For s2000man and orion
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 
Originally Posted by CivicsRdBest
bwahaha... This is amusing. I followed some of the equations and once again, I agree with the people that say that it won't matter much and the results will be similar to that on a straight flat.
Think about it, they're both being affected by the same gravity...
Think about it, they're both being affected by the same gravity...
Nothing works better than a Chris except a Honda.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,346
Likes: 0
From: Baltimore, MD
Rep Power: 347 ^^ I thought gravity always was a vector aimed downwards (or towards the center of whatever planet/heavenly body you're on).
Anyway, what I meant was, if both objects were moving on the same incline in the same direction, the effect of gravity would be the same on both objects. I do understand that it will affect it slightly as it slows an object down while moving upwards or while increases the velocity of an object while moving downwards.
Anyway, what I meant was, if both objects were moving on the same incline in the same direction, the effect of gravity would be the same on both objects. I do understand that it will affect it slightly as it slows an object down while moving upwards or while increases the velocity of an object while moving downwards.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Originally Posted by CivicsRdBest
^^ I thought gravity always was a vector aimed downwards (or towards the center of whatever planet/heavenly body you're on).
Anyway, what I meant was, if both objects were moving on the same incline in the same direction, the effect of gravity would be the same on both objects.
Anyway, what I meant was, if both objects were moving on the same incline in the same direction, the effect of gravity would be the same on both objects.
you are confusing newton's 2nd law of gravity with the 3rd law of gravity.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 319
Originally Posted by gsrchad
first off. this is again nonsense, since both vehicles are rwd, and when on a hill will gain traction. since traction wasnt an issue before it isnt now...
and the solutions were for 2 rwd cars.... so that was enough stating...
should i write this out on my engr paper professor?
and the solutions were for 2 rwd cars.... so that was enough stating...
should i write this out on my engr paper professor?
So what you are saying is that a Trans Am and an s2000 suspension will load the same. I'm not sure what type of TA he was racing, but if it had a V8, you have traction problems all the way through 3rd and even shifting in to 4th, not sure what year it was or if it was a WS-6 or not though (so I can not believe traction was not a problem). Anyway, if the TA has more power it can, say it has 20% more traction, that's 20% more power it can put down all the way up the hill. While the S2000 has the same conditions, it doesn't have the torque to take advantage of it anyway, even though it's frame is far superior hence it won't have the body twist from torque. In this paragraph I have mentioned 3 different things you completely left out.
Listen, I'm not going to spend time on you (mainly because I am way to busy to go look into an applied physical book and pull the proper equations out, and still only have a simplified version of the story). Secondly, nobody here agrees with you, I'm not the only engineer on here that said you can't use that simple of an equation to model anything other than your imaginary simple physics land that you seem to think we live in. If you think you can model something using your oversimplified equations, go for it. And when you get a real job, let me know how that goes for you.
BTW, your professor probably told you that because he didn't want to go over your head in explaining a more complex situation you don't understand. You obviously have no idea how complex modeling something is.
S2000man01... lock this thread, I'm tired of this guy who everybody says he's wrong (or over simplified) and he still won't listen.
Last edited by Jrfish007; Mar 11, 2005 at 07:43 AM.
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Rep Power: 297 hi there
Originally Posted by Jrfish007
You can write on what ever paper you want, you're still wrong.
So what you are saying is that a Trans Am and an s2000 suspension will load the same. I'm not sure what type of TA he was racing, but if it had a V8, you have traction problems all the way through 3rd and even shifting in to 4th, not sure what year it was or if it was a WS-6 or not though (so I can not believe traction was not a problem). Anyway, if the TA has more power it can, say it has 20% more traction, that's 20% more power it can put down all the way up the hill. While the S2000 has the same conditions, it doesn't have the torque to take advantage of it anyway, even though it's frame is far superior hence it won't have the body twist from torque. In this paragraph I have mentioned 3 different things you completely left out.
Listen, I'm not going to spend time on you (mainly because I am way to busy to go look into an applied physical book and pull the proper equations out, and still only have a simplified version of the story). Secondly, nobody here agrees with you, I'm not the only engineer on here that said you can't use that simple of an equation to model anything other than your imaginary simple physics land that you seem to think we live in. If you think you can model something using your oversimplified equations, go for it. And when you get a real job, let me know how that goes for you.
BTW, your professor probably told you that because he didn't want to go over your head in explaining a more complex situation you don't understand. You obviously have no idea how complex modeling something is.
S2000man01... lock this thread, I'm tired of this guy who everybody says he's wrong (or over simplified) and he still won't listen.
So what you are saying is that a Trans Am and an s2000 suspension will load the same. I'm not sure what type of TA he was racing, but if it had a V8, you have traction problems all the way through 3rd and even shifting in to 4th, not sure what year it was or if it was a WS-6 or not though (so I can not believe traction was not a problem). Anyway, if the TA has more power it can, say it has 20% more traction, that's 20% more power it can put down all the way up the hill. While the S2000 has the same conditions, it doesn't have the torque to take advantage of it anyway, even though it's frame is far superior hence it won't have the body twist from torque. In this paragraph I have mentioned 3 different things you completely left out.
Listen, I'm not going to spend time on you (mainly because I am way to busy to go look into an applied physical book and pull the proper equations out, and still only have a simplified version of the story). Secondly, nobody here agrees with you, I'm not the only engineer on here that said you can't use that simple of an equation to model anything other than your imaginary simple physics land that you seem to think we live in. If you think you can model something using your oversimplified equations, go for it. And when you get a real job, let me know how that goes for you.
BTW, your professor probably told you that because he didn't want to go over your head in explaining a more complex situation you don't understand. You obviously have no idea how complex modeling something is.
S2000man01... lock this thread, I'm tired of this guy who everybody says he's wrong (or over simplified) and he still won't listen.
Hi there,
I am not sure if you are with S2000man and me or not, but I feel that you are.
YES, When we do physics we have to first understand the basic concepts I have shown before; about force, acceleration, freebody diagram, vector quantity, scarlar quantity and energy conservation.
S2000man seems to understand these concepts because he spent time to go over my clearly stated equations and modellings. I am impressed and glad.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 319
Originally Posted by orion_squall
Hi there,
I am not sure if you are with S2000man and me or not, but I feel that you are.
YES, When we do physics we have to first understand the basic concepts I have shown before; about force, acceleration, freebody diagram, vector quantity, scarlar quantity and energy conservation.
S2000man seems to understand these concepts because he spent time to go over my clearly stated equations and modellings. I am impressed and glad.
I am not sure if you are with S2000man and me or not, but I feel that you are.
YES, When we do physics we have to first understand the basic concepts I have shown before; about force, acceleration, freebody diagram, vector quantity, scarlar quantity and energy conservation.
S2000man seems to understand these concepts because he spent time to go over my clearly stated equations and modellings. I am impressed and glad.
Well, I'm mostly with you guys. S2000man01 has a much more complete understanding of the system and understands that these equations are only partial. Although I think he is leaving out some stuff, I think he has most of the key concepts down. I am not an applied physics person, so with out researching, I can not say specifically what is wrong and what is writing and frankly this is not important enough for me to spend that kind of time on. But I know that this situation is far more complex than most people realize, for one to do it properly will require something like finite element method to estimate all acting force distributions, and of course this can not be done on paper, but most be done with a computer as it will probably produce well over 50,000 points, depending on how accurate you want to be.
I’m wrong to say the other gsrchad is wrong, sorry to gsrchad, you have applied what you’ve learned, good job for that. But he must realize that things like this are not as simple as he thinks. Just because you can scribble some equations on paper doesn’t mean you know all the forces at work. I too had this concept when I was an undergrad in my sophomore year, but I quickly humbled when I went to an applied physics seminar and saw just how much really goes into this stuff. All the equation on here would be laughed at by anyone with a slight knowledge of applied physics, these guys deal with equations that are three lines long and take over 10 pages to solve just to explain how a rubber ball bounces off a wall.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 319
Originally Posted by orion_squall
Hi there,
I am not sure if you are with S2000man and me or not, but I feel that you are.
YES, When we do physics we have to first understand the basic concepts I have shown before; about force, acceleration, freebody diagram, vector quantity, scarlar quantity and energy conservation.
S2000man seems to understand these concepts because he spent time to go over my clearly stated equations and modellings. I am impressed and glad.
I am not sure if you are with S2000man and me or not, but I feel that you are.
YES, When we do physics we have to first understand the basic concepts I have shown before; about force, acceleration, freebody diagram, vector quantity, scarlar quantity and energy conservation.
S2000man seems to understand these concepts because he spent time to go over my clearly stated equations and modellings. I am impressed and glad.
Just out of curiousity though, are equations and models posted?
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 319
Originally Posted by S2000man01
a LOT of equations have been posted.
I will glance through the previous thread and see if I can follow later today. 
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: warren ohio
Rep Power: 0 
Originally Posted by Jrfish007
You can write on what ever paper you want, you're still wrong.
So what you are saying is that a Trans Am and an s2000 suspension will load the same. I'm not sure what type of TA he was racing, but if it had a V8, you have traction problems all the way through 3rd and even shifting in to 4th, not sure what year it was or if it was a WS-6 or not though (so I can not believe traction was not a problem). Anyway, if the TA has more power it can, say it has 20% more traction, that's 20% more power it can put down all the way up the hill. While the S2000 has the same conditions, it doesn't have the torque to take advantage of it anyway, even though it's frame is far superior hence it won't have the body twist from torque. In this paragraph I have mentioned 3 different things you completely left out.
Listen, I'm not going to spend time on you (mainly because I am way to busy to go look into an applied physical book and pull the proper equations out, and still only have a simplified version of the story). Secondly, nobody here agrees with you, I'm not the only engineer on here that said you can't use that simple of an equation to model anything other than your imaginary simple physics land that you seem to think we live in. If you think you can model something using your oversimplified equations, go for it. And when you get a real job, let me know how that goes for you.
BTW, your professor probably told you that because he didn't want to go over your head in explaining a more complex situation you don't understand. You obviously have no idea how complex modeling something is.
S2000man01... lock this thread, I'm tired of this guy who everybody says he's wrong (or over simplified) and he still won't listen.
So what you are saying is that a Trans Am and an s2000 suspension will load the same. I'm not sure what type of TA he was racing, but if it had a V8, you have traction problems all the way through 3rd and even shifting in to 4th, not sure what year it was or if it was a WS-6 or not though (so I can not believe traction was not a problem). Anyway, if the TA has more power it can, say it has 20% more traction, that's 20% more power it can put down all the way up the hill. While the S2000 has the same conditions, it doesn't have the torque to take advantage of it anyway, even though it's frame is far superior hence it won't have the body twist from torque. In this paragraph I have mentioned 3 different things you completely left out.
Listen, I'm not going to spend time on you (mainly because I am way to busy to go look into an applied physical book and pull the proper equations out, and still only have a simplified version of the story). Secondly, nobody here agrees with you, I'm not the only engineer on here that said you can't use that simple of an equation to model anything other than your imaginary simple physics land that you seem to think we live in. If you think you can model something using your oversimplified equations, go for it. And when you get a real job, let me know how that goes for you.
BTW, your professor probably told you that because he didn't want to go over your head in explaining a more complex situation you don't understand. You obviously have no idea how complex modeling something is.
S2000man01... lock this thread, I'm tired of this guy who everybody says he's wrong (or over simplified) and he still won't listen.
i didnt even read this whole post... becasue there is no need to...
my point is the suspension in these cars make absoulty no difference to our origianl arguement.... NONE what so ever...
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: warren ohio
Rep Power: 0 if you could actually read, you would understand that about 90% of the people that agree with you, are not talking about the actual problem at hang..
you would see that everyone things we are talking about if you add weight to a car up a hill its going to travel slower...
that if stateing the obvious. So yes, lots of poeple seem to agree with you becuase they think thats what your trying to prove...
but its not....
you would see that everyone things we are talking about if you add weight to a car up a hill its going to travel slower...
that if stateing the obvious. So yes, lots of poeple seem to agree with you becuase they think thats what your trying to prove...
but its not....
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 319
Originally Posted by gsrchad
The last thread was closed because they were incorrect and didnt want to ramble on any more my sister did this and brother did that and thast what happened...
here are some actual numbers to prove that it doenst matter if its a hill or a flat surface.. if car A wins hill, it will win FLAT....
first thing first...
KE = 1/2*m*v2,
where m is the mass and v is the velocity
with this in mind... at the end of the race... we will calculate the experimental data... that energy found in the cars kenetic energy CAN NOT be greater OR LESS than the kenetic energy and potential energy at the hill race....
with that being said... lets start
you claim to win flat race.... by 1 car.. so lets say thats about 5mph faster than your buddies camaro...or trans am, whatever it is..
s2000=1255kg say finished at 100mph= 44.7 meters/second
trans am=1551kg and finished behind the s2000 say at 95mph=42.5m/s
at the end of the race, the engine in the honda put (.5)(1255kg)(44.7)=28049joules of energy....
the trans am put in (.5)(1551)(42.5)=32958 joules
here are some actual numbers to prove that it doenst matter if its a hill or a flat surface.. if car A wins hill, it will win FLAT....
first thing first...
KE = 1/2*m*v2,
where m is the mass and v is the velocity
with this in mind... at the end of the race... we will calculate the experimental data... that energy found in the cars kenetic energy CAN NOT be greater OR LESS than the kenetic energy and potential energy at the hill race....
with that being said... lets start
you claim to win flat race.... by 1 car.. so lets say thats about 5mph faster than your buddies camaro...or trans am, whatever it is..
s2000=1255kg say finished at 100mph= 44.7 meters/second
trans am=1551kg and finished behind the s2000 say at 95mph=42.5m/s
at the end of the race, the engine in the honda put (.5)(1255kg)(44.7)=28049joules of energy....
the trans am put in (.5)(1551)(42.5)=32958 joules
Dude, give it up. Look above, you even miscalculated you rnumber!!! You say Ke=.5 m v^2, then you give this equation: (.5)(1255kg)(44.7)=28049joules. Lets take a look at this, 1. you forgot to square the velocity term and 2. thats not the force term, remember the Ke needs a mass term in terms of force, not wieght terms. Look I didn't even get past you first calculation without finding 2 MAJOR errors, you want me to believe the rest of it?
Powered by Honda...
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
From: Savannah, GA
Rep Power: 272
Originally Posted by xavier
gsrchads first post is like reading latin for me but it sounds like he knows what he is talking about. I think the point is irrelevant and useless to prove but...sounds good to me
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Rep Power: 297 :)
Originally Posted by Jrfish007
Dude, give it up. Look above, you even miscalculated you rnumber!!! You say Ke=.5 m v^2, then you give this equation: (.5)(1255kg)(44.7)=28049joules. Lets take a look at this, 1. you forgot to square the velocity term and 2. thats not the force term, remember the Ke needs a mass term in terms of force, not wieght terms. Look I didn't even get past you first calculation without finding 2 MAJOR errors, you want me to believe the rest of it?
Yeah,
That is what I felt too. He never understood "force" at the first place. The way he state equtions made me doubt if he had any physics basis at all.
Anywyas, I have already stated the real energy method as well. If someone find any mistake on it, please let me know. Or if you have a question, let me know as well. But don't come to me with "AWD", "RWD", "spring rate" excuses because if one can't understand my method then one can never go futher talking about the rest. So understand the basics first then we can go on with the rest.
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: warren ohio
Rep Power: 0 if you would notice the time of psoting... its was i believe at 6am... and didnt go to bed yet. so SORRY for not double checking my numbers...
but the error cancels each other out since i did it twice... so you point is valid, but pointless since my point i was trying to get across didnt change from it
but the error cancels each other out since i did it twice... so you point is valid, but pointless since my point i was trying to get across didnt change from it
just a troll who likes to laugh at YOU.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: lafayette, IN
Rep Power: 266
Originally Posted by gsrchad
if you would notice the time of psoting... its was i believe at 6am... and didnt go to bed yet. so SORRY for not double checking my numbers...
but the error cancels each other out since i did it twice... so you point is valid, but pointless since my point i was trying to get across didnt change from it
but the error cancels each other out since i did it twice... so you point is valid, but pointless since my point i was trying to get across didnt change from it
wow, math in america is dead.
Thread
Thread Starter
Honda Civic Forum
Replies
Last Post
btuner
Honda Civic Racing: Drift/Drag/AutoX/Time Attack
96
Mar 14, 2005 09:23 AM
spunger
Archive - Parts for Sale
8
Nov 9, 2004 01:42 AM
