subaru impreza WRX STI>

cheers lee >

what is the top speed of a>

subaru impreza WRX STI>

cheers lee

The American spec is supposed to be speed-limited to 155mph.>

Whew! Good thing for that. It would be unsafe to exceed 155!>

Matt

subaru impreza WRX STI>

cheers lee >

UK spec>

cheers

North American Spec differs: the Canadian model apparently doesn't

There's not a lot of incredibly long stretches of safe, windless road

The American spec is supposed to be speed-limited to 155mph.>

Don't know anything about the various U.K. and Japanese models.

IMHO I don't believe the WRX (or STI) bodies would be capable of doing> much over 140.>

Jack>

k. ote wrote:>> lee wrote:>>

What exactly is aerodynamic drag limit? Can it never be exceeded? What if > the car is dropped out of a plane?

Not to be difficult, I find 155 or 165 hard to believe, no matter how> powerful the engine. I would think the aerodynamic drag of the body> would limit it to something less than that. My Acura TL has an> aerodynamic drag limit of about 145 (not that it would actually go that> fast). I know that on the original Porsche 911's they had to do a lot> to the bodies to get over about 160.>

IMHO I don't believe the WRX (or STI) bodies would be capable of doing> much over 140.

Not to be difficult, I find 155 or 165 hard to believe, no matter how> powerful the engine. I would think the aerodynamic drag of the body> would limit it to something less than that. My Acura TL has an> aerodynamic drag limit of about 145 (not that it would actually go that> fast). I know that on the original Porsche 911's they had to do a lot> to the bodies to get over about 160.>

IMHO I don't believe the WRX (or STI) bodies would be capable of doing> much over 140.

"On April 23, 1998, at the FIA qualified course on Highway 10 in La> Junta, Colorado, the Legacy Station Wagon set a new world record at an> amazing speed (average speed over one kilometer: 270.532 km/h; average> speed over one mile: 270.047 km/h), drastically surpassing the previous> record set by a second-generation Legacy in 1993.">

That's 167.8 mph.>

It was done by a stock (other than safety gear) 2.0l Legacy Wagon picked> off the production line at random by FIA officials, on a normal road.

Jim is exactly dead on in his explanation of what causes any vehicle to> hit a limit of speed. As a matter of fact if you dropped it out of an> airplane you would hit a limit of how fast it would fall. Sky divers> refer to it as terminal velocity and depending on the shape every> object has a terminal velocity.

willing to absolutely say that a WRX will not go XXX mph. I would> only say the farther above 140 they had actually got, the more I would> want to understand any modifications they had done.

I suppose in the end it's irrelevant what you believe it's capable of> doing. ­>

IMHO I don't believe the WRX (or STI) bodies would be capable of doing> much over 140.>

Jack>

k. ote wrote:>> lee wrote:>>

They are definitely ECU limited to 155mph and there's plenty of real world> testing done at around the 150 mark if you Google it.

Jim is exactly dead on in his explanation of what causes any vehicle to> hit a limit of speed. As a matter of fact if you dropped it out of an> airplane you would hit a limit of how fast it would fall. Sky divers> refer to it as terminal velocity and depending on the shape every> object has a terminal velocity.

On 4/8/05 8:13 PM John O wrote:> >>

Nope.>

The record was set by the 2l GT turbo, a car that unfortunately was > never sold in the US (you may notice on the linked page that the dude > with the helmet on is sitting on the "wrong" side).

jbaker@marketron.co­m wrote:>

The implication that there is a "terminal velocity" for a ground-based> vehicle is incorrect. Terminal velocity has very little to do with it.> Standard falling body terminal velocity is about 124mph. I hit that all the> time. However, the principle is similar: that which causes terminal> velocity is the same principle that dictates drag-based top speeds.>

I hit 140 just the other day. It was easy. I just don't know what my STi's> *top* speed is, as I've never approached it and felt safe about it. Too> much wind around here buffeting me around the road.>

The terminal velocity falling from a plane is a function of the > aerodymaics of the vehicle and mass. A human body, I believe, is about > 120 mph.

That's about right in the spread-eagle position with your body horizntal > and limbs extended.>

Head first with arms by your sides and legs straight you do more like > 200 mph.>

Carl>

Bruce Hoult wrote:>

75mph in MT

I'm sure I've seen 330km/h (206mph) in a performance car DVD - one of

Grip series I think, at one of the Jap tuner HQs like Top Secret or> similar... will try and hunt it out. From memory, the body kit was

A good stats page for all makes: (factory default tuning)> http://www.fast-aut­os.net/list.html>

Cheers, Jason> PC-Video-Gaming: http://gadgetaus.co­m> MS Wireless Intellimouse $89

IMHO I don't believe the WRX (or STI) bodies would be capable of doing> much over 140.

http://www.fast-aut­os.net/list.html

k. ote wrote:>

Or what your girlfriend believes.

I don't know how fast a WRX will go if you drop it out of an aeroplane,> but I do know that it will go a lot faster if you fill the cabin with> water first, and faster still if you fill it with lead.

a 3000lb vehicle is generating 660,000 ft-lbs/sec or 1200 hp. If this> was the terminal velocity of the vehicle, the aerodymanic drag would be> burning up 1200 hp. This means if you took the same vehicle and put it> on the street and neglected all losses except aerodynamic drag, it would> take 1200 hp to go 150 mph. Since we know it probably would only take> 300 hp to go this fast, the terminal velocity falling out of a plane> would be much higher than 150 mph.

Gravity accelerates bodies of different mass at the same rate.> The difference between a 3000lbs car and a falling feather is only> aerodynamic drag.

Bruce Hoult wrote:>

That's not true. Your assumption here is that the limiting factor is the> friction between the tires and the road, and that once the top speed is> reached, attempting to go any faster will spin the tires, and thus more> weight is needed to increase the friction between the tires and the road.>

The reality is that the aerodynamics of the car push back on the hard as> hard as the engine can push it forward, and it goes no faster. The tires> usually have nothing to do with it.>

If we did fill the cabin with water, not only would the top speed decrease,> but the weight distribution would probably be screwed up, which may make it> more difficult to control at higher speeds.>

He was talking about making it heavier and dropping it out of an> airplane, not driving it down the road.

Rob Munach wrote:>

Right, of course. Doh.>

I'll have to remind myself not to post when I've only had three hours of> sleep the night prior. .. ­>

Assuming the CG was the same, they'd fall at the same speed.>

A steel ball, and a hollow steel spehere of the same diameter and> surface finish will hit the ground at the same time.>

Carl

Assuming the CG was the same, they'd fall at the same speed.>

A steel ball, and a hollow steel spehere of the same diameter and > surface finish will hit the ground at the same time.

LOLOL>

If that were the case, then an infinitely thinly surfaced sphere, provided> it has the same shape and finish of the solid sphere, would fall at the> same rate as well. This is, by inspection, not true.>

The density of the material has a lot to do with how much effect aerodynamic> drag has on it. If you have a hollow steel sphere as light as a feather and> a steel sphere the same size but filled with something heavy (like more> steel) the heavier steel ball will accelerate faster because it takes more> force to offset its acceleration.>

As it falls, the steel ball that weighs next to nothing will not have the> same capability to displace air around it that the solid steel ball does by> nature of its momentum. Weight does indeed matter unless you're in a> vacuum, which we're not. Well, I'm not anyway. Where are you?>

Also, consider bouyancy in the atmosphere. Less dense objects are going to> be more bouyant even if we ignore momentum entirely.>

OK - please tell me then the difference in arrival times of a metal >spehere of aluminum and a sphere of lead if dropped simultanoeusly from >- say - 100ft. assuming no cross winds and precisely the same surface >finish/COD (drag coefficient).

^^^^^>

Drag... Drag, not draft! > What was I thinking?>

florian /FFF/

Then I guess the question to ask would be do those "wings" at the back > of the STI add any downforce to stabilize it at that speed?>

Er... yes - in a way it is.> Newton's principle does apply, but there are other factors at play, too:>

There IS no terminal velocity in a vacuum. However, in the atmosphere, > the relation between projected area and mass [you may call it density] > will determine the difference in terminal velocity of two objects of the > same exact shape.>

Lets save the Subaru for now and drop from that plane a) a ping pong > ball and b) a ball of lead measuring 4cm across.>

What do you think will happen?>

<http://www.grc.nas­a.gov/WWW/K-12/airpl­ane/falling.html>>

florian /FFF/

Carl 1 Lucky Texan <alckytxn@swbell.no­t> wrote:>

Having being advised of fundamental physical principles you didn't> understand your response is to ask for the answer to a complex example> problem.>

If you are trying to appear less dumb I suggest you work it out for> yourself and tell us the answer.>

next you'll tell me the world is flat and very small rocks can float in >water.>

For those of you with Dark Ages understanding of physics - I suggest you >explore the experiments of Galileo.

When you have finished digging the hole you are in let us know what size> ladder you need to get out.>

f=ma> d==drag force = 1N> drag is the same for both objects, and for simplicity assume it is constant, > 1 Newton was used for simplicity as well (any value will give similair > results)> (m1)==mass of object 1 =1kg> (m2)==mass of object 2 =10kg> a==accel due to gravity = 9.8m/s/s> (f1)==net force on object1> (f2)==net force on object2>

(f1)=(m1)(a)-d> (f1)=1*9.8-1>

(f1)=8.8N>

(f2)=(m2)(a)-d> (f2)=10*9.8-1>

(f2)=97N>

solve f=ma for a> a=f/m>

(a1)==accel of object 1> (a2)==accel of object 2>

(a1)=(f1)/(m1)> (a1)=8.8/1>

(a1)=8.8m/s/s>

(a2)=(f2)/(m2)> (a2)=97/10>

(a2)=9.7m/s/s>

(a1)=(a2)?> 8.8m/s/s=9.7m/s/s?>­ NO>

conclusion:> The acceleration in a fluid (air,water,etc) is not the same when the weight > is different but all other factors are the same. >

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.inva­lid> wrote in message >news:c76r5113r3mo5­1evnfpl8c73hvta5499c­r@4ax.com...>> Carl 1 Lucky Texan <alckytxn@swbell.no­t> wrote:>>

f=ma>d==drag force = 1N>drag is the same for both objects, and for simplicity assume it is constant,

conclusion:>The acceleration in a fluid (air,water,etc) is not the same when the weight >is different but all other factors are the same.

and - uh - sorry everybody - where's that extension ladder?

<snip rest of workings out>>

Don't tell me, tell the guy in the hole.

The acceleration is the same initially (g) until the objects have achieved> enough velocity to create enough drag to make any difference. It is also> the same eventually (zero) when both objects achieve terminal velocity.> Terminal velocity of a lead ball is a little more than double that of a> similar aluminium ball.>

k. ote wrote:>> I hit 140 just the other day. It was easy. I just don't know what my>> STi's *top* speed is, as I've never approached it and felt safe about it.>> Too much wind around here buffeting me around the road.>>

Then I guess the question to ask would be do those "wings" at the back> of the STI add any downforce to stabilize it at that speed?

Some individuals have reported driving at high> speeds with the trunk deliberately left> unlatched, and that it's still unlatched after> the drive.

OK - please tell me then the difference in arrival times of a metal> spehere of aluminum and a sphere of lead if dropped simultanoeusly from> - say - 100ft. assuming no cross winds and precisely the same surface> finish/COD (drag coefficient).>

Carl

On 4/13/05 2:12 AM Florian Feuser /FFF/ wrote:>

Drag... Drag, not draft!> What was I thinking?

I thought we started with a subaru filled with water or with lead?> Anyway - I can see where IF drag equals weight you have an equilibrium> state. Probably need to figure the Reynolds number in too.

"Carl 1 Lucky Texan" <alckytxn@swbell.no­t> wrote in message> news:oEj7e.2124$VA3­.172@newssvr30.news.­prodigy.com...>> Wow! Thanx Keapon. I stand corrected, that's a fairly big difference.(I>> am a victim of public schools). Would 1 Newton be a fair force for an>> object falling in the lower atmosphere that had a drag coefficient of>> about .4 ?>

That would depend on the cross-sectional area. 1N is fairly small, I> mostly used that number because it makes the math simple. Calculating the> real drag on an object takes a bit more work and would just cloud over the> rest of what I was trying to show.

But you said they'd fall at the same rate, and since we're talking about> terminal velocity here, I hardly think a 100 ft drop would be> representative.>

Especially if we were considering a tumbling STi. *shudder*>

Some individuals have reported driving at high> speeds with the trunk deliberately left> unlatched, and that it's still unlatched after> the drive.

What would've been really impressive in that case would be if the trunk> got latched after the drive, due to the downforce of the wing.