|
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gismo R @ April 04 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">drift freaq, I don't know much about the cars in the 70s, but are you saying that the slower one was a truck and the faster one was a car? Trucks are waaay less aerodynamic than cars. There's more surface area on the front view of a truck (well, most trucks), plus that tail gate acts like a damn parachute. I don't know much about gearing so I'm not going to say you're wrong, you could be right. I'm just saying that the reason the truck topped out at a lower speed could have been due to drag.
On another note, friction takes away energy, and transfers that into heat and/or sound, it doesn't take away velocity. Air resistance is affected by speed, meaning the faster you go the more resistance there is. So, if your engine is spinning at an rpm that would put the car at 160mph then you car is going to be going 160mph, unless there was some major slipping through the drivetrain. Air resistance doesn't slow your velocity it only slows the rate at which velocity is changing, which is called acceleration. :)</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
I don't think thats entirely accurate gizmo. Often, wings may be added for downforce but will add drag (and more friction with the road but thats another issue) and limit top speed. So given the same ammount of HP, weight, and gearing and two different cars the less aerodynamic of the two cars will hit a speed where it simply cannot go any faster without added horsepower to combat the ammount of wind resistance at that speed.
Edit: oh and the more aerodynamic car will ofcourse hit that "wall" at a higher speed...forgot where I was goin with the post.
__________________
|