denny: Photo of my face in profile - looking to the right (Default)
[personal profile] denny
Just saw this on a mailing list consisting of various friends of mine. I'm not a great fan of cars generally, they're more a practical thing than a hobby, for me. But this, this one impressed me:
The Ford RS200 is a true motoring legend. How many cars are banned from rally sport because they are 'too fast to race'? Very few - but the RS200 was one of them. Today, some twenty years after it was designed, it remains in the Guinness Book of Records as the 'fastest accelerating car ever sold to the public'. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some people fitting twin motorcycle engines into replica Lotus Sevens in pursuit of acceleration. And Ford's own testing of their amazing RS200S achieved even faster times than the official record: Ford quoted 0-60 mph in 2.01 seconds, 0-100 mph in 5.2 seconds, and a standing quarter mile in 9.5 seconds. With an unknown top speed, but somewhere in excess of 200 mph.

(Source: http://banmoco.co.uk/200/)
My emphasis on the 0-60. My bike will do it in about 4 seconds, with a really really good rider in charge, or about 5-6 with me on it. A normal family car takes between 10 and 15 seconds, I believe. [livejournal.com profile] duranorak informs me that this roller-coaster boasts about its acceleration, and is slower than the car!

(no subject)

Date: 2003-05-22 12:15 pm (UTC)
zotz: (Default)
From: [personal profile] zotz
I'm unsure about this kind of figure. Specifically, how would it get enough traction to accelerate itself that fast? I'm not entirely sure that Formula 1 cars hit 60 any faster than that, and they have to use the sort of aerodynamic tricks that a road car can't manage.

I suspect that if you tried to put that much force through the road wheels, they'd just unstick. Or the front wheels would leave the ground, which would be as bad.

60mph is 96.5km/h, or 26.8 m/s . To reach that in less than three seconds implies an acceration greater than 1g. My hunch here is that you won't stick to the road under that horizontal acceleration without some pretty fancy tricks (which I doubt could have been used - it was a rally car, after all). The official figure is 3.6 seconds, which is about believable.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-05-22 01:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sartori666.livejournal.com
The Rs200 was a Marvelous beast.

I believe they banned the XR4 from rallying too, the 2 bans prodicing Rally X as an arena in which the cars could still be used!

(no subject)

Date: 2003-05-23 02:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] olithered.livejournal.com
The roller-coaster says 2.8, no?

(no subject)

Date: 2003-05-23 07:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dennyd.livejournal.com
And hence is slower than the car I was originally talking about (the RS200). I was probably a bit unclear in the phrasing there.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-05-23 06:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.com
So when you're sitting in traffic trying to get out of Camden in the rush hour, you can think of how fast your car would be going if you were in the middle of the Navajo desert ;)

(no subject)

Date: 2003-05-23 07:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dennyd.livejournal.com
Hence the biker's saying about fast cars: "You're only as fast as the car in front of you"  :)

May 2020

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728 2930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags