SupraGlue

Sorry to hear that, man. Let me know if you need any help with it. Breaking parts is just an opportunity to go faster -- and break more parts.

The Ogre shoots and scores! I take back what I said about Ford guys. The SSR is truly horrible.

Just don't hit a wall backwards or put the thing airborne into a catch fence. graemlins/nonono.gif I get your point, though. Hitting a wall at 220+ in a rigid cage, that for some unfathomable reason doesn't have any crushable structure, might not be too healthy.

Yeah, wrong section. Maybe one of you moderator types can move it. tongue.gif Someone else asked me also, but I forgot who. Are you going to do a bonfire this weekend?

Got a bunch of burnable wood laying around over at the warehouses, and I want it gone. Someone, and I forgot who, said they wanted it. TAKE IT PLEASE! Right now, there's enough to fill up my S10 longbed (it's full), plus about that much in a big pile. It's a lot of 2x4s, plywood, a couple of pallets and crap like that. There's nails in a lot of it. There are also a couple of trees I can cut down (18 feet or so) but that would be green still. Talk to me and get this stuff. 100% free, obviously.

Ever notice how all of the GTO haters seem to drive Fords?

Yeah, sticking huge tires, wings and sidepods out in the airflow really helps the drag coefficient. lol CART cars also have a lot more horsepower. BTW, the Porsche 917/30 was hitting speeds as high as 246mph on the Mulsanne Straight at Le Mans during the 1971 24 hour race. At night. Too bad that Nascar won't allow 220+mph race cars to exist. That would make it an interesting racing series. Probably safer, too. Restrictor plate racing just sucks. Edit: Desperado, why can't Nascar race at those speeds? If the clowns in IRL can in hideously unsafe cars, then what's the deal with stock cars? Too bad the Frances have managed to shove CART off of virtually every oval in America.

How hard is it to register a surplus military truck for road use?

CART cars were hitting 240+ on the front straight 15 years ago at Michigan, and broke 240 for a LAP AVERAGE at California back in 1998. Restrictor plates = graemlins/gay.gif

What Jon is saying would be valid if there were no storage medium for electricity in the system (ie. a battery). The battery can allow an electric supercharger to consume MORE energy than the alternator can put out, albeit for a limited period of time (say while you are at WOT). Jon is also missing the loss inside the gear case of a centrifugal supercharger, which is needed since the compressor wheel spins at a much higher RPM than the engine. The real question is power demand. If you are compressing air with a supercharger that has a parasitic loss of 50hp (just using a number for illustration) at a particular airflow and boost level, the electric motor would need to pull (are you ready?) 37.28 kilowatts, neglecting the power loss of the supercharger gearcase (I neglected it because I can't find any real data on it. We could use 10% as a WAG - wild ass guess). On a 12 volt system, that power means a current flow of 3100 amps. I don't know about any of you guys, but my alternator isn't pumping out that kind of juice, and neither is my battery. Even if you cut that 50hp number in half, AND take out the wild ass guess 10%, you are still looking at over 1300 amps. Again, my battery and alternator aren't going to cut it. So, how much power could our electrical systems use to drive an electric supercharger? Let's say that we can do a short term draw of 500 amps using the battery. Stereo guys can tell us if that can be done -- I know that some high torque starters can pull over 300 amps at full load. On a 12v system (operating at 13.8v), that's going to get us to just under 7000 watts, or 7 kilowatts. That's 9.4hp driving our compressor, which isn't going to do much. As an example, a very efficient compressor is going to take somewhere around twice that much to get close to 300cfm at a modest boost pressure, and that's nothing. A decent NA Ford 5.0 is going to suck in twice that airflow at redline. I have completely neglected power loss in the motor windings or in the very thick power lines going to the motor also, but even then, a conclusion is becoming clear: it is very unlikely that the modern 12v electrical system is going to put out enough juice to boost a motor of any significant airflow. Now, when the much-awaited 42 volt systems arrive, the current requirement will drop to around 30%. So the 3100 amp compressor would become a little over 900 amp compressor. Still a healthy pull, but possible with a dual battery system and a big ass alternator, presuming 42v charging systems will have similar current capacities to 12v. So, that auction is graemlins/bsflag.gif . Clearly that KKK compressor unit is meant for low airflow, low pressure and probably a stationary application. It's certainly not automotive. Edit for Eli: Look! I showed my work. tongue.gif

He sold it to a tribe of pygmies who now worship it as a minor deity.

Edit: lol Never mind. Phil beat me to it. smile.gif

Definitely. The OSU spring game was like some kind of evil tease.

never had a problem with mine... <-- matthew posting

Yeah, man be safe. It was great to see you out again. graemlins/thumb.gif

When I see stuff like that, I remember being eight years old and wanting to build a robot. Probably saw Star Wars or something. Not knowing one thing about robots, I took a large round cardboard canister and glued a bunch of shit on to it, then put a plastic dome on top and some roller skates under it. I scribbled on some designs with crayon and had my robot. It looked hideous, but I was eight. Even then, my robot > that car.

lol You'll know soon enough.

lol Got irony? How about a mirror?

When I see a helicopter, I freak out and run around in circles. It's very scary for me.

Speed Touring Cars, it's on TV all the time. Realtime Racing ITRs won four straight driver titles from 1999-2002. http://www.world-challenge.com/2002/standings-tc.html But you're right. Where you put the drive wheels on a car is pure magic. You can ignore any other engineering issues, such as power to weight, suspension and chassis design, or tire choice. Just drive them rear wheels. The only point I made is that the anti-FWD jihad on CR is overzealous. I swear, some of you people spend more time hating cars than you do enjoying them. Edit: Let me make another point that maybe some of you will get. Even Mowgli might understand this. Solid axles for road racing are generally obsolete technology unless required by the rules. F1 doesn't use them, top tier sports car racing does not use them, etc. No one would argue that solid axles, or even a trailing link IRS, is superior to a properly designed double wishbone. No way, no how. Does that mean that you guys with solid axles should NEVER road race? Should you not even bother putting suspension parts on your car because it is a waste of time and money? Are your cars automatically junk and tugboats that will never handle because of your less than optimal driveline layout? That would be silly. Same goes for all of us with engines in front. The mid engine revolution took over F1 in the early sixties, and Indy racing and sports car racing later that decade. Front engine cars are dinosaurs, right? Why waste time on one? Heck, the top rung of drag racing is top fuel, and they've got the engine where it belongs too. We should all just toss these front engine beasts in the junkyard right? Stupid argument again. You can have a fun performance car that you enjoy that has a solid axle. You can have a fun performance car that you enjoy that has an engine in front. You can also have a fun peformance car that drives the front wheels, the rear wheels or all the wheels. [ 30. May 2004, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: WWJKD? ]

Fixed. tongue.gif

What you drive depends on your own set of priorities, which is what all of you are really arguing about vicariously through cars. If your priorities are, in order: </font> Economy and drivability</font>Initial cost</font>Repair cost / reliability</font>Insurance cost</font>All weather drivability (can only own one car)</font>Cargo capacity</font>Driving enjoyment</font>Occasional auto-x / road course use</font>Occasional drag strip use</font>Moddability</font> You might pick a used Integra GSR or Civic Si. If you want some warranty coverage left, you might pick up a VW. The Sentra SE-R/NX2000 is another nice choice. Change the priorities around, and you pick another car. It's that simple. Here's the set of priorities I used. Keep in mind that I lived in Southern California at the time: </font> High multi-dimensional performance as purchased</font>Economy / drivability</font>Reliability</font>Comfort on long drives</font>Removable roof / Convertible</font>Driving enjoyment</font>Moddability</font>Appealing styling</font>Occasional road course use</font> The Supra meets those very well. I have used it on drag strips, road courses and autocross tracks. I have driven it across the entire US and to Texas and back twice, getting 25-26mpg. It idles at 750rpm, dead smooth. It is quiet, comfortable and has cruise and A/C. The targa top stays off nearly all summer. Very little has ever broken on it, considering the power level. I did not care about initial cost and still don't. I could afford it then and can afford it now. I am old and have no tickets, so insurance is cheap no matter what I drive. I have other cars to drive in bad weather, so I don't care about that either. The car is very easy to modify. I hear that I learned all about it on the Intarweb. Other cars that would fit that very well are Corvette coupe or 300ZXTT. Anyway. Long post. But if you lay out honestly what your priorities are, you will see exactly why you own the car you do. For fun, here is one last set: </font> Drag strip performance</font>Street racing performance</font>Drivability</font>Cruising comfort</font>Economy</font>Initial cost</font>Moddability</font>Passenger and cargo room</font>Repair cost / reliability</font> If that's my list, I am buying a turbo Buick. Different needs and priorities are what makes us INDIVIDUALS. That is why we choose to drive what we do. If you figure out what is important to you before you buy something, you'll get the "right" car. On a side note, the horrible awfulness of FWD is way, way, way overstated on this board. There are classes in all forms of racing where FWD cars dominate and win, even against RWD. In Speed Touring Cars, there was a strong rivalry for many years between the Integra Type R and BMW 3 series. That is amazing, considering the handling prowess of the 3. The original Mini (the first mass production FWD) was a terrific Rally car. For auto-x, having most of the weight forward makes it easy to transfer more weight forward at turn in. The auto-x driving style is a lot of stab-and-steer, and you often want to rotate the rear end on turn in as well. Braking the FWD car deep into the turn and chucking it in (three wheeling it when done agressively) can get you there. Where they tend to lack is small engines that don't create enough torque in the midrange to accelerate out as well as a bigger displacement car. It's definitely fun to watch a well-driven FWD car whipping around the cones, though. For a daily econobox, I'll take the FWD car. They package better for aerodynamic purposes, have better grip and are much cheaper to build. The driveline is also generally lighter than a RWD car, so there is weight savings as well. AWD is, of course, the ultimate for year-round, any weather performance driving. It's often more expensive both to initially buy (in most cases, but that is changing) and repair, and always carries extra weight and driveline loss, but we live in an AWD kind of climate. For pure street tire drag racing (ie. no drag radials) or street racing, it's a pretty solid setup also, presuming it can be launched without scattering parts. It's not what I'd pick for a road course, unless that course was known for bumps, pavement changes and on track dirt and gravel. A good smooth, clean, dry track isn't going to offer the AWD car much. Lousy tracks will. The Audis dominated in Trans Am and IMSA GTO due to the prevalence of street circuits, which are notoriously slick, uneven (think about the crowns in the road) and bumpy. The AWD let them put the power down sooner in a corner, and they whooped ass. In the rain, everyone else might as well have saved themselves the trouble and just gone home. Yes, they also had better engines and chassis. For those of us who watched during that era, it was ugly. Banning AWD was a convenient way to kick Audi out, though. The long and short of it is, buy what you like. /truth

That's an awesome website. I was surprised that I'm familiar with a number of the places on there.

WTF happened today on 270N? The cops blocked the freeway entrances in and around Dublin, and surface street traffic was hell as a result. It took almost TWO HOURS for me to get from Tuttle to Cleveland Av. Anyone else get trapped in that?

THAT is hilarious! graemlins/thumb.gif Edit: Good job, Anthony. At least you're doing something about this crap. graemlins/thumb.gif