The Porsche vs Ferrari (or Badger vs brielga) thread

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Dario911

Being you an aeronautic engineer, and I think you know well this things

[arakis]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

No - That's what BoP is all about. It is BALANCE of performance. Be proud that the F458 is the benchmark.

It's not called "Give them some performance breaks (so anti-Porsche fans can **** on them from a dizzy height) but make sure Ferrari stays ahead". It's called "Balance of Performance" for a reason.

cough BS cough...

you are calling 1mm restrictor increase a normal casual BoP, adding out the rulebook aero-kits ok.. did you drink something, or are you so stuck up, that you can't just admit it's total BS, and porsche is now heavily benefiting from it, not being equal but benefiting...and for what, because it takes them 10 years to develop a new car?

BTW when an engine size difference is 500cc the restriction limit difference is 0.3mm and porsche has a 1mm diff that's like having a 5.5L engine compared to the ferrari... that's way too much....

BTW as I mentioned earlier, my best friend is a die hard porsche fan, he is probably more of a fan then Dario (if you get me) and even he is calling this total BS, and a total f-up by porsche....

[arakis]

Originally Posted by Dario911

But knowing F=ma, it's obvious the mass has a direct impact on the acceleration! The higher is the mass, the higher is the top speed!
The car will stop to accelerate when the wind friction will equal to the car acceleration.

Newton is turning in his grave

Originally Posted by Dario911

The higher is the mass, the higher is the top speed!

What, because higher the mass, that means it has a higher force...that makes no sence at all, as the equation above only relates to acceleration....

here are some basic concepts for you to LEARN

F=Ma or a=F/m for easier understanding...now F here are all the forces at play summed up....
this means a car will accelerat or decelrate as long as there is a force pushing it....

now for a car we have F = Fm-Fr-Fd-Fw and thats it......
Fm is the engine force, Fr is the rolling resitance(increasing with mass), Fd is the drive train friction, and Fw is wind resistance.

From this equation it is simple to see that if the Fm is constant, and we assume Fd is as well, and Fw (at the same speed), while Fr increases, the only result is that the F drops...meaning that at the same speed a car with more mass will require more force to maintain the equilibrium(therminal velocity).... if the engine doesn't have enough force, a lower Therminal velocity will be reached....where in the heck do you see the Inertia in here I am at a loss...
P=mV which is just a number that is not figuring anywhere in this equation, and as a concenquence of that has nothing to do with top speed....

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by arakis

cough BS cough...

you are calling 1mm restrictor increase a normal casual BoP, adding out the rulebook aero-kits ok.. did you drink something, or are you so stuck up, that you can't just admit it's total BS, and porsche is now heavily benefiting from it, not being equal but benefiting...and for what, because it takes them 10 years to develop a new car?

BMW even got to change their engine position (before the rules were changed to allow this).
Arakis- This is not an argument that you are making. It is just frustration and Porsche hate. No reason for me to add to this.

Originally Posted by arakis

BTW when an engine size difference is 500cc the restriction limit difference is 0.3mm and porsche has a 1mm diff that's like having a 5.5L engine compared to the ferrari... that's way too much....

The 0.3 mm is what was decided by the ACO (I'm not sure what was the criteria). It is obviously not enough , so the value needs to be changed. (Plus the Ferrari has DFI too). Again, it is BoP. You can cough and splutter as much as you like, but it wont change anything.

Originally Posted by arakis

BTW as I mentioned earlier, my best friend is a die hard porsche fan, he is probably more of a fan then Dario (if you get me) and even he is calling this total BS, and a total f-up by porsche....

I have said right from the start ,that I 'm against all this BoP. It is BS, but what you cant have is some makes getting huge BoP and other's not getting any at all. Ferrari is the benchmak. You should be pleased.

[arakis]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

BMW even got to change their engine position (before the rules were changed to allow this).
Arakis- This is not an argument that you are making. It is just frustration and Porsche hate. No reason for me to add to this.

The 0.3 mm is what was decided by the ACO (I'm not sure what was the criteria). It is obviously not enough , so the value needs to be changed. (Plus the Ferrari has DFI too). Again, it is BoP. You can cough and splutter as much as you like, but it wont change anything.



I have said right from the start ,that I 'm against all this BoP. It is BS, but what you cant have is some makes getting huge BoP and other's not getting any at all. Ferrari is the benchmak. You should be pleased.

I have a somhat contrary view If I am against BoP (and I am) I would continue to be against it, and spit at Ferrari for begging for it if that ever happens....
It's called having character and principal.

Something I've heard countless times being synonymous with porsche

0.3mm was intended for horsepower, and it is bang on, as the Ferrari has the same power as a normaly restricted porsche...now where this gets screwed is torque....Ok sure it needs to be increased because of the torque...but 1mm porsche has a huge advantage in horsepower, as well as a little in torque...

As for the DFI it;s simple, just give larger tanks to porsche teams, or smaller tanks to Ferrari...

As for the aero kit...that's just plain out of this world wrong...

PS I'm only ****ed cause it's way too much, there was something need to be done for porsche, but this will preaty much make every race in FIA WEC a porsche sandbag special being mysteriously just fast enough to win,while they have a bunch more in reserve...

How can I be pleased if the best car doesn't win, what's the point of Ferrari's investments in development if they cant get the wins?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Dario911

If we assume the motion of the car on a plain straight line, we can assume g (gravitational acceleration) as "a" (intended as car acceleration supplied by the engine). The friction between the falling body and the atmosphere is the frection between the car and the air. We have changed the vertical falling motion in a plain motion, both with an acceleration and friction.
For the motion on a plain, we have to consider, being the body a car, the loss of power deriving from the drivetrain friction, rolling resistance, etc...
But knowing F=ma, it's obvious the mass has a direct impact on the acceleration! The higher is the mass, the higher is the top speed!
The car will stop to accelerate when the wind friction will equal to the car acceleration.

arakis beat me to it, but I have one extra comment.

You understand that here on earth, "g" (9.81 m/s^2) and that for a "falling object" you can say that "g" = "a" in F=ma. In short, for a falling object (vertical motion) "a" is a constant. That is why higher mass = more force and ultimately a higher terminal velocity in that scenario.

However you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what traditional engines does and the impact as to what values to use for "F" and "a" in F=ma or a=F/m. An engine does do not impart "a", but rather "F". Flip F = ma around to a = F/m you can see why a heavier car will experience lower acceleration if using the same engine (F is a constant).

Lastly, top speed is when the forward force from the vehicle itself (you can calculate this via instantaneous torque of the engine, gearing and tire diameter plus drivetrain loss, rolling resistance, etc.) equals the aerodynamic forces. At this point the force equation equals out and "a" drops to zero. With no acceleration, no change in speed. You have arrived at the top speed.

I know it is tough as you inherently "know" you are correct, but try to step outside of what you think is correct, use the formulas (pay attention to which values are used and not used) and follow the math. I think you will eventually arrive at the same place everyone else on this thread is at.

Richard

[arakis]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think you will eventually arrive at the same place everyone else on this thread is at.
Richard

and the rest of the planet since Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

P.S. Richard, much better explanation, English as a second language taking it's tow..

[Articus]

tely

[The Badger]

WooHoo for the Lizards ..... the prancing ponys ..... well , yet another fine result from ESM !!!

[Articus]

In other news. I was looking back at past ALMS championships. Dirk Muller won the GT2 championship back in 2000! he must have been all of 20 years old! Jorg Muller in 2001. Lucas Luhr has a couple gt2 championships as well. If he Lucas can win the LMP1 championship he will have championships in each of the current ALMS classes!! Thats impressive stuff from him.



Im happy to see Joerg Bergmeister scoop another victory. Cant say I am a fan of the team but I still like Joerg. What a shame for ESM, I always want to see a Ferrari do well.

Anymore news on Risi? We need them badly.

[arakis]

Originally Posted by Articus

Anymore news on Risi? We need them badly.

It seems they are gonne to the Grand Am this season, as support..

[Articus]

As "support." So they are not racing there either? Why won't Ferrari just fund the damn program!! Its not like that money is a penny of what they spend on F1. They could run Risi for the next 40 years on Fernando Alonso's salary...They're making themselves look bad in America. Who watches grand-am gt class?

[Matt]

a factory ferrari program in alms would be excellent.

[Articus]

What do Porsche Ferrari fans think about a BMW Z4 GTE?

[The Badger]

You mean the hairdresser's car ?

[TF110]

What's the boxster? Cayman? Carrera? Where I'm from Porsche's are the worst offenders of 'image' cars. Surely not their intended purpose! What's the difference with a Z4?

[Matt]

i love the look of the newest Z4. I just wish it came in a coupe rather than a hardtop convertible. keep the bodylines and roofline the same, it's perfect.

[arakis]

Originally Posted by Articus

What do Porsche Ferrari fans think about a BMW Z4 GTE?

Hmm... with the state of the GTE it is now, as in, it has turned into a total train-wreck with no control over BoP..I guess the Z4 wouldn't hurt anyone...

If you asked me a year ago, I would have spat at it...But with the ACO buckling to FIA pressure to completely f-up the BoP I see no point of keeping a rulebook at all, they should release the GTE class for all-comers (instead of only for those who pay bucketfuls to the ACO/FIA) as it's pretty much just another GT3 class now, and has lost all of it's appeal that it previously held, What I mean it lost any and all respect as a serious development driven competition it had in it's conception.

Unless they reboot it, or change the BoP rules immensely until 2014. I'd vote for them to just kill the GTE class, and let GT3 take it's place...this is just ridiculous...

I've followed this class for 12 years now. While it sucked to be a Ferrari fan during the 996 360 era, it was still exciting racing, and It never occurred to me, to think about BoP so the cars would be more equal, the only thing on my mind was, oh well next year Ferrari will develop their cars more, and we'll kick some Porsche buts then
It's was an obscure little class no-one has hardly heard of, and no-one cared that a single make was dominating it....
While the racing was not the most exciting out there, it bread huge development from both Ferrari and Porsche giving us the total awesomeness of the 430vs997 era.. and because of the success of the 997 vs 430 era, the fans came to watch and with the fans dollar signs started pooping up in the heads of the ACO/FIA....and now they totally f-ed the class.... it has absolutely no relevance at all, and I see absolutely no difference to the GT3 class anymore...

P.S. all of you who wanted this enjoy it, its a downhill ride from here, and the self-destruct mechanism for this class has been initiated...

[Dario911]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

However you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what traditional engines does and the impact as to what values to use for "F" and "a" in F=ma or a=F/m. An engine does do not impart "a", but rather "F". Flip F = ma around to a = F/m you can see why a heavier car will experience lower acceleration if using the same engine (F is a constant).

Lastly, top speed is when the forward force from the vehicle itself (you can calculate this via instantaneous torque of the engine, gearing and tire diameter plus drivetrain loss, rolling resistance, etc.) equals the aerodynamic forces. At this point the force equation equals out and "a" drops to zero. With no acceleration, no change in speed. You have arrived at the top speed.

Richard

If we consider two cars, both with the same aerodynamic, transmission, engine, ecc. the final top speed will be higher for the heavier one, according to F=ma formula. We were only talking about weight influence.
Anyway, it's obvious a=F/m make the heavier car slower to reach its top speed, but I've said the same. But terminal speed is a physics concept.
A car's terminal velocity is similar to it's maximum speed.
As car's start to accelerate there is more force pushing the car forward than there is air resistance slowing the car down.
As the car's speed increases so does the air resistance, eventually the force of the air resistance will equal the the force of the car's acceleration.
At this point the car can no longer accelerate, it has reached it's terminal velocity.
That's physics.

[rich07]

Originally Posted by Articus

What do Porsche Ferrari fans think about a BMW Z4 GTE?

I want BMW to stay in GT-E so a Z4 sounds great to me.

The only way for that to happen (competitively) is for BMW to make a V8 powered Z4 and Im not sure they'd go to that extreme just to race in GT-E, it seems they are focussed on DTM at the moment.

[arakis]

Originally Posted by Dario911

If we consider two cars, both with the same aerodynamic, transmission, engine, ecc. the final top speed will be higher for the heavier one, according to F=ma formula. We were only talking about weight influence.
Anyway, it's obvious a=F/m make the heavier car slower to reach its top speed, but I've said the same. But terminal speed is a physics concept.
A car's terminal velocity is similar to it's maximum speed.
As car's start to accelerate there is more force pushing the car forward than there is air resistance slowing the car down.
As the car's speed increases so does the air resistance, eventually the force of the air resistance will equal the the force of the car's acceleration.
At this point the car can no longer accelerate, it has reached it's terminal velocity.
That's physics.

NO and NO, you are plain wrong...Force is the same as the only force pusing the car is the ENGINE..

in the vertical drop the Frce actigng on two objects is the gravitational pull from earth(Me), and the object(Mo)
gravitational force is calculated as Fg=G*(Mg*Mo)/r^2
G is the gravitational constant!

and acceleration is a=Fg/Mo if you connect the two formulas you get a=(G*Mg)/r^2 which is 9.81-9.83 depending on your location.

the acceleration is constant because the object mass is cancled out by the two formulas, and the acceleration in gravity is only dependent on the Mass of the earth..

In a car driving on a road, there is no gravitation force pushing it forward, only the force of the engine which is constant, and has nothing to do with the mass of the object...

so cars acceleration is a=Ft/M Where Ft are all the forces action on a car(Ft= +EngineF -Roling resistanceF -Windresistance -drivetrain resistance) Fe is constant for the same car with different mass Rolling resistance incresses with Mass

Top speed is achived when there is no more acceleration, all the forces acting on the car have ballanced each other out. Ft=0...
or when EngineF = Rolling resistance + Windresistance + drivetrain resistance
abd because the Rolling resistance for the same speed is higher for a car with higher mass. the engineF has to be higher to reach the same speed.

And since this is not possible, because the engine is the same, a lower top speed will be achieved....

If you do not understand this, I'm sorry, but trust me this is true! continuing to state the opposite, is just embarrassing, as it shows you don't have the basic understanding of physics, which are learned in elementary school, and further studied at high-school...

[Spyderman]

Not a physics man myself, but this is an interesting read: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14909

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Dario911

If we consider two cars, both with the same aerodynamic, transmission, engine, ecc. the final top speed will be higher for the heavier one, according to F=ma formula. We were only talking about weight influence.
Anyway, it's obvious a=F/m make the heavier car slower to reach its top speed, but I've said the same. But terminal speed is a physics concept.
A car's terminal velocity is similar to it's maximum speed.
As car's start to accelerate there is more force pushing the car forward than there is air resistance slowing the car down.
As the car's speed increases so does the air resistance, eventually the force of the air resistance will equal the the force of the car's acceleration.
At this point the car can no longer accelerate, it has reached it's terminal velocity.
That's physics.

Create a "free body diagram" that shows the forces involved. At it simplest (which is what I suggest you do), include only the aerodynamic forces and the driving force from the powertrain (engine, transmission, etc.) and ignore things like mechanical friction losses (rolling resistance, powertrain power loss). Those two forces would oppose each other. This explains how to create a free body diagram...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_body_diagram

I am not sure, but I think you seem to understand that we are talking about regarding the free body diagram because when the two forces are equal, there is no acceleration, the speed is now constant and at the maximum value.

So with the powertrain force (one 1/2 of the force in the free body diagram) you would agree that you can remove the engine, transmission, etc. from the vehicale (so you take the overall weight of the vehicle out of the equation) and you can now measure it via a dynometer. And that regardless of how heavy the vehicle is that the force provided would remain the same. Would you agree?

Now you look at the aerodynamic forces (the other 1/2 of the force in the free body diagram). Use the following links to see to calculate that value...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

The key is the drag equation of ...

F = 1/2 pv^2CdA

This involves things like the drag coefficient of the vehicle, frontal cross sectional area of the vehicle, speed of the vehicle and density of the fluid (air).

You will note that the mass of the vehicle is not part of the above equation. This means vehicle mass does not impact either the amount of aerodynamic drag or the amount of force that the powertrain can deliver. It has no impact on top speed.

So while "F=ma" (Newton's second law) is true, "F = 1/2 pv^2CdA" (fluid dynamics drag equation) is also true. You just have to use the right equation for the right problem. I could try to stuff pythagorean theorem into this problem and while it is a valid formula, it is the wrong one for the problem.

I have suggested you follow the math earlier, but you don't want to do that. I and others have provided specific equations and examples and have explained how you are doing this wrong. If you don't want to follow the math then consider some other examples that use your logic, but you might agree don't work. If increased mass allows for higher top speed, wouldn't long distance runners, wear weight belts to increase their top speed and pass other runners? For high speed trains, couldn't you just keep adding more and more weight and the trains would go faster and faster all on their own? If a train was at maximum speed and a bird landed on top (increasing the overall weight) would the train suddenly speed up? If you made an object infinitely heavy, would it go infinitely fast even with a small engine?

Beyond this, I doubt anyone on this forum will be able to convince you otherwise. I suggest that you find a physics instructor that you will believe their option and ask them. As entertaining as it is to have this discussion, I think I am repeating myself, so I may bow out.

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Not a physics man myself, but this is an interesting read: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14909

Thanks for the link. I read through the thread and in short they reach the same conclusion that all things being equal, mass does not impact top speed. If you include impacts of rolling resistances, etc. then higher mass will increase mechanical drag which will reduce top speed. I do agree that a heavier object will be more stable and maybe easier to drive at top speed than an equal car that weighs less. But it will not increase it's top speed.

Richard

[Adam43]

Yep, everything else being equal mass does not change the terminal speed, just how quickly you get to it.

In the F=ma equation quoted above. In this case considered here F remains constant and defined by the powertrain. Increase m and you don't increase F, you decrease a. As said above.

Dr Adam 43 (phd in Physics).

[Spyderman]

..But this is exactly what some of us were saying. Weight does not have much of an impact on top speed. It affect acceleration, breaking, handling, tire ware, but not significantly top speed.