You are welcome to look at the talkback but please consider that this article is over 16 years old before posting.
Forum - View topicNEWS: Speed Racer's Mach 5 Car "Tested" in Road & Track Mag
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
LydiaDianne
 Posts: 5633 Location: Southern California |
|
|||
|
I bet there was a LOT of giggling going on while that article was being written!
|
||||
|
||||
daedelus
 Posts: 743 Location: Texas City, TX (ajd: 6/11/05) |
|
|||
|
Hmm...5 million sticker price eh? I guess I'll have to go with the lease option.
|
||||
|
||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15338 |
|
|||
|
Dark Horizons found a pic
of Racer X's car. |
||||
|
||||
|
Mykelti
Posts: 64 Location: New Jersey |
|
|||
|
The first trailer for that movie made me colour blind for life.
The second trailer (watched with welder's goggles), made the film seem a little-bit like the old speed, and slightly less than "HOT WHEELS -The Movie!". -Who here knows just how far this film has strayed -esp. with the setting and visual designs? At least it's nice to see a close real-life Mach 5! Now is it safe to take off my solar eclipse viewing spectacles now? |
||||
|
||||
|
samuraiwalt
Posts: 647 |
|
|||
Those pictures of the toys don't really look like the pictures of the car from the movie. |
||||
|
||||
rabble
 Posts: 46 |
|
|||
The MPG of 7.0 sounds like a lot of SUVs on the road right now, but they get nowhere near the other specs. |
||||
|
||||
|
Banken
Posts: 1280 |
|
|||
|
That thing would be harder to drive than an F1 car...
Not to mention that 245-width street tires would not be able to so much as drive forward with 1700 HP, much less race with them. Race track owners probably wouldn't appreciate you putting holes in their tracks with crampons, either. Plus, the tires would explode and you'd die in a horrible fireball long before you reach 305 MPH, nor would you ever do 0-60 in 0.6 seconds... I think to do either you'd actually need about 3X the horsepower. |
||||
|
||||
ferrarimanf355
 Posts: 159 Location: Seacrest County |
|
|||
|
LOL at the $7700 gas guzzler tax in the MSRP...
|
||||
|
||||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10425 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
|
Out of boredom, I did the math on their quarter mile figure, earlier today in the shower. Someone messed up the simulation. It's not possible to do a 2.6 second quarter mile with a trap speed of 200MPH. Even with instant acceleration, a 200mph trap speed would give a 4.5 second ET.
In order to cover a quarter mile at constant speed in 2.6 seconds, you'd need to be traveling at 350 MPH. Factor in non-linear acceleration, and you're looking at a trap speed close to Mach 1. As for their 0-60 time, with "crampons" (ie: no tire slip) and the gearing they mention (2.72:1 in first gear, which reaches 62mph and a final gear of 3.6:1), let's do a bit of math... I'll do this in imperial format... F = TQ x Gear ratio x final drive ratio / tire radius 1400 x 9.79 / (26/2/12) = 12651 lbf peak forward force (wow!) Acceleration = Force/ Mass = 12651/2655 = 4.76 g 4.76 g = (holy !@#!!) 153 ft/s^2 So, assuming that the the car could keep peak torque down for the entire run, you'd see a 0-60 time in (316 800 / 3600 /153) .575 seconds Of course, the car doesn't put peak torque down all the way to 60mph, at 60mph it only has 1100 lb/ft tq. And with the insane compression ratio they list, there won't be much torque below 4000 RPM either (although if they launched at 5500 rpm, they could keep it above 4000 RPM on a drop, or keep it above 5000 rpm on a slip (no clutch in the world can handle that)). Realistically,I'd say they were a bit generous. Itmight take them about 0.8seconds to reach 60... 
Not too shabby. -t Did I mention I was a nerd ? |
||||
|
||||
|
ferrarimanf355
Posts: 159 Location: Seacrest County |
|
|||
I have to ask, are you familiar with NHRA Funny Car racing? Those cars can do 350 MPH at the same E.T., so what R&T quoted is within the realm of possibility. Still, though, that gas guzzler tax... Pops never had to deal with CAFE standards, did he?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Banken
Posts: 1280 |
|
|||
|
Top fuel dragsters and funnycars have 7000 HP + (and you have to rebuild the engine after every pass)
Plus, those are purpose-built straightline cars. A road racing car (well, the trailer looks more like a hot wheels track) like this with low weight (it's not *that* light... a little more than a Miata and less than an RX-7), relatively narrow street tires, and 1700 HP would be impossible to drive without the help of computers. Not to mention 6 lateral G's is more than what an F1 car pulls, and would be incredibly stressful on the driver (normal people pass out at 7 verticle G's, much less lateral G's). Not to mention there's no commercial racing seats or harnesses that could hold the driver in place (they'd almost certainly break, or at least not have nearly enough lateral hold). Yes, I AM over-thinking this. |
||||
|
||||
|
Tempest
I Run this place. ANN Publisher Posts: 10425 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
I'm aware of NHRA, but must admit not particularly familiar with it. Drag racing is not my area of interest. I'm more of a circuit fan, although I admit doing a couple 1/4 mile passes for the hell of it. Most of the following is based on research I just did,not prior knowledge... A couple points, 1) I didn't say the ET was impossible, I said it was impossible at ~200mph. 2) If I understand correctly, the fastest Top Fuel Funny cars and Dragsters have an ET around 4.5 seconds. Road & Track claimed 2.6 seconds for the Mach 5. 3) Since the Mach 5 has a 0-60 time of .6 seconds, similar to top fuelers, you'd think it could do the 1/4 in with a similar ET, but I'd like to say "no it can't." The fictional Mach 5 achieves its amazing 0-60 time due to the crampons. It would probably destroy a top fueler in the 1/8 mile. But the second 8th of a mile is all HP; as Banken pointed out, the top fuelers have 5 times the HP of the Mach 5.
-t |
||||
|
||||
|
Banken
Posts: 1280 |
|
|||
|
And for the record, I own an older Honda CBR600, which has approximately 100 HP, and weighs about 600 pounds with me on it.... and it's terrifyingly fast at full throttle in first gear (without winding it out).
My RX-7 has 160 HP and weighs 3000 pounds when I'm in it... it's the opposite of scary at WOT (not fast enough). 1700 HP in a car that weighs 2400 pounds (plus the 140-pound driver... since I wouldn't guess that Speed is a very hefty guy) and doesn't have anything even resembling sufficient tire grip or downforce would be terrifying to drive, much less race... it's faster than an F1 car... which actually costs more than 5,000,000 and is already next to impossible to drive by anyone by an F1 racer. |
||||
|
||||
|
Tempest
I Run this place. ANN Publisher Posts: 10425 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
Actually, the article mentions several things about the Mach 5's tire grip being second to none. Super-special nano-tech tires and tire crampons  ;
Heheh... Actually, there is a sports car being produced right now (forgot the name), that has 1700 hp and weighs under 3000 lbs.It's faster than the Veyron, but doesn't qualify as a "production" vehicle. Makes my Cosworth-Subaru seem like a kitten I guess.... -t |
||||
|
||||
|
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||
|
It might be called the Viper GTS (heavily modified of course).
Here is a link. I found other sources, but little in the way of hard data. Hope it is true. Oh yes, the speed is not listed, but still, with that much HP, it might just get there...... |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group