Quote:

---

What are you saying there Scotty.

If you change to 3rd and then finally reach 4700rpm (3rd gear @60mph) it is not full power and adding an extra gear change is going to make a huge difference to the 0-60 time.

Using 1st & 2nd gears will get you your quickest 0-60time. If you want to carry on accelerating past 60 then yes 3rd gear will be necessary, as will 4th and 5th.

Oh, and peak power is @ 6000rpm.

---

Quote:

---

Just because you have got near the peak power of the rev range doesn't mean that you should grab another gear, the power curve doesn't fall off a cliff once you've passed the peak.

The ST will make more power at 7000rpm than at 3500rpm so it is not a waste to take it past the 6000 peak near to the limiter, then when you do change gear you are going faster so you are higher up the power curve when in the next gear so you don't have to battle through the c. 50bhp @3000rpm stage.

---

Hugh, want a fight m8

Seriously tho i think we are both right in what were saying and could argue this out all night but since we are both utterly briliant i will accept ur answer and also think mines better

Quote:

---

Hmm, just wanted to check really, i've had ago in a 1.8zetec focus, and at stock will also do 60mph in second! So with reading all the press release and everything, i want the ST even more
It certainly is gonna be a great car! Ford tend to get this things right though, as soon as they release a new car it tends to become a class leader, and im sure the ST will in the small hot hatch market

---

Quote:

---

LOL!!! Caught me on a nerve I think!

Anyway, I have just had it properly explained to me by my Forumla 1 chum, so will say he's right instead (especially as he agrees with me! ).

It all comes down to what's called tractive effort. This is the force applied to the road by the wheel to cause movement.

It is caculated by by multiplying the torque by the total ratio of power train and dividing this sum by the rolling radius of the driving tyres.

As you can guess, if you reduce the total power train ratio (say moving from 1st to 2nd) it reduces the over TE figure meaning you are reducing the overall force applied to the road.

It is infinitly more technical way of looking at it than I was, but the result is the same. To get the best accelerating time you would need to calculate the optimum gearchange based on a vehicles power/torque/gear ratio/differential/tyre radius.

Personally, I think I'll just go and have a brew instead as it feels like I'm back at school!

---

Lesson number 1 - never argue with something Steve says about cars...

Hugh and I learned that one a lonnng time ago!

Quote:

---

I would rather have a close ratio box anyway. Hitting 60 in 2nd is a bad thing IMO when you only have 150bhp. The only thing it does is reduce the 0-60 time which is itself a meaningless measure.

---

Quote:

---

Easily hit 60 in second then.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Easily hit 60 in second then.

---

Did you create this in excel yourself? My my, you might get a D in GCSE maths if you are lucky

---

Hu?

Welcome by the way

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Easily hit 60 in second then.


[image]http://fiesta.mediahoard.com/chimage.php?image=19371314102004641466.jpg[/image]

---

Did you create this in excel yourself? My my, you might get a D in GCSE maths if you are lucky

---

No I didn't, I got it off a gearbox specialists website.

Nice first post.

Quote:

---

Specialist?
Wot, so you are going to get nice linear speed to RPM ratio's in real life are you?
The car will go at 220 mph at 10.5k revs in 5th? don't think so!
The car will go at 20 mph at 1k revs in 5th? Don't think so!
Maybe you should learn some basic physics, oh and learn not use the crappy default graph settings in excel.

Your graph is about as accurate as my Nan's eyesight!

The only thing "specialist" about this is maybe a "special" person who sits licking the window in a sunshine bus made it!

---

What's the matter? The 3 Billy Goats been trampling on your bridge a bit much??

Having known Hugh for the past 9 years, and having to have gone through University with him, there is no one more than me who enjoys to take the piss out of daft comments he comes out with....

However, I always ensure that if I do, then my argument is well structured and backed up by susbtantial evidence. If not, then the outcome is that I look like a twat, which is exactly what you've done here....

Now before you come back with some rant, I acknowledge there is the possibility you're right. If so, get some evidence and post it on here. The decent bloke that Hugh is, I know for a fact that in the face of evidence to prove he is wrong, he will admit the fact and 'stand corrected'..

What I suggest is you do the maths, post it on here and then we can discuss the matter amongst all of us. One of you is right and one of you is wrong, but for the time being, only one of you have produced something to back up your claim...

Oh and for the record, both Hugh and I have an honours degree in Engineering of which, I am sure you are aware, Maths is an integral part.....

Now run along now and be a nice chap and let those goats graze in the nice meadow.....

Quote:

---

Now before you come back with some rant, I acknowledge there is the possibility you're right. If so, get some evidence and post it on here. The decent bloke that Hugh is, I know for a fact that in the face of evidence to prove he is wrong, he will admit the fact and 'stand corrected'..

---

Quote:

---

What's the matter? The 3 Billy Goats been trampling on your bridge a bit much??

Having known Hugh for the past 9 years, and having to have gone through University with him, there is no one more than me who enjoys to take the piss out of daft comments he comes out with....

However, I always ensure that if I do, then my argument is well structured and backed up by susbtantial evidence. If not, then the outcome is that I look like a twat, which is exactly what you've done here....

Now before you come back with some rant, I acknowledge there is the possibility you're right. If so, get some evidence and post it on here. The decent bloke that Hugh is, I know for a fact that in the face of evidence to prove he is wrong, he will admit the fact and 'stand corrected'..

What I suggest is you do the maths, post it on here and then we can discuss the matter amongst all of us. One of you is right and one of you is wrong, but for the time being, only one of you have produced something to back up your claim...

Oh and for the record, both Hugh and I have an honours degree in Engineering of which, I am sure you are aware, Maths is an integral part.....

Now run along now and be a nice chap and let those goats graze in the nice meadow..... [image]http://fiesta.mediahoard.com/chimage.php?image=829118102004337563.gif[/image]

---

Quote:

---

then you won't mind explaining how you would achieve the linear relationship between Speed and RPM's?

---

Excellent, that's what I was hoping you would say. Rather than answering your question, I would like to hear you explain how the relationshipship of the output from an engine through a fixed ratio gearbox can be anything but linear?

Let me answer it for you, it can't be (unless the clutch is slipping! ). Using a fixed ratio'd gearbox the RPM of an engine has a direct ratio'd effect on the speed of the wheels therefore the speed of the vehicle.

So this leaves me wondering what you are all about. If you had said one single thing of use then I would say that you were perhaps mistaking what was being said and that you were trying to add extra mechanics to the theoretical statement, such as weight, acceleration, drag or resistance.

But you haven't, you've been rude, evasive and haven't offered a single solitary piece of relevant information so you must just be a troll. In which case, good bye.

Quote:

---

Note how I used the phrase "real life". This means in the outdoors in the sunshine, with gravity and all that stuff.
What is the use of a graph that does not take into account the mechanics of the real world?

How is it theoretical? Theories are models that attempt to replicate real life. What is theoretical about something that knowingly neglects major forces?

This is like saying, "In theory My Nan can see clearly" But forgetting to mention that she dropped her glasses and both her eyes just fell out. Doesn't really work in reality does it?

So, in summary, what was the use of your initial post if you knew it bore no relation to the real world?

---

Quote:

---

Note how I used the phrase "real life". This means in the outdoors in the sunshine, with gravity and all that stuff.

---

So gravity 'and all that stuff' now has an effect on the relationship between an engine output and the drive it provides through to the wheels??? Stop it you're killing me!

Quote:

---

So, in summary, what was the use of your initial post if you knew it bore no relation to the real world?

---

It bears every relationship to the real world in in theory and practice. I don't however know many Fiesta ST's that will rev to 12 thousand or go at 220mph. That's the theoretical bit just incase you can't spot it.

BTW, to quote you earlier:

Quote:

---

The car will go at 220 mph at 10.5k revs in 5th? don't think so!
The car will go at 20 mph at 1k revs in 5th? Don't think so!

---

That's exactly what it would do.

Quote:

---

This means in the outdoors in the sunshine, with gravity and all that stuff.

---

Eheheheheh, you get gravity indoors as well mate! Even your Nan should know that one!

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What's the matter? The 3 Billy Goats been trampling on your bridge a bit much??

Having known Hugh for the past 9 years, and having to have gone through University with him, there is no one more than me who enjoys to take the piss out of daft comments he comes out with....

However, I always ensure that if I do, then my argument is well structured and backed up by substantial evidence. If not, then the outcome is that I look like a twat, which is exactly what you've done here....

Now before you come back with some rant, I acknowledge there is the possibility you're right. If so, get some evidence and post it on here. The decent bloke that Hugh is, I know for a fact that in the face of evidence to prove he is wrong, he will admit the fact and 'stand corrected'..

What I suggest is you do the maths, post it on here and then we can discuss the matter amongst all of us. One of you is right and one of you is wrong, but for the time being, only one of you has produced something to back up your claim...

Oh and for the record, both Hugh and I have an honours degree in Engineering of which, I am sure you are aware, Maths is an integral part.....

Now run along now and be a nice chap and let those goats graze in the nice meadow.....

---

You posted it, you justify it, I believe is the scientific precedent?

If you have an honours degree in Engineering (I have one in Physics if you want to flex intellectual muscle), then you won't mind explaining how you would achieve the linear relationship between Speed and RPM's?

I respectfully await your answer.

---

Quote:

---

It bears every relationship to the real world in in theory and practice. I don't however know many Fiesta ST's that will rev to 12 thousand or go at 220mph. That's the theoretical bit just incase you can't spot it.

---