Yes I have Dave...

Yes I have Dave...

:P

Honda Civic Type-Rs rule. That doesn't make them comets. Lambos...now THOSE are comets...

Briskodian-member bashing sucks. We keep doing this we'll just end up being 'a forum'. I've been on that one site I mentioned before for over 3 years and I only have just over 1300 posts...the same figure I have here, and I just joined in January. I enjoy this forum so I post.

Y'all gotta stop bashing one another. And don't underestimate a car you've never driven. And don't bash the owner of the vehicle, coz it sucks.

Honda Civic Type-Rs rule. That doesn't make them comets. Lambos...now THOSE are comets...

Briskodian-member bashing sucks. We keep doing this we'll just end up being 'a forum'. I've been on that one site I mentioned before for over 3 years and I only have just over 1300 posts...the same figure I have here' date=' and I just joined in January. I enjoy this forum so I post.

Y'all gotta stop bashing one another. And don't underestimate a car you've never driven. And don't bash the owner of the vehicle, coz it sucks.[/quote']

:orb_clap: :orb_clap: :orb_clap: :orb_clap: :orb_clap: :orb_clap: :orb_clap:

:orb_hard_

Honda Civic Type-Rs rule. That doesn't make them comets. Lambos...now THOSE are comets...

Briskodian-member bashing sucks. We keep doing this we'll just end up being 'a forum'. I've been on that one site I mentioned before for over 3 years and I only have just over 1300 posts...the same figure I have here' date=' and I just joined in January. I enjoy this forum so I post.

Y'all gotta stop bashing one another. And don't underestimate a car you've never driven. And don't bash the owner of the vehicle, coz it sucks.[/quote']:iagree:

we all know my car is the fastest..

Seriously tho.. who cares if X car is faster than Y car... i get enough satisfaction knowing "while im chasing him, bet hes using at least 3 times more fuel"

Its true, other "nu skool" hot hatches are faster than the fabia std. a chipped fabia will bring it very close to the latest gen powerful hothatches like the CTR and clio. but its a moving benchmark... how do you define "faster"? 0-60, 0-100, round a track?

i would say at best the fabia vRS is as fast as the cliosport, ctr.. etc etc. but nothing more.

Just read this thread, I hope this helps, taken from here

Yet another guide to Torque versus Horsepower versus Acceleration.

Some people say horsepower is how long you can

continue to make torque. That's sorta true, but it's "long" in terms of higher rpms,

not time directly. Think of it in this old fashioned way. Put a pulley on the crankshaft

of the engine with a 1 ft radius (2 ft diameter). Attach a long rope to that pulley.

Dangle it over a 6283 ft cliff, (I chose that distance because the pulley diameter is 2 ft

and the circumference is 6.283 ft and I want to move it for one minute at 1000 revolutions

per minute.) add a 200 lb weight to the end.

If the engine can develop 200 ft-lbs of torque it can lift that 200 lb weight directly.

If it does it at only 1000 rpms then it takes 1 minute to lift 200 lbs, 6283 ft up. (incidentally

for those wonder where the acceleration is.. It's gravity acting on the weight at 1G)

But let's say it can't rev any faster than 1000 rpms (like a big cruise boat diesel engine),

then the max hp is only 200 ft-lbs * 1000 rpms / 5252 = 38hp. Pitiful.

We don't want to wait a full minute, so we need to lift the weight faster.

So now we use an engine that can make 200 ft-lbs of torque but at 2000 rpms, it

can lift that same 200 ft-lbs weight twice as fast, pulling it 6283 ft up the cliff in

only 30 seconds. max HP = 200 ft-lbs * 2000 rpms / 5252 = 76 hp.

Ok.. So let's give this engine some serious guts, better breathing, higher revving,

larger displacement. Rev it all the way up to 5252rpms, and get it to still

make 200 ft-lbs of torque (no mean feat). Now it takes only 11.4 seconds to lift a

200 lb weight up a 6283 ft cliff. And of course HP = 200 ft-lbs * 5252 rpms / 5252 = 200 hp.

There's the basics of hp versus torque as measured at the crank for any

given fixed rpm. When the concept of horsepower was dreamed up,

these are the sorts of applications the steam engines it applied to, were used for. Lifting big

weights, pulling things through or over the ground, or turning the entire contents of some

factory at a constant rpm.

So what happens when a Honda engine manages to make 150 hp but

only 100 ft-lbs of torque at 8000 rpms? (I didn't choose VTEC numbers because I want round numbers)

Well.. For one it simply won't be able to lift the 200 lb weight with a crank pulley that has a

1 ft radius. It can't. It's only generating 100 ft-lbs of lifting force.

What you need now is gears. Let's put a 2 to 1 gearset between the engine crank and rope

pulley. Now the engine is still turning at 8000 rpms, but the pulley is turning at 4000 rpms, and

we've effectively doubled its leverage so torque measured at the pulley is 200 ft-lbs again.

Torque at pulley = 200 ft-lbs @ 4000 rpms. So it now can actually lift the 200 lb

weight directly, and at 4000 rpms, thats 4 times faster than our original engine. So 15 seconds

to lift the 200 lb weight up 6283 ft. Not bad. Moving a 200 lb weight up over 1 vertical

mile in only 15 seconds. (Note, 100 ft-lbs * 8000 / 5252 = 200 ft-lbs * 4000 / 5252)

One interesting side note. It's possible for an engine or motor to make torque at 0 rpms.

A steam train engine, for instance has a direct drive from pistons to wheels so when it

needs to get moving it can actually generate some ungodly number like 10000 ft-lbs of

torque at 0 rpms and thus by our formula HP = 1000 ft-lbs * 0 / 5252 = 0 hp. Cute eh?

Electric motors also can do this. That's why diesel train engines drive use electric motors

to turn the wheels, and a big nearly constant rpm engine to power the generator that

powers the motors.

Summary so far.

So torque lifts the weight. We can convert low engine torque (Honda engine)

into high usable torque through gearing, but at the cost of speed.

Horspower tells you how fast the weight can be lifted at a constant angular velocity.

Ok.. In the next post I'll explain how this relates to acceleration.

Horsepower, Torque and how you use it to accelerate through gearing

So what's the whole deal with the "torque curve" and why's it important to acceleration?

Well.. only being able to make good torque at a single rpm is not very useful for a road going vehicle.

It's ok for a train engine driving a generator, or factory motor, but no sense for a car. If you

only make useful torque at the crank in a very narrow range of rpms then you need lots and

lots of gears to keep the torque at the wheels in a useable range as your vehicle's speed

increases. Maximum acceleration of a car is made possible by maximizing your output

torque at the wheels at ALL times. Let's say the torque curve for our original engine that

made 200 ft-lbs of torque at 1000 rpms can actually do it between 500 and 1000 rpms (absolutely

flat curve) and falls off sharply on either side. (below 500 and above 1000).

It can still accellerate, but it'd need maybe a 2:1 gear to get started, then 1:1 to

keep going, and then about 2 overdrive gears to go fast. like 1:2.. 1:4

So here's our gears. 1st: 2:1 2nd: 1:1 3rd: 1:2 4th: 1:4

In first gear at the output wheesl, it'd make 400 ft-lbs of torque to the ground between

250-500 rpms. Second gear.. 200 ft-lbs at 500 to 1000 rpms.. 3rd.. 100 ft-lbs at 1000 to 2000 rpms

4th 50 ft-lbs between 2000 to 4000 rpms.. This engine makes 200 ft-lbs * 1000 / 5252 = 38hp.

By the time you hit the top of 4th gear you're only putting 50 ft-lbs of torque to the ground, but

you're moving right along. If you only had to lift only a 50 lb-weight up our cliff you could get there

in 15 seconds (not counting acceleration though the gears).

Works the other way around too. A higher revving engine that makes a little torque

up high. Let's try a flat torque curve between 2000 and 4000 rpms of only 100

ft-lbs. Let's try to match the torque to the ground of our other engine with

gearing. 1st: 4:1 2nd: 2:1 3rd: 1:1 4th: 1:2

So at the ground. 1st gear makes 400 ft-lbs of torque between 500 and 1000 rpms

2nd: 200 ft-lbs between 1000 and 2000 rpms

3rd: 100 ft-lbs between 2000 and 4000 rpms..

and 4th: 50 ft-lbs between 4000 and 8000 rpms.

Oops.. I accidentally made a more powerful engine. I was making the same

torque to the ground at the top of 3rd gear and still have 50 ft-lbs

usable for the next 4000 rpms in 4th. Want to see something cute.

At the crank. 100 ft-lbs * 4000 rpms / 5252 = 76 hp.

At the wheels.. 50ft-lbs * 8000 rpms / 5252 = 76 hp..

(assuming zero drivetrain loss here). You see why it doesn't

matter if you make your dyno pull in 3rd or 4th gear?

So yes. Torque is what does the actual work. With our weight, any

output torque less than 200 ft-lbs will NOT lift it at all. But horsepower

is how FAST we we do the work. And acceleration depends on the engine's

ability to generate torque at more than just one rpm. The fatter

the torque curve is (no matter how small the max torque value), the faster

you can accelerate because the more rpms you have to work with, the

higher the gear ratios and thus the higher your torque at the ground.

You maximize torque to the ground through gearing keeping the engine in the rpm

range where the engine generates the most ground speed for a given torque value.

A car that only generates 50 ft-lbs of torque, but but can do it between 10,0000 and 20,000

rpms will still make 190 hp. You're saying "But Ian, I still need raw TORQUE to accelerate

right?" True. But the tires don't need to turn at 20,000 rpms, so there's where I'm going to

get my torque. Let's design a single gear. The tires only need to turn at 880 rpms to go 60mph at

the top of 2nd gear. So let's experiment with an effective gear ratio from crank to tires

of 20:1. That'd give me 50 * 20 = 1000 ft-lbs of torque at the ground between the engine

rpms of 10k and 20k. That'd certainly get you moving just fine. Does it

work speedwise? 10,000 rpms / 20 = 500.. 20,000 rpms / 20 = 1000.

with 205/50-15 tires that's a speed range of 34mph to 68mph.

Cool.. An engine that generates only 50ft-lbs of torque between 10k and 20k rpms

manages to put down 1000 ft-lbs of torque to the ground between 34mph and 68mph

in my imaginary 2nd gear. Now just design another half dozen gears and you're

good to go. And it'll *feel* like 1000 ft-lbs of torque the entire time too.

An old turbo formula 1 car that makes 1100 hp at 14 thousand rpms.. Lesee.. 412 ft-lbs of

torque up there in the stratospheric rpms. Whew. Try a 10:1 effective gearing, that's still

like 4000 ft-lbs of torque to the ground at 95mph. Not bad.

So yes, you *feel* torque, but it's torque at the ground, not at the engine. If you can

rev high enough, then gearing will increase your effective torque to the ground for

a longer period of time. Torque you feel.. torque applied for a large range of rpms

equates to faster acceleration, and the highest rpm that you can maintain useful

torque will be your peak horsepower number. The horsepower @ rpm value

gives you some idea of how long the torque curve extends into the rpms.

That's how you use it.

So there it is. Everything you never needed to know about torque and horsepower.

I linked to that in another thread! he he!

Thats what I was trying to tell my wife but she just can't grasp it

I've said that about a girl before, not sure it was the same thing though....

One of the things that swung me against keeping my Fabia was that the attitude of a few of the owners on here is really childish and put me off of the car.

Thats pathetic, you really care that much what people write on a forum that it swung you not to keep the Fabia

When all's said and done, I don't ever see any of you on this forum in my day to day life, so I couldn't give a hoot what 'attitude' Fabia owners have

As the post about torque suggests, a car may have a low peak torque figure (Type R), but using gearing it can effectively increase the torque at the wheels.

Even though the Fabia has much more torque, it has less revs and so needs taller gearing, which as you know, zaps the torque.

However, the Fabia has so much torque that it overcomes the problem of short gearing to a degree, to the point where I can well believe a Fabia vRS remapped will keep pace with a Type R in the real world.

And thats the clincher isnt it? Real world performance. The Fabia is very good at that (even standard ones :eek:) - lets look at it for a moment. The Fabia IMO doesnt handle particularly well, but it does have lots of grip, and even more importantly, lots of torque. So you come to a tight bend, second gear, power out of the bend, and away you go. Lets compare that to the Golf, itself regarded as a "torquey" car for a petrol - but it obviously has nowhere near the torque of the Fabia. I could probably carry a bit more speed into the corner, but my exit speed will be slower, as I have to wait for my car to reach 3500 rpm before its peak torque kicks in. Then, I will need a lot of road to catch up, as the Fabia already has the legs on me. I guess one could say though thats when the Fabia begins to lose its effectiveness slightly as the gearing becomes taller, so it tails off. Still though, assuming one does not have the road to reach silly speeds, the Fabia is clearly the best option.

Another point in case - motorway. I could be in 5th gear in the Fabia or 6th, and I dont need to keep dropping cogs all the time to overtake with any haste. This again is thanks to its high torque, low rpm characteristic. The power is always accessible. In the Golf, I dont need to drop cogs, but if I didnt, I wouldnt be keeping up with a Furby - so I'd have to drive it on cam all the time and that would make it very thirsty indeed, and very noisy. Its not practical to drive like that all of the time.

Of course for me, petrol is more entertaining - it just seems to respond more instantly to the throttle, and is more exciting when you want to drive 10/10ths. Diesels give their best from low revs, and when you demand 10/10ths from it, it is then they become uninspiring. However, thats a different topic for a different thread.

The fact is though, diesels do get knocked quite a bit and unfairly so IMO. The Fabia vRS definitely has the performance of a spirited petrol, and in all honesty, is a very brisk little car in the real world - its not a track car, so it fulfills its mission succesfully for me. Obviously I now drive a petrol Golf, but I will admit that modern diesels are very good, and very nippy cars, and anyone who denies this is just truly blinkered IMO.

The fact is though' date=' diesels do get knocked quite a bit and unfairly so IMO. The Fabia vRS definitely has the performance of a spirited petrol, and in all honesty, is a very brisk little car in the real world - its not a track car, so it fulfills its mission succesfully for me. Obviously I now drive a petrol Golf, but I will admit that modern diesels are very good, and very nippy cars, and anyone who denies this is just truly blinkered IMO.[/quote']

Well said that man!

The key thing that most if not nearly all people fail to realise is that they look at peak figures for bhp and don't look at the spread of horsepower and more importantly for acceleration not just the peak torque but the spread of torque through the rev range.

Peak figures are great for in the pub.... but that's about all they're good for in my personal opinion. Oh unless you're in sales of course!

Mil Mate' date=' that's the JDM (import) CTR you're refereing to there, which is slightly different to a UK CTR (LSD, different manifold, also runs on 100 ron fuel). They are 212bhp, but UK are 197 bhp.

BUT, I agree with you on the vRS subject, as most people on here refer to them keeping up with the odd CTR (which was more than likely being driven by a muppet. A Chipped vRS won't be MILES behind a CTR upto 100mph (about 4 car lenghts IMO), but will certainly not be snapping at it's heals. What's the fastest Chipped vRS's 1/4 mile time on here (ie Santa Pod, not Elvington or Bruntingthorpe). Because from what i've seen they struggle to break the into the 15sec barrier. Where as a standard CTR with the right driver will be able to do 14.5-8 @ 97mph without to much bother. I know cause that's what mine did.[/quote']

Hi. I have an Ibiza Tdi sport, the same performance as a Fabia Vrs, with a remap to about 180bhp and 310 lbft. I went up against a modded CTR today at Santa Pod. He had a chip, exhaust, filter, manifold etc, and was pushing 240bhp. I got 15 secs flat @93mph, whilst the modded CTR got 14.2 @ 100mph- unfortunately there werent any standard ones to put my car up against, because of my .002 fluke reaction time, he passed the 1/4 marker 0.1970 secs quicker - so if you have a decent launch, snapping at heels is possible- and this one was modded.

My fastest 1/4 mile was 14.9 secs, so if a standard CTR pulls 14.5-8, were arguing about .4 to .1 of a second! Its therefore hardly unbelievable to state that there isnt much of a difference between the cars 1/4 mile wise especially if the start was a rolling one. Just my 2p

Hi. I have an Ibiza Tdi sport' date=' the same performance as a Fabia Vrs, with a remap to about 180bhp and 310 lbft. I went up against a modded CTR today at Santa Pod. He had a chip, exhaust, filter, manifold etc, and was pushing 240bhp. I got 15 secs flat @93mph, whilst the modded CTR got 14.2 @ 100mph- unfortunately there werent any standard ones to put my car up against, because of my .002 fluke reaction time, he passed the 1/4 marker 0.1970 secs quicker - so if you have a decent launch, snapping at heels is possible- and this one was modded.

My fastest 1/4 mile was 14.9 secs, so if a standard CTR pulls 14.5-8, were arguing about .4 to .1 of a second! Its therefore hardly unbelievable to state that there isnt much of a difference between the cars 1/4 mile wise especially if the start was a rolling one. Just my 2p [/quote']

Nice times there mate. But one thing you have forgot, is that a Fabia vRS is about 100kgs heavier than your Ibiza, is it not?

Nice times there mate. But one thing you have forgot, is that a Fabia vRS is about 100kgs heavier than your Ibiza, is it not?

Now you are splitting hairs.

Actually the weight topic has been done to death on various forae, and the difference is more like 30 kg

Think the Vrs is very slightly heavier, like Pbirkett says, about 30kg - thats not going to hold the furby up very much at all!

Given that it was my first time on a strip, and therefore at santa pod, and I got 14.9 with my first launch and was hitting 15 dead all day without any issues, with a bit more practice (more than 4 attempts!) I could probably shave a few tenths off that time - which according to you would be identical to a CTR - I wasnt that far off the modded one, and he had +40hp over standard.

All I was illustrating is that the performance of the tdi is not scorching, but it is credible on these little cars, and mine got loads of comments as it sooted up the strip! - and people came to ask about it as we lined up for the next run! Mine was one of only two diesels there (the other was a golf 150)

My mate took his celica ss-2 twin cam with 190 bhp and his best time of the day was 15.8 - thats nearly a whole second difference from my diesel shopping trolley. At the end of the day, I know what my car is, and I know its limitations, I know what it is and isnt capable of doing and beating- its just a quickish practical economical little car, and a good laugh! I rate the CTRs as well, once they get into that VTEC zone, they shift - particularly top end when mine starts to run out of power

Now you are splitting hairs.

Well no i'm not splitting hairs at all mate. I was under the opinion that the Fabia was around 100kgs more than the Ibiza, as it'a what i've read in more than a few motoring magazines. If i'm wrong then I apologise, but if it was 100kgs, like is stated. Then I wouldn't of been splitting hairs at all, it would make alot of difference...

Think the Vrs is very slightly heavier' date=' like Pbirkett says, about 30kg - thats not going to hold the furby up very much at all!

Given that it was my first time on a strip, and therefore at santa pod, and I got 14.9 with my first launch and was hitting 15 dead all day without any issues, with a bit more practice (more than 4 attempts!) I could probably shave a few tenths off that time - which according to you would be identical to a CTR - I wasnt that far off the modded one, and he had +40hp over standard.

All I was illustrating is that the performance of the tdi is not scorching, but it is credible on these little cars, and mine got loads of comments as it sooted up the strip! - and people came to ask about it as we lined up for the next run! Mine was one of only two diesels there (the other was a golf 150)

My mate took his celica ss-2 twin cam with 190 bhp and his best time of the day was 15.8 - thats nearly a whole second difference from my diesel shopping trolley. At the end of the day, I know what my car is, and I know its limitations, I know what it is and isnt capable of doing and beating- its just a quickish practical economical little car, and a good laugh! I rate the CTRs as well, once they get into that VTEC zone, they shift - particularly top end when mine starts to run out of power [/quote']

Fair enough mate, your little oil burner sounds like it shifts nicely. But one thing you haven't taken into account is the terminal speeds. Eg, your Ibiza is doing 0-93mph in 15 secs (roughly 17/18+ secs 0-100). Where as my CTR was doing 0-97mph in 14.5 secs (about 15+secs 0-100). Which makes a difference to be fair. I'd imagine that modded CTR that did a 14.2 would of been knocking on 100mph terminals, which makes it a fairly quick un...

Fair enough mate, your little oil burner sounds like it shifts nicely. But one thing you haven't taken into account is the terminal speeds. Eg, your Ibiza is doing 0-93mph in 15 secs (roughly 17/18+ secs 0-100). Where as my CTR was doing 0-97mph in 14.5 secs (about 15+secs 0-100). Which makes a difference to be fair. I'd imagine that modded CTR that did a 14.2 would of been knocking on 100mph terminals, which makes it a fairly quick un...

Lets not get into another row, but a) 100kgs won't make so much of a difference to a diesel engined car that you would notice. iirc, my post regarding the civic type was 0-60 or away from the traffic lights, where terminal speeds and times to 100mph are irrelevant. c) who cares anyway.

I know your post was to someone else but I felt I should answer as he was only reinforcing what I had to say in the first place.

Vtech Abuser (No offence, I just couldn't resist:thumbup: )

Lets not get into another row' date=' but a) 100kgs won't make so much of a difference to a diesel engined car that you would notice. iirc, my post regarding the civic type was 0-60 or away from the traffic lights, where terminal speeds and times to 100mph are irrelevant. c) who cares anyway.

I know your post was to someone else but I felt I should answer as he was only reinforcing what I had to say in the first place.

Vtech Abuser (No offence, I just couldn't resist:thumbup: )

100 kgs would give a car like the vRS a 8-10 bhp/tonne difference, which anybody will know would give you a good advantage. You only need to look at when people strip there interior out there car at Santa Pod (which is nowhere near 100kgs) and they can take upto 1/2 second of there 1/4 mile time. If you know much about 1/4 mile racing, that's quite a bit. If however you're not bothered about a second or so here and there, then that's fine also.... Depends what you're into i suppose.

Also, 0-60 means little nowadays IMO, especially with the way performance cars are getting now. 0-100 or 30-70 through the gears is the one you want to look at..

tbh i kinda thought 100kg would make a fair difference as said above, not huge but would make a noticable difference

Fair enough mate, your little oil burner sounds like it shifts nicely. But one thing you haven't taken into account is the terminal speeds. Eg, your Ibiza is doing 0-93mph in 15 secs (roughly 17/18+ secs 0-100). Where as my CTR was doing 0-97mph in 14.5 secs (about 15+secs 0-100). Which makes a difference to be fair. I'd imagine that modded CTR that did a 14.2 would of been knocking on 100mph terminals, which makes it a fairly quick un...

First you say that you havent seen a Vrs break the 16's, so I post that my virtually identical car can get 14.9 on my first ever attempt at a 1/4 mile with crap loads of wheel spin (I have the slip, and my mates g/f has it on camera) Then you say that 50kg max is suddenly going to make a huge difference, and now you talk about terminal speeds (0-100)- there were some slower cars with identical terminal speeds, so my in gear acceleration cant be that bad, which is what you now say performance is all about?.

So its a max of 0.4 of a sec, or 7mph terminal (modded ctr) or 50kg you want to argue about - I think the original posters point was how close the cars are, and I think 7mph(modded) or less than half a second or 50kg are small enough for quantities for it to be a close run thing, which is exactly what he was saying i.e. miss a gear change and its all over! I dont think that theres 3secs to 100 in it either against a standard CTR, much closer than that as mine pulls like a train in 4th and then loses guts quickly at 110+

I thought that after re-enforcing someones earlier point, you would at least accept that these cars do move. Just the goal posts keep shifting? 0-60 vs a standard CTR, no problem. 20 to 90, no problem - it took that modded one the entire 1/4 mile to catch me and i had a 0.4 sec advantage off the line, so imagine what a rolling start/quick reaction off lights would have been like. Anyway, this is becoming pointless - I acknowledge what great cars CTR's are, and money and economy etc no object I know which one i'd have. I do think that my 11k little derv whilst having their limitations can hold its own in most situations, which was the point people were trying to make ages ago. (fair play to you vtech for holding your own )