Well put...this is the reason why the Bugatti has 1000hp...you need that much to get to that speed. The faster you go the more air resistance is observed. In order to overcome this resistance (and friction...don't forget the tires are radiating alot of your forward kinetic energy into heat...isn't physics fun???) you need to exert a force greater than that of the force trying to slow you down. Bottom line...you need to exert more power to go fwd than is being exerted against you. Think of a shuttle launch...if the shuttle weighs 100 tons( not true weight), it will need at least 100 tons PLUS 1 lb of thrust in order to take off (a thrust of 100 tons won't lift it since the force pulling the shuttle towards earth is also 100 tons). This general idea applies except in the case of a launch, the shuttle needs to fight against the atmospheric resistance and more importantly the force of earths gravity (fun fact, earths escape velocity is just over 25,000mph or 7 miles per SECOND.. Escape velocity is the velocity an object must achieve to escape the gravitational pull of an object...I guess 6 years of college hasn't been for nothing lol)

As far as aero...one way to improve it very easily is by keeping your car CLEAN. Believe it or not, every piece of dirt increases wind resistance (on a really dirt car, you may start to notice a diff). Even though it won't shave any noticeable time off a 1/4 mile or anything...it doesn't hurt to have a freshly Clayed and waxed car

 

True, I clearly remember that road test and I do quote it often as well...and that was with an LS2 no less!

 

If they folded in the mirrors they had to tape them in place. At about 160 the POP out and man, it's a scary loud sound!!

 

Actually, a dimpled car has the least wind resistance. Mythbusters tested it! That's why a golf ball has dimples.

 

Hello,

The dimples on a golf ball keep it airborn longer and help it fly further. If it stays airborne longer it is because it has more wind resistance.

Mythbusters is fun to watch but they are not real smart!

Douglas in Green Bay

 

The car with dimples got better gas mileage than the clean or dirty cars over the same course and same speed by a measurable and statistically relevant amount, as I recall. That would indicate less wind resistance as all other resistances would be equal.

My 10 year old and I relish each episode...and science is his favorite subject as a result!

 

If so, it was a false reading seeing how the tune has a speed limiter of 186mph. Of course, they could have tuned it out but I'm not hearing that from either party.

 

Enjoy!

 

 

550whp with a procharger here as well. 180 was still pulling hard but the road was quickly coming to an end. If my front bumper wasn't split down the middle I would gladly try to top the car out.

Also that run was during a fairly warm night. With the way temps are getting I know the car would definitely pull a little harder. 2nd keeps spinning earlier and earlier now.

 

The dimples create turbulance that causes the frontal laminar flow to seperate, which creates less friction to allow the air to flow farther around the ball to decrease the drag on the back side. It's not more wind resistance.

Although a clean smooth aerodynamic surface will result in the least resistance, keeping the laminar flow intact on a regular car is impossible. It doesn't take much surface deviation to cause seperation that quickly transitions to a turbulant state. That's not a bad thing unless you attempt to return to laminar flow. Once disturbed, it's better to stay that way. The dimples allowed turbulance continuation regardless of the body shape.

The back of a C6 is the single biggest contributor to drag. The problem is that to correct it would require lengthening the body several feet.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpjT3ZglwLI

193 in a vert.

 

Not that I drive this fast but with the introduction the ls3 z51 coupe GM stated the top speed was 190 mph with the 6 speed manual.

 

You could theoretically escape earth going 25mph assuming you had enough fuel. Escape velocity is directly correlated to payload and fuel capacity.

 

Thanks for all the great answers. Most of the answers I have seen relate to downforce and drag. I have one more question though. The ferrari F40 has a CdA of roughly 7.3 and the c6 coupe is about 6.4 These are rough estimates because finding frontal area numbers for both cars has been a pain. I do know however that the C6 has .29 Cd and the F40 has .34 with similar frontal area. The F40 had 470 bhp which is only 40 more than the vette, so why could it do 201MPH? I also thought of something else interesting. The vette has a higher power to CdA ratio. Don't know if that means anything but it does.

 

Comes down to power...the faster you go the more resistance there is against you, therefore to overcome this resistance (force) you need to supply more force to go forward than is pushing you back...look at the lotus exige...relatively low drag coefficient.. 0.4 and only manages 155mph with a 250hp supercharged I-4( weight on 2,015lbs)

 

I'd have to completely disagree with u on that, 25 mph just isn't anywhere near close enough to overcome the gravitational force of the earth...or even the moon (if all you had to do was hit 25mph I'm sure they would've added enough fuel to return the moon landers . Also you must keep in mind fuel is heavy...the fuel of any launch composes nearly all the mass of the object being launched (payload is typically less than 10% I believe). I may not me an expert mechanic, but I sure as hell kno my physics (and I should after 4 years of studying cosmology lol). And I'd b more than happy to answer any astronomy /physics questions...but 25 mph is not the escape velocity regardless of fuel (more fuel = more weight= more thrust needed, does not equal 25mph tho. With that much thrust you're gonna zoom right by the 25 mph mark lol. )

 

I'd have to agree with ALLVETTE00, but only assuming you were already in a stable earth orbit at least 90 miles up.

Oh wait.... I forgot about any Dilithium Crystal powered craft, a DeLorean with a flux capacitor, or the Millennium Falcon.

 

Even 90 miles up there is still a big tug from earths gravity ...keep in mind the moon orbits the earth 250,000 miles away. The "zero G" felt by astronauts is not because they don't feel earths gravity anymore, but because they are in orbit. One way to help this make sense is to define what an orbit is. An orbit is achieved when the lateral motion of an object equals its downward or "falling" motion. The satellites orbitting earth are in constant "free fall" and you would see this if they didn't have any fwd (lateral) motion (they would just drop down to the surface). In other words (in a stable orbit) for every unit an object moves "down" it moves an equal unit "forward", and the net result of these motions gives you an orbit.
So the astronaut feels zero g cuz they are in this constant free fall (think roller coaster). In order to escape the gravity of the earth, you'd have to go much further (suns gravitational effect is over 50,000 AU or at the end of the Oort Cloud ...1 AU--> avg distance from earth to sun or 93 million miles; 50,000 AU = 4.7 trillion miles or 3/4 of a light year.)

On the other hand...a flux capacitor should also do the trick...but they think use of a flux capacitor may cause Parkinson's....

 

Your perspective is from an object being "fired" tangentially off the surface of the earth at sea level with an initial velocity and no further propulsion/thrust added to escape Earth's gravity. The initial velocity/escape velocity is independent of weight. From that perspective, you are right. His perspective has fuel/propulsion and as long as you have enough fuel to carry, you can "theoretically" escape Earth's gravity at any speed above zero as long as it's in the vertical direction. So from his perspective, he's right. However, the 25,000 MPH from your perspective neglects resistance/drag...anything at sea level going 25,000 MPH is going to encounter so much resistance, it'll burn up. Your perspective also doesn't account for Earth's rotation which will affect the escape velocity depending on the latitude and the direction "fired". So in reality, you're wrong...the object will vaporize at a very low altitude. From his perspective, his 25 MPH example is so slow in reality you would run out of fuel before you escaped Earth's gravity so he's wrong. However, there is an excellent example of his perspective that works...the Apollo space program. Their initial velocity is zero yet they still escaped Earth's gravity by increasing their speed as they went up higher in altitude.

Both of you are right in theory and both of you are wrong in reality, each one of you are just talking from a different perspective...his is going vertical and yours is going horizontal. My favorite phrase is "It's all about perspective."