PDA

View Full Version : Diablo at SCC on Sunday...



roopi
09-22-2003, 12:06 AM
Nice looking car. Anyone know what this guy does for a living? He seemed rather young.

http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d1.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d2.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d3.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d4.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d5.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d6.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d7.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d8.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d9.jpg

googe
09-22-2003, 07:34 AM
I heard he owns a club (or a few of them) in red deer. No idea how much truth there is to that :)

I expected at least 11s for that 1/4 mile run though! It didnt really sound like he was revving it very high...then again, I have no idea what a diablo would sound like at high RPMs :) His starts just seemed kinda slow...

He should really fix those rims though, did you see how badly they were chewed up? Wonder how he did that :thumbsdow

Melinda
09-22-2003, 08:34 AM
Yeah he wasn't a great driver, probably could have pulled much better times...I got a few pictures of his race(s) with my telephoto lens and his times from his 2 passes...I'll post them as soon as I can

Hightower
09-22-2003, 08:48 AM
Thought it was a pretty pathetic attempt for heating up his tires!! Really didn't have a clue. He did manage to really warm up that clutch though! That is all we could smell in staging lanes! hahaha

Toms-Celica
09-22-2003, 09:20 AM
hurt

Loose
09-22-2003, 09:28 AM
I heard he is a pimp makes Joe Malms work the street?:dunno:



:rofl:

jdmakkord
09-22-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Loose
I heard he is a pimp makes Joe Malms work the street?:dunno:



:rofl: :rofl:

hjr
09-22-2003, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by googe
I heard he owns a club (or a few of them) in red deer. No idea how much truth there is to that :)

I expected at least 11s for that 1/4 mile run though! It didnt really sound like he was revving it very high...then again, I have no idea what a diablo would sound like at high RPMs :) His starts just seemed kinda slow...

He should really fix those rims though, did you see how badly they were chewed up? Wonder how he did that :thumbsdow i was actually kinda impressed. With the car that is. He totally bunged the launch - i think his reaction was more than a full second late - and he didnt take it through the RPM's, and he burnt up the clutch a bit. and despite his best efforts to go slow, he still ran a 12.84. And i dont know why he would have to heat up the tires, they were like more than a foot wide

GTS Jeff
09-22-2003, 10:17 AM
First race he ran a 12.5 And yeah, all you could smell was burned clutch...one would think one who buys a Diablo would know how to drive it?

Loose
09-22-2003, 10:37 AM
When he was popping the clutch he was testing traction. I think it was kind of silly, but who cares.

The fact is that he brought out a Diablo to the track, ran it for everyone to see.

In magazines those things would run a 12 flat or so, so I don't see what the big deal is with a 12.5 :dunno:

ScCab
09-22-2003, 10:46 AM
not too many people would bring out their lambo and drag it. you people say he can't drive and thats a shitty time....can yo do better...nope cause some of you people will never get a chance to drive one. can you get your car up to 200mph... I think not. :rolleyes:

rage2
09-22-2003, 10:48 AM
So much hating going on... I think the car did very well.

First off, the 6.0 VT runs about 12.0 at sea level. Second, it's an AWD car, u can't really do a burnout in an AWD car, so you're really limited in what you can do to warm up the tires. It ran a 12.5@112mph at Edmonton elevation, corrected for sea level, it's a 12.08@116mph, pretty damn close to what magazines have been able to achieve at sea level.

The car's not really geared for 1/4 mile, it's geared for top speed. First gear goes to 110km/h, so it's like starting in 2nd gear in your car at the drag strip (what would you run if you started in 2nd???). If you guys were expecting 11's, you guys don't know the car at all.

hjr
09-22-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by rage2
So much hating going on... I think the car did very well.

First off, the 6.0 VT runs about 12.0 at sea level. Second, it's an AWD car, u can't really do a burnout in an AWD car, so you're really limited in what you can do to warm up the tires. It ran a 12.5@112mph at Edmonton elevation, corrected for sea level, it's a 12.08@116mph, pretty damn close to what magazines have been able to achieve at sea level.

The car's not really geared for 1/4 mile, it's geared for top speed. First gear goes to 110km/h, so it's like starting in 2nd gear in your car at the drag strip (what would you run if you started in 2nd???). If you guys were expecting 11's, you guys don't know the car at all. I was expecting 11's. I stand corrected. Hating withdrawn.

roopi
09-22-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by hjr
I was expecting 11's. I stand corrected. Hating withdrawn.

:rofl:

googe
09-22-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by rage2
So much hating going on... I think the car did very well.

First off, the 6.0 VT runs about 12.0 at sea level. Second, it's an AWD car, u can't really do a burnout in an AWD car, so you're really limited in what you can do to warm up the tires. It ran a 12.5@112mph at Edmonton elevation, corrected for sea level, it's a 12.08@116mph, pretty damn close to what magazines have been able to achieve at sea level.

The car's not really geared for 1/4 mile, it's geared for top speed. First gear goes to 110km/h, so it's like starting in 2nd gear in your car at the drag strip (what would you run if you started in 2nd???). If you guys were expecting 11's, you guys don't know the car at all.

Not quite. The VT will trap at 11.8. The 1st gear ratio on the VT is 2.313, which will take it to about 98km/h. While a 1st gear at 2.313 is pretty low, its nothing close to any MT cars second gear. Saying it is like one of us starting in 2nd isnt very accurate.

As for not being able to do a burnout in an AWD car...with 550hp, this should NOT be a problem. :)

Wasnt trying to hate on anyone, simply said my initial assumptions were that the car would do a little better than it did. Was glad to see it out there, props to the guy for giving us a treat.

rage2
09-22-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by googe
Not quite. The VT will trap at 11.8.
I pulled that 12.0 time from one of my old car mags in the shitter... but anyways, if someone got a 11.8, that's only 0.2s away, still pretty respectable, hardly a shitty driver like some ppl claim in the thread.

Originally posted by googe
The 1st gear ratio on the VT is 2.313, which will take it to about 98km/h. While a 1st gear at 2.313 is pretty low, its nothing close to any MT cars second gear. Saying it is like one of us starting in 2nd isnt very accurate.
My bad for the slight inaccuracy there, guess the speedo in the Diablo I was in was a bit off. Anyhow, it's still accurate to compare to other cars launching in 2nd. My SLK hits 110 in 2nd gear. My 944 hits 105 or so in 2nd gear. My civic hits 85 in 2nd. Pretty close comparison on average.

Originally posted by googe
As for not being able to do a burnout in an AWD car...with 550hp, this should NOT be a problem. :)
I don't own a AWD car, nor have I driven one. Curious, how do you do a burnout with an AWD car? Doesn't it just shoot forward and take off? Can't really hold it stationary?

Loose
09-22-2003, 12:05 PM
It's simple really. AWD burnouts are easy.... on the internet:rofl:

VWhooligan
09-22-2003, 12:17 PM
i dont know about burning out with AWD 550hp, but I know its impossible with lesser cars.

my fathers 225hp audi TT can't burn out
my best friends 320hp stealth TT can't burn out.

sure, the diablo had 550hp, but it also had 315 wide tires !

Redlyne_mr2
09-24-2003, 08:20 PM
Yah dudes from Red Deer..my sisters old boss:D

DSM Power
09-27-2003, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by googe

As for not being able to do a burnout in an AWD car...with 550hp, this should NOT be a problem. :)

:rolleyes: x 100 You might get ONE burnout and then... :rolleyes:

googe
09-27-2003, 10:47 AM
What are you considering a burnout exactly? I dont mean a big smoke show, just getting some good wheel spin...

Remember, we are talking about warming them up a bit, not filling the staging lanes with smoke...

If I can do it with my AWD car, Id think it could be done in a lamborghini...

CRXguy
09-27-2003, 10:54 AM
Yeah, and then the tranny falls apart. I don't consider 4 wheels chirping a burnout either, which sounds like what you're saying.

Importz
09-27-2003, 10:56 AM
I have the same color:D

Seanith
09-27-2003, 11:57 AM
attention whore..

Importz
09-27-2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by ~$eanith~
attention whore..
yup same color

kenny
09-27-2003, 05:09 PM
Woulda been cool if you were at SCC so you could park beside him haha :)

Importz
09-27-2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by kenny
Woulda been cool if you were at SCC so you could park beside him haha :)
LOL my car would look hurtin beside his

C4S
10-17-2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by rage2
So much hating going on... I think the car did very well.

First off, the 6.0 VT runs about 12.0 at sea level. Second, it's an AWD car, u can't really do a burnout in an AWD car, so you're really limited in what you can do to warm up the tires. It ran a 12.5@112mph at Edmonton elevation, corrected for sea level, it's a 12.08@116mph, pretty damn close to what magazines have been able to achieve at sea level.

The car's not really geared for 1/4 mile, it's geared for top speed. First gear goes to 110km/h, so it's like starting in 2nd gear in your car at the drag strip (what would you run if you started in 2nd???). If you guys were expecting 11's, you guys don't know the car at all.

Um .. Actually .. how related to the " sea level ' ? I heard that before, and if anyone ( Rage2) can explain a bit to me, that will be great ! are all kind of cars affected from about sea level ? Turbos, Super charge, etc ? how about if "below" sea level ? cars can go faster ?? :confused: :confused: :confused: thx ..

rage2
10-17-2003, 03:08 PM
At sea level, absolute air pressure is around 14.7psi. In Calgary, the absoulte air pressure is around 13.0psi. So a normally aspirated/supercharged car would suck in a lower mass of air even though the volume is the same. With less air in the engine, there's less Oxygen, so less fuel would get injected, and less power made.

And yes, if you were below sea level, you would have more power than at sea level.

googe
10-17-2003, 03:09 PM
We talk about this in the "albertas top 10 fastest sport compact/imports" (or something) thread, check that one out.

SinisterProbeGt
10-17-2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by roopi
Nice looking car. Anyone know what this guy does for a living? He seemed rather young.


http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d1.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d2.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d3.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d4.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d5.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d6.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d7.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d8.jpg
http://www.roopi.ca/temp/d9.jpg Acutally his name is Adam And he ownes Rx-7 Specialities in calgary he also has a decked out 3rd gen red that is always getting upgraded.

C4S
10-17-2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by rage2
At sea level, absolute air pressure is around 14.7psi. In Calgary, the absoulte air pressure is around 13.0psi. So a normally aspirated/supercharged car would suck in a lower mass of air even though the volume is the same. With less air in the engine, there's less Oxygen, so less fuel would get injected, and less power made.

And yes, if you were below sea level, you would have more power than at sea level.

:clap: Thanks Rage2 !

that's help ! ( and fast reply ! :) ) I kind of barely feel that a same car in Edmonton is faster then Calgary .. very very slim different ..

By the way, how about Turbo car ? if super charge and normal aspirated cars are affected ?

However we are all talking 0.2 or 0.3 second .. :rolleyes: no big deal to me ! :bigpimp:

and where is the top ten alberta list ?? I rarely log on beyong yeah . he he . thanks again !

rage2
10-17-2003, 07:01 PM
Turbo cars, depends on the setup. If the reference boost is based on ambient pressure (calgary 13.0psi+boost), it's affected just the same as any NA/SC car. If the reference boost is based on absolute pressure (14.7psi+boost), then theoretically its not affected. But because the turbo would be spinning faster than at sea level to achieve this pressure, there would be differences in lag (spin up time) as well as volumetric efficiency at that turbo speed (may be more power if more efficient, less power if less efficient).

C4S
10-18-2003, 01:42 AM
:poosie: good good ...

Thx again Rage2.. may be I am in the wrong forum to talk about these .. which one should I go ?

Since I don't like turbo car personal, since many many years ago I sold my 944 Turbo, ( great car ! ) I haven't got any turbo car ! ( seeing all my friends having problem ! ) However... more and more turbo and supercharge car now, and they drive so nice and smooth, ;) so .. I am thinking of Turbo car again .. just wanna to see pros and cons .. and some people told me turbo cars are less affected by Calgary lattitude too... :confused:

Anyway .... back to thos Diablo forum .. I think I saw this car last sunday in Banff ! and a nice yellow Murcielago .. :thumbsup: damn nice !