+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: FASTEST EVER ACCEL TIME 3.97sec! BATH UNIVERSITY

  1. #1
    Bath UNiversity achieved the fastest ever acceleration time at FS 2005 of 3.97s over the 75m. The quickest time ever! An unofficial quicker time is also deemed possible. Seems the supercharged R6 could really make the car shift...

  2. #2
    Bath UNiversity achieved the fastest ever acceleration time at FS 2005 of 3.97s over the 75m. The quickest time ever! An unofficial quicker time is also deemed possible. Seems the supercharged R6 could really make the car shift...

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Costa Mesa, CA
    Posts
    773
    Which supercharger are they using?

    -Kirk

  4. #4
    I have a strong feeling Cornell has some recorded sub 4 sec times and the record is held by Ohio State at 3.79 or something ridiculous like that from 2001?
    'engine and turbo guy'
    Cornell 02-03

  5. #5
    I guess it's 3.89 from some posts I dug up doing a search for 'ohio acceleration'
    'engine and turbo guy'
    Cornell 02-03

  6. #6
    Yes I'm quite sure that's not the fastest FSAE time, though perhaps it is fastest in the UK. Though the all caps do make a convincing arguement.

    It's quite a run to get under 4.0s anywhere, and anytome you win an event you've done the best of all your competitors and should be proud. But it is extremely dependent on conditions. We've run lots of sub 4.0 second times at home, on hot asphalt. Detroit, usually, is hard and cold and sometimes wet.

    It's my belief (and I hate to say it 'cause I'm an engine guy) that the power-to-weight ratio is only about half the battle in the accel event, which is traction limited for most top teams anyway. Tire selection, gearing, weight bias, and other little tricks get the time down, not so much power.
    -Charlie Ping

    Auburn FSAE Alum 00-04

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,690
    Hmmm? 3.97s ET for 75 metres? That doesn't seem very fast to me...

    I reckon that if there was a drag racing class for cars similar to FSAE (ie. 610cc with 20mm restrictor, etc.) that was open to the general public, then the 75m ET's would be closer to 3sec than 4sec. (No offense intended guys .)

    I agree with Charlie that power-to-weight ratio isn't the most important thing here. I note that most "standard" FSAE cars have a ~50:50 F:R weight distribution. This is mainly due to the relatively long final-drive (chain) that pushes the engine and driver forward, combined with the short wheelbase that is desirable for the slaloms, etc. This limits available rear grip/thrust. Using a shorter engine package, a more rearward driver position, and about 60% rear weight, would improve Acceleration times much more than extra horses.

    Also the type of drivetrain makes a big difference. Big clutches that can be slipped, CVT's, or torque converters are things I would look at. I wouldn't bother with 4WD because rear 2WD works fine - go watch the drag racing.

    The Acceleration event is only worth 75 points, but since acceleration out of slow speed corners is important for the 500 point Autocross + Endurance events, it is well worth getting it right (although corner speed is even more important).

    Z

  8. #8
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
    Hmmm? 3.97s ET for 75 metres? That doesn't seem very fast to me...

    I reckon that if there was a drag racing class for cars similar to FSAE (ie. 610cc with 20mm restrictor, etc.) that was open to the general public, then the 75m ET's would be closer to 3sec than 4sec. (No offense intended guys .)Z </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I reckon that is there was a drag racing class for cars similar to FSAE, they would design their cars completely different. After all, 100% of their points would come from the drag racing event, not 7.5%. I would also bet those cars would suck in an autocross.
    Sam Zimmerman


    Vandals Racing alum

  9. #9
    Z, 75m in 4s is not slow and yes a higher rear weight percentage would be a benefit but you also listed why we don't. 550pts in autocross and endurance carry more weight then 75pts in accel. For fun we hooked up the lap timer to my street bike (Honda VFR750F) and I ran a 3.52. That's a case of max weight transfer and traction, and my bike isn't wheelie prone like some modern sportbikes. My bike weighs 485lbs and makes 82hp at the wheel (been dynod) which is almost exactly the power to weight of our 03 car I raced that day. If anyone ever beats that time with a legal fsae car, i'll quit my job and become a suspension guy.
    'engine and turbo guy'
    Cornell 02-03

  10. #10
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFR750R:
    Z, 75m in 4s is not slow and yes a higher rear weight percentage would be a benefit but you also listed why we don't. 550pts in autocross and endurance carry more weight then 75pts in accel. For fun we hooked up the lap timer to my street bike (Honda VFR750F) and I ran a 3.52. That's a case of max weight transfer and traction, and my bike isn't wheelie prone like some modern sportbikes. My bike weighs 485lbs and makes 82hp at the wheel (been dynod) which is almost exactly the power to weight of our 03 car I raced that day. If anyone ever beats that time with a legal fsae car, i'll quit my job and become a suspension guy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    VFR750R, what kind of job you have? It is worth, to put a lot of effort into "fire" you out of your job and get hired from your boss?
    Student Racing Team Stralsund 1999-2003


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts