I thought "reaction time" is pseudo-science. Why are you using that in your argument now?

Oh, and on your comment about how you base everything on how you're still alive. Remember this: for everyone 1 of you, there are probably plenty more who have already learned their lesson either through injury or death if they were going 125 mph every so often. So, just watch out, and stay the heck away from me.

 

... is usually enough incentive to cut my own speed.

 

How does the OEM tire hold up? I don't think they were designed to run over 100mph. If you run that fast often, the tread may get separated. Please be careful.

 

The OEM tire has a V speed rating--149 MPH

 

yea.... only if under 149 MPH.... he did 160..... that can be leathal

 

Hey! I just wanted to set the record straight - that ain't me!

I'm not even from Iran and I've never driven past 160 km/h.

Hopefully my account gets reinstated

 

I was there this past saturday and hit some bad traffic due to construction haha.

Darn people are crazy on the QEW i'm always the slowest one and I still feel like im speeding...

 

here we go again..

 

So you say that it's not you, then you go on to say that your account should be reinstated. Rightttt.

 

wow.....just saw this thread for the first time.

PJS, you're crazy no matter what you say. That speed is too fast on a public road, considering you got on that highway, I am sure other people could get on also. I don't care how good a driver you think you are, you shouldn't be doing that speed. There are too many unknowns about the road(oil, debris, bumps, potholes) as well as other drivers mistakes that i am positive that everyone who drives sees on a daily basis.

BTW, anyone else notice that the OEM tires PJS was driving with only have a speed rating of V, which states it is for speeds under 149mph?

Keep that speed on the track!!!!

 

harsh

 

여보새요... 암 코리언 투 요... 낫 아이란이!
They banned my account too
I don't even have a 6MT - mine's a 2005 5AT
Lurking in Azine is the only way I get thru my workday

 

dude I believe you if that makes you feel better

 

If the forum software sees that you two are coming from the same IP address, it probably just means you two work for the same company or go to the same school, and thus are coming from the same firewall.

 

Take it from a Mechanical Engineer...your engine speed/car speed logic is not even close to being accurate!

 

Actually his analysis is correct under the conditions he specified:

"wouldn't the top speed just be a proportion of the RPMs at 6th gear (5th for AT) when the engine redlines? That's assuming you have a near infinitely long stretch of downhill straight road with little or no wind resistance"

If the engine does 3000 RPM at 70 MPH in 6th gear, it will do 6000 RPM at 140 MPH in 6th gear. You can extrapolate what the vehicle's theoretical top speed would be at 7300 RPM: approximately 170.33333 MPH

If you had no rolling resistance or air resistance, the engine would have more than ample power to reach that speed.

 

now.. we just need to find a really really really long vacuum and a test driver

 

Yes, now we're getting somewhere. Now we need to take a look at the dyno curves for the 06TSX vs. the 04/05 TSX to see if the HP peaks differ. At high speeds the air resistance will be much higher than the rolling resistance of the tires. And, isn't the air resistance a function of speed squared? Need more input from mechanical engineers here.

 

I think I know who we'd all volunteer to put in a vacuum...

 

You can say just about anything you like, but the fact remains that you have more than one common IP with IranBT, suggesting you are not using a common proxy or even server.

As I explained by PM, the ban remains, and this account will also be added to the ban list. Furthermore, you couldn't wait until you had cleared it with the mods and admins, instead you went ahead and posted right away, so that makes you a goner, permanently.

 

 

No, it isn't correct under his assumptions. His assumptions were

"That's assuming you have a near infinitely long stretch of downhill straight road with little or no wind resistance"



Flaws with his argument...

1. As things move downward they tend to accelerate (ie gravity 9.8 m/s^2) this would increase the top speed parabolicly as time goes forward thus it would not be a linear calculation as he described.

2. Not all friction has linear resistance. Microphysics suggest most types of friction is nonlinear. The cars fluid resistance is definitely nonlinear (ie, oil, tranny fluid, diff fluid, other lubrications, etc)

2. The car would have to have perfect traction at the tires and other places throughout the drivetrain at the velocity range. No drivetrain slipping can occur and if it did it most likely wouldn’t be linear.

3. The car would have to be traveling in a fluidless atmosphere, ie. a vacuum.

I could go on but my point is if you make all the correct assumptions then yes theoretically his logic is correct but the errors introduced wouldn’t be a good representation of the true maximum velocity. His theoretical velocity (with ALL the correct assumptions) may be around 175 mph…when the true real life maximum velocity under standard conditions (sea level, 1 atm, etc) may be around 149 mph.

The problem is as you introduce assumptions you also introduce errors…eventually the calculation is far enough off to render it worthless.

 

Sweet guys I got my car to 185 today after I removed the speed limiter

 

I towed my 25' boat with the TSX this weekend. Talk about pushing the TSX to its limits.

 

CCCOLT

PLEASE tell me you just forgot the red text.....

 

ahhhh man thats week I tow my trailer full of landscaping equitment with my tsx now that is pushing the limits.

 

Wow all that and a reference to Microphysics and tractive quality.

I have a Mechanical Engineering education as well (that I've never used ). As much as I enjoy getting into really nerdy detailed-laden discussions, this is not really that kind of discussion.

I understood the broad statement he was making. In the context of automotive discussions, it is fair to say that an "RPM limited top speed" is a constant. Regardless of the effect that gravity has, we can make a rule in our model that the car will not exceed the speed attained in top gear at the rev limiter. The time in which we reach that speed may change, but that is irrelevant here.

By using "front wheel horsepower", we are already containing the losses that occur from normal brake drag, wheel bearings, and friction between the gears, etc. So... again... if you remove rolling resistance and air resistance, or at least most of it, the car will reach the rev limiter in top gear.

My only assumption is that the enormous surplus of power from the engine will overcome what little resistance is left over. The validity of this assumption pivots on how you interpreted the author's intention when he said "little or no". Since this isn't a 600 level college course, I'm going to assume that he meant "near vacuum" conditions. Your interpretive mileage may vary.

 

fixed my typo

 

dont forget equipMent

 

ok so my post quick during class skills are slacking right now.

 

i SOMEwhat believe you.

 

[QUOTE=junktionfet]Wow all that and a reference to Microphysics and tractive quality.

I have a Mechanical Engineering education as well (that I've never used ). As much as I enjoy getting into really nerdy detailed-laden discussions, this is not really that kind of discussion.

I understood the broad statement he was making. In the context of automotive discussions, it is fair to say that an "RPM limited top speed" is a constant. Regardless of the effect that gravity has, we can make a rule in our model that the car will not exceed the speed attained in top gear at the rev limiter. The time in which we reach that speed may change, but that is irrelevant here.

By using "front wheel horsepower", we are already containing the losses that occur from normal brake drag, wheel bearings, and friction between the gears, etc. So... again... if you remove rolling resistance and air resistance, or at least most of it, the car will reach the rev limiter in top gear.

You just added two more assumptions. You assume (or as you say "make a rule") the car will not exceed the speed attained in top gear at the rev limiter. The relative velocity will be influenced by traveling up or down a hill and can not be deemed irrelevant.

In addition, It's obvious if we talk about "front wheel horsepower" all the friction elements are enveloped but he didn't say "front wheel horsepower". Do we know what his front wheel horsepower is? That would also be difficult to calculate without introducing a large error.

Basically, you introduced two additional assumptions that he didn’t use. This solidifies my case…as stated his methodology of calculating top speed is erroneous.

 

You forgot the fufu factor.

 

I had some fried fufu for dinner last night.

 

He didn't mention any kind of horsepower. I assumed "front wheel horsepower" for the very reason you cite... it is simpler to work with--otherwise we'd introduce a very large number of variables, many of which cannot be defined without spending extensive resources.

My "rule" regarding the rev limiter is not an assumption. You cannot exceed the maximum programmed engine speed and still apply power, I don't care if you're on Jupiter or in free fall...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't VSA cut power to the wheels when in free fall?

 

Your right he didn't specify "front wheel horsepower" therefore it shouldn't be assumed. We don't know what the front wheel HP is so I personally wouldn't assumed it. We do know what the specified engine HP is so I assumed that's what he was talking about.

You missed my point on the uphill/downhill thing…it matters but if that’s not obvious then nevermind.

Point is if you do the calculation like he says it will NOT be accurate.

We can agree to disagree.

 

Cuts power to the engine and thusly to the wheels, but we're not being precise here in this thread evidently.

 

^^