero engine comes up a little short. MUST be all that wind resistance

Ok, pull your head out of your a$$ dumbshit. Are you saying that 1 horsepower is NOT ~30,000 ft.lbs per minute?

Oh boy, you just had to go there didn't you. Ok, I'm not going argue this with you. the fact is you are simply wrong in you statement about horsepower. Just read a book or search online...either way you will see that one horsepower IS about 30,000 ft.lbs per minute of WORK.

Quit wasting my time...as well as others. I was just trying to post some facts. If you can't admit you were wrong then fine. You have to live with it, not me

keep digging the hole

[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 01-12-2005).]

pics will tell all

quote Originally posted by Toddster: More mythical references Oreif? cite the source so I can shoot you down again. Since the Fiero can't go 126 MPH you can't cite the source.

Wisconsin State Police VASCAR, I was driving. If you want I can give you the officers name.

Obviously since you haven't posted a reply to the video, It appears you are ignoring the fact that the car was traveling 136mph.
If you look on page 2 of this thread the video CLEARLY shows a Fiero GT with a V-6 and a getrag with 4700rpm in 5th gear.
It is Video proof that your "claimed" limit of 123.77mph AND your claim a STOCK 2.8L can't get more than 4300rpm in 5th gear, is incorrect.

quote Originally posted by ditch: Ok, pull your head out of your a$$ dumbshit. Are you saying that 1 horsepower is NOT ~30,000 ft.lbs per minute?

OK, I've pulled it out. Now put yours back in and stay out of the conversation unless you have something intelligent to say.

From the Goodheart-Willcox Automotive Encyclopedia (THE bible for automotive math)

uh uh uh , Ditch quickly edits his post.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 01-12-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: OK, I've pulled it out. Now put yours back in and stay out of the conversation unless you have something intelligent to say. From the Goodheart-Willcox Automotive Encyclopedia (THE bible for automotive math)

Wow, you just can't let it go can you. You just have to be RIGHT. You're standing by the keyboard waiting for my response aren't you. Ok, if it makes you feel better, YOU'RE RIGHT. Now can you go to sleep? You're wrong, but hey, if you feel like you're right, that's all that matters right?

Toddy, you really need to get out more

[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 01-12-2005).]

quote Originally posted by ditch: Wow, you just can't let it go can you. You just have to be RIGHT. You're standing by the keyboard waiting for my response aren't you. Ok, if it makes you feel better, YOU'RE RIGHT. Now can you go to sleep? You're wrong, but hey, if you feel like you're right, that's all that matters right? Toddy, you really need to get out more

I don't "HAVE" to be right. I just happen to be. I'm arguing that the sky is blue and Orief is arguing that it's pink. I show stats, he shows phony magazine articles and unsubtabtiated claims. One of us DEFINITELY needs to let it go....one of us.

And as for going to sleep it's only 10:30 here, you're the one playing on his computer in the wee hours of the morning. Get some shut eye. I'm sure you'll be thinking more clearly in the morning.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 01-12-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I don't "HAVE" to be right. I just happen to be. I'm arguing that the sky is blue and Orief is arguing that it's pink. I show stats, he shows phony magazine articles and unsubtabtiated claims. One of us DEFINITELY needs to let it go....one of us.

you two argue about whatever, but I'm sticking to my statement about horsepower....pure and simple. It's true.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I just happen to be

in your eyes maybe , but I imagine he thinks the same

quote Originally posted by Toddster: And as for going to sleep it's only 10:30 here, you're the one playing on his computer in the wee hours of the morning. Get some shut eye. I'm sure you'll be thinking more clearly in the morning.

Hey, I can't argue with that one. I need some sleep, it's 1:45 AM here. As far as thinking clearly, whether I'm tired or not, facts are facts.

good night in CA
Dave

[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 01-12-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: What with more tach errors? How many times do I have to tell you, I HAVE HAD THE CAR OFFICIALLY TIMED by the SCTA. That is as official as it gets. Your grainy videos of broken tachs don't impress me and who is to say that your 136 GT wasn't modified. Read your own damned articels that say a SUPER duty Fiero topped out at 131... A SUPER DUTY!!!!! and you can sit there and blindly believe that a stock Fiero can go 136? You're insane!

First, The 131mph SD4 DID NOT HAVE A GETRAG! It had a STOCK 4.10 4-spd which had an OVERALL DRIVE RATIO of 3.32, The rear tires were 255/50VR16's. So let's use Todd's infamous formula:
((5650*60)/3.32)/775 = 131.75mph
The SD4 engine was doing 5650 RPM's in 4th gear.
Now How fast would the SD4 car go if you swapped in a getrag 5-spd? It would go 168.28mph
Funny thing is all I did was change the overall drive ratio! I don't see "Only a 2mph difference"

Here maybe this will help:

" NOT ALL FIERO'S HAVE A 2.60 FINAL DRIVE"

Do you see those words? Do you comprehend them?

Again you are not taking all the data into account. Again, using your own formula I have proven your "only 2mph difference" to be HIGHLY incorrect.

BTW ~ If you are doubting what trans or tire size was used, Refer to Pontiac Performance Plus Magazine Page 122 near the end of the 3rd paragraph.

Now you state your reference's as "NO, My SEVEN Formulas, THREE 88 GTs, ONE 86 SE, THREE 86 GTs, etc."
Were everyone of the cars "Officially tested"???

I really want to know what you think is wrong with Yellowfiero's tach. From the video it is clearly not erratic or bouncy like bad tach's usually exhibit. Even when he first takes off the tach is working fine. Do you think it suddenly "goes bad" once it passes you "claimed" 4300rpm limit?
As for mods he lists them. A K&N air cleaner, an Ocelot exhaust, non-stock wheels/tires and a 355 nose.
Hell if these mods can make a 13mph gain, I'd buy them all.
So far anytime someone claims higher RPM in 5th gear you say their tach is broken. A video has been provided and you still claim his tach was faulty.

It's amazing how you can't see the whole picture. You ran a car 10 years ago, Big Deal. It was 1 car officially tested. You just ASSume that all others are the same and they are not.

If you think that all Fiero's magically stop at 123.77 mph, You sir are truely mentally handicapped.

I'm not insane, I'm crazy, it keeps me from going insane.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I don't "HAVE" to be right. I just happen to be. I'm arguing that the sky is blue and Orief is arguing that it's pink. I show stats, he shows phony magazine articles and unsubtabtiated claims. One of us DEFINITELY needs to let it go....one of us.

NO, I know the sky is blue. You just think the sky is blue on all the other planets because our sky is blue.
I know they are not because I have seen videos, But you think all the lens' were broken.

I have yet to see ANY stats that shows 123.77 mph is the max speed OF ALL FIERO's.
I have yet to see ANY stats that shows 140hp can only push a getrag trans 5th gear to only 4300 rpm on a 2700-2800lbs car.
I have yet to see ANY signs of knowledge on your part except for the fact you can look up formula's in a text book. Too bad you don't know how to use them or what "variables" are.

For the record, You are not right, You are completely inaccurate. (as usual)

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 01-12-2005).]

Toddster, it is actually painful to watch you sit here and defend something that EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS IS WRONG.

Your formula for top speed is completely wrong. Did you even read the links provided? Did you read the part where I said weight has no bearing on top speed besides rolling resistance through the tires.

I feel like I'm trying to teach a 14 year old that knows everything.

Ways your wrong
#1 Weight is a small part of the equation, weight plays a roll in rolling resistance only. Your equation for finding top speed is absolutly wrong
#2 HP is not a constant, it is a peak if anything. An engine will make different horsepower at different rpms. Hense, your top speed formula is wrong again.
#3 WIND is the factor your car is overcomming. The faster you go, the more hp you need to overcome it. Your car may go 130mph, but to go 170mph you would need about twice the hp. How does your formula account for that? It doesn't because your too stubborn to learn and admit that your wrong. IT IS EXPONENTIAL. As in a curve that eventually goes straight up.
#4 Rolling resistance through driveline loss and tires is the other factor your car has to overcome. Period.

If you disagree on any of those comments, you are wrong. If you need the definition of exponential I will provide it for you. I can also refer you to a college where they teach physics.

Here is something that is sort of easy to understand and you may get it. Skydiving. A person jumps from a plane, in a spread eagle a person will fall around 120mph. Wind is holding the person from falling faster. That is a LOT of force. A person can go up to 200mph if they make like a spear and dive straight down then they are held back by wind resistance. The force at work is gravity, it is a constant. But it DOES NOT determine top speed.

Now read that over slowly and something may or may not click in your head

I will check back when you are man enough to admit to being wrong and admitting I am the smartest person you know.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: OK, I've pulled it out. Now put yours back in and stay out of the conversation unless you have something intelligent to say. From the Goodheart-Willcox Automotive Encyclopedia (THE bible for automotive math) uh uh uh , Ditch quickly edits his post.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Stop talking and start listening. Go get a book and look up the definition of horsepower. It is the measure of force required to lift 1 pound 1 foot in the air. Hence, By definition, the more weight you have, the more horsepower you need to move it. I can't believe some of the stuff people post with seeming pride!

Ok, Toddster, can you see the discrepancy? Your definition of horsepower makes no mention of time, yet the formula in your "bible" does. So is your book in error?

You're making invalid assumptions and even if your math checks out it's not proving anything because the base assumptions you used are in error. You posted this pic from the automotive "bible" so I suggest you take the time to actually study it because either your understanding of the topic is flawed or your previous posts are flawed, or both.

Something else to consider. If 123.77 is the top speed, how many significant digits is that calculated to? How many significant digits do all of the measured quantities in your formulas have. The reason I ask is depending on how accurate each piece of data is, that decides the limit on the accuracy of your final calculation. You can't have an answer that is more precise than the data used to calculate it. There could be a several mph margin of error in your calculations just in the accuracy of each calculation.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 01-12-2005).]

quote Originally posted by crzyone: Here you go man. Put yourself out of your misery. http://home.earthlink.net/~jonaa/topspeed.html

Well I plugged in the numbers for Yellowfiero's car and it shows at 4700 rpm he should be doing 135mph.
Todd's formula shows 136mph. Maybe the tach is defective in Todd?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I don't "HAVE" to be right. I just happen to be.

You do realize the page you posted says 1 HP = 33,000 ft-lbs per minute, don't you?
I believe you were trying to put Ditch in his place with that, but it appears you missed the mark.

sorry guys no pics to prove it today.... super bad fog .13 mile visibility and lower but i have new batteries for my digi cam

quote Originally posted by Toddster: HP = DW/33,000 t where : D = distance W = force in pounds required to move the weight through that distance t = time in minutes required to move the weight through that distance SO, using this formula, how many horsepower would be required to move a weight of a 5,000 lbs a distance of 60 ft in the 3 minutes? 60*5000/33,000*3= 3.03 HP Now lets try crazybrain's Battleship: The USS Missouri displaces approximately 53,000 tonnes. We want to move it 123 miles in 60 minutes (123 MPH) After converting miles to feet and tonnes to pounds we get 649,440*106,000,000/33,000*60 = 68,840,640,000,000/1,980,000 = 34,768,000 HORSEPOWER REQUIRED! Hmmmm, I guess the Fiero engine comes up a little short. MUST be all that wind resistance

Note that W = force in pounds required to move the weight through that distance

Not to be confused with it's ACTUAL WEIGHT, which would be necessary to determine the power needed to LIFT it up out of the water...

Using your formula, if there were no air/water/ANYTHING resistance/friction,

it would take exactly:
HP = D*0/33,000t = 0 horsepower
to move the 53000 ton boat.

Again, the only thing that determine's the boat's top speed is it's frictional force through the water.
Weight has an indirect link to this (if you throw 5,000 tons onto it, it'll sink more into the water, and be harder to push because there is MORE water that needs to be "moved out of the way")
But has no direct link to the amount of power necessary to propel it to top speed.

You're confusing normal force with frictional force.

Exactly. So when I say if that ship had the same drag as a fiero (which it obviously doesn't) It would be able to go 130mph regardless of its weight.

In space, 1hp could get that ship to the speed of light eventually. It may be drag limited to space dust and radiation but you see where I'm going with this.

quote Originally posted by crzyone: In space, 1hp could get that ship to the speed of light eventually.

Well... not exactly. The faster you go, the harder it gets to make it go "faster". This isn't relevant in everyday life, but when you start talking about "near light speed travel", it becomes an important factor. General Theory of Relativity and what not. But 1 hp will get you going pretty fast.

Right, I knew that. You need a HUGE amount of energy to get to lightspeed. Just saying, with nothing to hold you back, doesn't matter how much an object weighs, you can still accelerate it with a small amount of power. Well past 123mph heh.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: ("irregardless" is not a word)

Hey look you are wrong again!

All those nice text books of formulas and no dictionary.

Oh and here is your reference: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=irregardless

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose.

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 01-12-2005).]

Top speed of my 2.8 without mods (eg duct tape on the headlight doors) is about 88 mph. But with the lights up and the doors still lifting off the housings, I have burried my 120 mph speedo on rt 84 west in Connecticut. headed downhill. And get this It was with a 4:10 4spd. I do have headers, and was running 14 inch rims at the time, and it has an aero body kit, and stock spoiler. I have no doubt that 130mph is attainable.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: uh uh uh , Ditch quickly edits his post.

Just what did I supposedly change?

Just for the record, I didn't edit anything out of my post. I end up editing almost all of my posts because I don't have great typing skills, so excuse the hell out of me.

Think about that next time so you don't make an ass out of yourself again. I'm an honest person and I don't appreciate this kind of crap.

I know that being wrong hasn't made you too happy, so I'll just forget it.

Dave

quote Originally posted by Formula88: You do realize the page you posted says 1 HP = 33,000 ft-lbs per minute, don't you? I believe you were trying to put Ditch in his place with that, but it appears you missed the mark.

I noticed that too but didn't think it would do any good to mention it to him. There is nothing like watching people prove themselves wrong.

It's funny. All I ever said was that 1 horsepower is ~30000 ft.lbs of work per minute and NOT the force to lift one pound one foot. Think about that, 1 pound lifted one foot is one horsepower? It's totally freakin insane. Next thing I know Bozo the Clown steps in and, in an attempt to prove me wrong, proves me to be right.

Come on Todd, I don't know you personally, but from what I've seen on the forum you appear to be an intelligent person. Get off the stubborn kick and accept some facts. We all have to be wrong sometimes.

Open mouth, Insert foot

[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 01-12-2005).]

I'm thoroughly convinced that you are all PMing each other and saying, "hey, let's F*** with Toddster some more." since no one, let along 5 of you, can be this dense.

I'm through playing.

this is rather humerous every car is different I guess my friends 87 GT was a freak since we pulled 5500 in it and would go past that.

One night we were following his friend in a 94 grand am with a 5 spd he topped his car out at 108 and we fly by him like he was standing still. Soon as I looked behind us he was dissappearing fast. Now I honestly don't think 12 mph will do that, we started slowing back down for the stop sign and if I recall had to wait some time to see his friends lights. His friend met up with us at his house and asked how fast we were going cause he was like WTF! you guys were gone.

but yeah it was tach error

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I'm thoroughly convinced that you are all PMing each other and saying, "hey, let's F*** with Toddster some more." since no one, let along 5 of you, can be this dense. I'm through playing.

Well I haven't received or sent any PM's, maybe your tach is bad.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I'm thoroughly convinced that you are all PMing each other and saying, "hey, let's F*** with Toddster some more." since no one, let along 5 of you, can be this dense. I'm through playing.

What gets me is how dense YOU'RE being. You even posted a page from a book that proves you're wrong and can't see it.
You're so convinced of your rightness you're not listening to anything anyone is trying to tell you.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I'm thoroughly convinced that you are all PMing each other and saying, "hey, let's F*** with Toddster some more." since no one, let along 5 of you, can be this dense. .

Haha. It's funny, I haven't sent any PM's or received any for that matter. Sounds like a pansie ass excuse to walk away with your tail between your legs. I don't have to work with anyone to make you look like a fool. You simply do it yourself. I try not to insult people, but you are just rediculous.

I never wanted to argue with you. I was just reading this thread because I thought it was interresting. You made an incorrect comment about physics and I corrected you. I would want you to do the same to me if I made a mistake. We all make them, none of us are perfect. You immediately jump on me and post up some evidence to prove I'm wrong. The funny thing is you posted a write-up that SUPPORTS exactly what I said in the first place. That tells me you just can't handle being wrong. Grow the hell up.

I have a new argument for you Todd: I say the sky is blue. How much does everyone want to bet that Toddy says that I'm wrong and posts a picture to prove it....a picture of a nice BLUE sky.

go back to the tool box where you belong

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I'm through playing .

ran out of that ass lube I see

[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 01-13-2005).]