XR8 Sprint vs Clubsport LSA drag race video

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by 2242100

Keep in mind that at the Dragstrips with their timing systems, some cars can get up to 15-16 inches of rollout before the timing gear knows that the car has started moving, so that commonly means a better time.
I used my Racelogic GPS based Performance Box (the same model that Motor has been using) when I ran my stock (untuned) FG XR6 T Auto at WSID. The Performance Box times are listed below followed by the Dragstrip measured times for each run (note too that the GPS unit was shown to very accurate when I compared it's times from 60 feet to the end of the run where there was no rollout to distort the times).

The US military change the accuracy of the GPS system on a minute by minute basis.
They are never accurate, unless you're in the military or high-end commercial aviation.
Accurate GPS cannot be bought off the street.

It might be accurate one minute, the next minute it could be out by 50 metres.
It can also depend on how many satellites you can see at any one time.

[Big_Damo]

Having just read the Motor comparison in the printed mag where there is lots more detail about there acceleration runs 80-120 2.5 a piece 80 - 190 9.98 seconds each so it seems that the ability to launch is the down fall for the falcon.
Again the talk about the dim-witted gearbox seems to be praise compared to what they have to say about the Clubbies refusal to downshift when asked and slurring it's upshifts.
All this talk about paddle shifters yet there was a preference for using the lever just goes to show that paddle shifters are not the be all and end all of performance cars
While the full article does give the gong to the clubsport the write up definitely has a lot of praise for the Sprint and if the 1/4 mile and 0-100 times were faster for the ford they may well have ended up reversing the final result
But great cars and I'm sure all owners from both sides will be happy with there choice and I can honestly say that if I could swap my Sprint for a clubbie or GTS I would still be the owner of XR8 sprint manual with my high seat and low steering wheel position no paddle shifters heads up display etc
Do I care about these things
Hell no I love my Australian built performance falcon just wish that we could be discussing which one wins in another decade or 2
A sad day reading through this article knowing that we will never likely read about Australian built cars and I am sure the passion will not be as deep for the imports that will follow
We may buy them all in larger numbers but to me they will never be the same

[arronm]

But the falcons and commodore of the future, with different names, maybe twin turbo, all wheel drive monsters that make today's cars seem tame and lacking.

Then we will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, the old models will be just that , old.

[Grom13]

Originally Posted by fgpsi

I'm expexting the XR6 Turbo Sprint to be faster than a VF GTS, as this is the info that was leaked to Dowling by FoA. If it's not quicker then they were blowing steam up their own asses yet again. Sick of it.

oh yeah and to the dudes at ford that claimed the manual xr8 sprint would be quicker than the turbo and auto xr8 sprint, Give us a SPELL

Won't happen Ford had their chance to build a ball tearer but have to warranty these cars for 3 years or 100,000km so we ain't seeing any HSV beaters here . And HSV still have a whole year to come up with there trump card .

[Express]

Originally Posted by Big_Damo

Again the talk about the dim-witted gearbox seems to be praise compared to what they have to say about the Clubbies refusal to downshift when asked and slurring it's upshifts.

All this talk about paddle shifters yet there was a preference for using the lever just goes to show that paddle shifters are not the be all and end all of performance cars

Auto shifting prowess comes down to how good your hardware and software is, I don’t think it matters where the shifter is located to produce the goods.

The reason paddles are preferred by most is that they are ergonomically situated within the steering wheel design and allow you to keep both hands on the wheel while only needing a flick of the finger to change gear.

All the cars I’ve driven with them also retain the ability to shift from the console but why would you bother removing your hands from the wheel when you don’t have to.

I’ve driven good and bad paddle shifters (not a Ford or Holden) and in all cases the console matches the paddles shifting characteristics.

I’m a lover of the third pedal myself but I understand how much quicker a well sorted auto is and if I have to have a performance car with an auto I’d always prefer it came with paddles.

[Sabantien]

I expect the driver of the R8 I saw with the plates 'FPVSUC' has watched this video over and over!

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

The US military change the accuracy of the GPS system on a minute by minute basis.
They are never accurate, unless you're in the military or high-end commercial aviation.
Accurate GPS cannot be bought off the street.

It might be accurate one minute, the next minute it could be out by 50 metres.
It can also depend on how many satellites you can see at any one time.

It depends what you call accurate and in what context.

Sure it might be 50 metres out as far as knowing exactly where it is on the huge earth, but when I think about it, that's really only a very small error (although for some circumstances that may be a problem).

But on the other hand it's very different when it comes to counting the time it takes to cover a comparatively miniscule four hundred metres.

As I indicated I was able to compare the Performance Boxes time and distance data after 60 feet with the Dragstrip data, and the accuracy was good. Actually from spot on (ie. to the nearest hundredth of a second because it doesn't display thousandths) to around 0.03% pessimistic, and I've found that it consistently stays in the 0.03% accuracy range.

How do I know?
Well from quite a bit of checking when I lived near a special government calibrated 1000 metre road section and I frequently measured it's distance measurement, also I've more recently checked it against marked 5 K sections of road (as well as the time against a stopwatch) and I've continually had results within the around 0.03% either way result.

So if it gets the 400 metre measurement wrong by 0.03% (around 1.3) metres and the car is covering 50 metres a second (at 180 km/h) that's only going to throw the 400 metre time out by about 3 hundredths of a second.

It can certainly be consistent as shown by the following stock Auto FG Turbo 0-70 km/h data.
Two runs were done with a load of bricks in the boot (to ensure no wheelspin). Same location/direction within half an hour, with the same high stall up revs.
0-10 km/h......0.27 seconds in 0.46 metres.......0.27 seconds in 0.45 metres
0-20..............0.63................1.99.......... ........0.62.................1.95
0-30..............1.04................4.84.......... ........1.04.................4.82
0-40..............1.43................8.67.......... ........1.42.................8.59
0-50..............1.84...............13.69.......... .......1.83.................13.67
0-60..............2.27...............20.28.......... .......2.26.................20.22
0-70..............2.82...............30.32.......... .......2.81.................30.27
Two remarkably similar results, I think.

You can get much more expensive devices that are about 10 times as accurate, but I'd say these Racelogic devices that Magazines use will generally (in practice) deliver much more accurate Data than most people get at the Dragstrip.
Apart from the issue of how much rollout a car is getting there is the problem that arises because of the around 5 inch speed trap beam height at most tracks. That's about the height of a lot of cars front spoilers, and with just a bit of up or down movement the two beams may not be broken by the same part of the car.

Hence the possibility of a wrong end speed that many think must be super accurate.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by 2242100

It depends what you call accurate and in what context.

Sure it might be 50 metres out as far as knowing exactly where it is on the huge earth, but when I think about it, that's really only a very small error (although for some circumstances that may be a problem).

Positioning is everything, otherwise the data is garbage.

If GPS positioning is used their requirements should be to sub-inch accuracy.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Positioning is everything, otherwise the data is garbage.

If GPS positioning is used their requirements should be to sub-inch accuracy.

Yes but it knows when it's moved a centimetre (and 400 metres) from what may be a 50 metre out location and how long that takes, and as I said, over up to 5 k's I know mine keeps getting it right within the 0.03% accuracy area, and that was also backed up by the Dragstrip system on a number of runs, so whatever anyone says it's consistently getting it right.

Whatever the arguments for and against, I'm getting the impression that your suggesting that Road Testers using these very common devices for years all around the world have been getting it wrong, if so we can forget about any times that Motor gets and the rollout situation throws a question up about Dragstrip timing systems.

Interestingly too there was a recent Fifth Gear test of a number of devices (including the Performance Box) against a very expensive Formula 1 GPS system and the Performance Box performed well.
So once again I guess the Performance Boxes accuracy was confirmed.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by 2242100

Yes but it knows when it's moved a centimetre from what may be a 50 metre out location and how long that takes, and as I said, over up to 5 k's I know mine keeps getting it right within the 0.03% accuracy area, and that was also backed up by the Dragstrip system on a number of runs, so whatever anyone says it's consistently getting it right.

Whatever the arguments for and against, I'm getting the impression that your suggesting that Road Testers using these very common devices for years all around the world have been getting it wrong, if so we can forget about any times that Motor gets and the rollout situation throws a question up about Dragstrip timing systems.

Interestingly too there was a recent Fifth Gear test of a number of devices (including the Performance Box) against a very expensive Formula 1 GPS system and the Performance Box performed well.
So once again I guess the Performance Boxes accuracy was confirmed.

Let me invert this......if GPS was so accurate for performance times (0-100km/h, 0-400m), why does drag racing still use light beams?

Last I read drag strip times from their venues and equipment was still the benchmark, not GPS derived times, and that's exactly what they are, derived times.

I'm familiar with GPS, anything less than sub-inch positioning is inaccurate, especially when you are measuring to the 1/100th of a second.

[mtbkym01]

Surely it doesn't matter if it's 50m out at the start of a run, coz its 50m out at the end too, it still travelled 400m, distance doesn't change.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by mtbkym01

Surely it doesn't matter if it's 50m out at the start of a run, coz its 50m out at the end too, it still travelled 400m, distance doesn't change.

No, that's incorrect, because you cannot guarantee 50m out at the start will be exactly 50m out in the finish. That's my point about positioning accuracy.

[mtbkym01]

Originally Posted by Romulus

No, that's incorrect, because you cannot guarantee 50m out at the start will be exactly 50m out in the finish. That's my point about positioning accuracy.

True, but if it's only changed minute by minute, you'd be unlucky for a change during a run though wouldn't you?, and especially if you do multiple runs to replicate.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Let me invert this......if GPS was so accurate for performance times (0-100km/h, 0-400m), why does drag racing still use light beams?

Last I read drag strip times from their venues and equipment was still the benchmark, not GPS derived times, and that's exactly what they are, derived times.

I'm familiar with GPS, anything less than sub-inch positioning is inaccurate, especially when you are measuring to the 1/100th of a second.

I think the point to understand is that Dragstrip timing systems are clearly the most accurate in measuring how long a car takes to go from one point to the next, and after all I'm using the Drag strips measured times after the 60 foot point to show how accurate my Performance Box was, so no argument there.

But consider this, if two drag cars that were Championship racing had different GPS devices in them to measure their times and who was in front at the end, just think of the arguments that would cause. Great for the lawyers.

But apart from that, the problem's I see with Dragstrip systems are:-
1) The rollout situation.
2) Most tracks have the 60 foot timing lights set at 10 inches height, apparently to allow for wheel standing vehicles, whereas the start of a run is triggered by the front tyres tripping a much lower start beam, so the front bumper of some (but not all) cars will trip the 60 foot beam before they have actually covered 60 feet from the start line (apparently Heathcote has it's lights at 3 inches, so no problems there I'd say).
3) Then there is the issue of end speed accuracy that I raised in the last post.

Without the above issues Dragstrip systems would beat GPS every time, but the point is that in the real world, GPS timing systems can, and do give consistently very accurate results and best of all you can check the cars performance at any point in the run as well as get times to different speeds.

Finally lets not forget that Dragstrip timing systems were the standard well before "accurate" GPS timing was around.

[208260]

Originally Posted by arronm

But the falcons and commodore of the future, with different names, maybe twin turbo, all wheel drive monsters that make today's cars seem tame and lacking.

Then we will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, the old models will be just that , old.

I agree with you, I think your right. I Was just watching the 3.5 litre twin turbo V6 Ford Taurus SHO. One video of a tuned one ran 0 to 60 mph in 3.9 seconds!

Think of the power this engine is generating in the about to be released Ford GT 40. Then imagine it in an AWD Ford Taurus SHO. Exciting Future Performance models Will be coming here soon, besides the hyper hatch Focus RS!

[208260]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I think the point to understand is that Dragstrip timing systems are clearly the most accurate in measuring how long a car takes to go from one point to the next, and after all I'm using the Drag strips measured times after the 60 foot point to show how accurate my Performance Box was, so no argument there.

But consider this, if two drag cars that were Championship racing had different GPS devices in them to measure their times and who was in front at the end, just think of the arguments that would cause. Great for the lawyers.

But apart from that, the problem's I see with Dragstrip systems are:-
1) The rollout situation.
2) Most tracks have the 60 foot timing lights set at 10 inches height, apparently to allow for wheel standing vehicles, whereas the start of a run is triggered by the front tyres tripping a much lower start beam, so the front bumper of some (but not all) cars will trip the 60 foot beam before they have actually covered 60 feet from the start line (apparently Heathcote has it's lights at 3 inches, so no problems there I'd say).
3) Then there is the issue of end speed accuracy that I raised in the last post.

Without the above issues Dragstrip systems would beat GPS every time, but the point is that in the real world, GPS timing systems can, and do give consistently very accurate results and best of all you can check the cars performance at any point in the run as well as get times to different speeds.

Finally lets not forget that Dragstrip timing systems were the standard well before "accurate" GPS timing was around.

And I Agree with you on this also. I used to work for a data acquisition company and we were using high end Garmins. GPS works on triangulation and incredibly fast computer processing. The system needed a minimum of 3 satellites to lock in. This is the basis of how triangulation works. So the GPS would either lock in and give you data . . . or it wouldn't. There Was no middle ground! And Gps systems work at a Higher Frequency now than they did then! I Have found my VBOX Sport to be very accurate Also when comparing it to dragstrip times! They are great devices!

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by 2242100

Finally lets not forget that Dragstrip timing systems were the standard well before "accurate" GPS timing was around.

And they still continue to be the standard after GPS is available.

Unless you're using Marine Beacon DGPS or RTK GPS I don't see how you can claim the accuracy of the data you're recording with your system.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by 208260

And I Agree with you on this also. I used to work for a data acquisition company and we were using high end Garmins. GPS works on triangulation and incredibly fast computer processing. The system needed a minimum of 3 satellites to lock in. This is the basis of how triangulation works. So the GPS would either lock in and give you data . . . or it wouldn't. There Was no middle ground! And Gps systems work at a Higher Frequency now than they did then! I Have found my VBOX Sport to be very accurate Also when comparing it to dragstrip times! They are great devices!

Yep it should be correct...but it's not.

It's all about national defense. America deliberately spoof the satellites position.
So you might have an accurate reading, you also might not.
It's not about the accuracy of the receivers it's about the accuracy of the triangle that the receiver sees.

Otherwise Kim Jong whateverhisnameis would buy an off the shelf (COTS) Garmin and strap it to one of his missiles and send it down a chimney in Manhattan.
That's the sole reason behind the in-built inaccuracy.

Anyway I guess my point was that I'd be trusting a drag strips timing over a GPS.

I wonder if those boxes you guys are using also cross check with built-in accelerometers and derive a result from the two sources (GPS+G-force)?

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

Yep it should be correct...but it's not.

It's all about national defense. America deliberately spoof the satellites position.
So you might have an accurate reading, you also might not.
It's not about the accuracy of the receivers it's about the accuracy of the triangle that the receiver sees.

Otherwise Kim Jong whateverhisnameis would buy an off the shelf (COTS) Garmin and strap it to one of his missiles and send it down a chimney in Manhattan.
That's the sole reason behind the in-built inaccuracy.

Anyway I guess my point was that I'd be trusting a drag strips timing over a GPS.

I wonder if those boxes you guys are using also cross check with built-in accelerometers and derive a result from the two sources (GPS+G-force)?

Pretty sure Kim would use China's BeiDou-2 before the American System

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

Yep it should be correct...but it's not.

It's all about national defense. America deliberately spoof the satellites position.
So you might have an accurate reading, you also might not.
It's not about the accuracy of the receivers it's about the accuracy of the triangle that the receiver sees.

Otherwise Kim Jong whateverhisnameis would buy an off the shelf (COTS) Garmin and strap it to one of his missiles and send it down a chimney in Manhattan.
That's the sole reason behind the in-built inaccuracy.

Anyway I guess my point was that I'd be trusting a drag strips timing over a GPS.

I wonder if those boxes you guys are using also cross check with built-in accelerometers and derive a result from the two sources (GPS+G-force)?

The performance Boxes don't use G force accelerometers but if you follow the link below you will see a quite thorough comparison (admittedly I think by Racelogic, the Performance Box manufacturer) between a Tesla Electronics GTEC PRO (with it's serial number quoted) which uses an accelerometer and the Performance Box. The reference unit was the more expensive VBOX 3.

They tested 60 foot times, 1/4 mile times with a slow 17-18 second car and end speeds.
With all 3 units set to start timing at the one foot point they were all very close and the GPRO was actually just fractionally better than the Performance Box.
But without the 1 foot rollout setting (which is what is most useful) the GPRO was over 2 tenths out and the Performance Box was extremely close to the VBOX.
The interesting bit is from page 15.

Of course this wasn't against a dragstrip timing system but I know that Car and Driver tested their GPS based VBOX against a Dragstrip timing system over 10 years ago and found it to be very accurate.

Also Wheels did the same in late 2010 with a 335 kW GT Falcon Auto. They tried for maximum rollout and the 400 metre time was 13.26 with the Dragstrip time in the 12.9 second bracket which fits with my results.
Also the Dragstrip measured end speed was either exactly, or close to 1 km/h slower which is as it should have been, given the way the Dragstrip averages end speeds over the last 60 feet (I've lost the article so I can't be sure of the exact speed difference). So again we are seeing a GPS unit behave as it should.

As well just consider the 4 runs that I did during the night at WSID over a 4 hour period.
On the first run I overshot the timing light slightly so I wasn't shallow staging quite as much as possible and the difference between the GPS time and the Dragstrip time was 0.239 sec.

For the next 3 runs when I did manage to shallow stage as much as possible (by just barely tripping the beam) the differences between the GPS and Dragstrip measured times were:-
0.331 sec
0.299 sec.
0.312 sec.
So 3 shallow stage launches with a total variation (in the same direction) of only 32 thousandths of a second over a 3 hour 15 minute period.

Sure doesn't seem like an inconsistent measuring device that might change from one minute to the next.

I don't know too much about the technical side of GPS and you probably know more than me, but I'm certainly inclined to believe that Racelogic (a leader in the GPS measurement field) would surely know quite a lot more more than both of us and with that knowledge they have found a way to make the technology work as the above evidence shows.
And that expertise has obviously been recognised by the car manufacturers that use their equipment.
Some units would be more expensive than my unit but they have told me of one top end sports car manufacturer that uses the basic Performance Boxes to check their cars performances before delivery to the owners. I think they would know what they are doing.



http://www.homytech.com/autotest/dri...CHvPB_Test.pdf

[zilo]

Don't know why they didn't just press the "ludicrous mode" button.

Oh wait...they don't have one

[SprintFg]

The LSA cars seem to have our measure in a straight line.

Of the videos available online they walk away from the 335 r-spec, 351 GT-F, 335 fgx xr8 and the 345 sprint models.

What's required to put our cars on par ? (Preferable without breaking warranty)

[kypez]

Originally Posted by SprintFg

The LSA cars seem to have our measure in a straight line.

Of the videos available online they walk away from the 335 r-spec, 351 GT-F, 335 fgx xr8 and the 345 sprint models.

What's required to put our cars on par ? (Preferable without breaking warranty)

Better drivers...

Edit: Better unbiased driver

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by SprintFg

The LSA cars seem to have our measure in a straight line.

Of the videos available online they walk away from the 335 r-spec, 351 GT-F, 335 fgx xr8 and the 345 sprint models.

What's required to put our cars on par ? (Preferable without breaking warranty)

The only way to make them faster without voiding warranty would probably involve removing weight. Although I doubt you'd find enough weight to close the gap to an LSA car, you'd really need to tune the 5.0. Compare the stock torque curves of the 5.0 and LSA, they're on different planets.

[mr_xlr8]

Originally Posted by SprintFg

The LSA cars seem to have our measure in a straight line.

Of the videos available online they walk away from the 335 r-spec, 351 GT-F, 335 fgx xr8 and the 345 sprint models.

What's required to put our cars on par ? (Preferable without breaking warranty)

The LSA engines are Intercooled W2A stick, Coyote is not, as a start I would intercool the coyote and tune it respectively, then see how we go.

[mr_xlr8]

PS: Warranty is over rated.

[mr_xlr8]

http://www.hsv.com.au/gen-f2/feel/powertrain/

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by SprintFg

The LSA cars seem to have our measure in a straight line.

Of the videos available online they walk away from the 335 r-spec, 351 GT-F, 335 fgx xr8 and the 345 sprint models.

What's required to put our cars on par ? (Preferable without breaking warranty)

You cant compare even videos of the cars. When the GTS came about and the RSpec was FPV top dog there were 2 videos released to show the 2 cars go head to head. The first was a drag race in the rain. Watch the video and see the RSpec get a good jump and then nose dive (stop accelerating) mid track. Then watch the GTS cross the line and note that the video "Pauses" to give appearance and the illusion of the GTS being much further ahead. The second video was supposed to be a rerun after being called out on a dry track. One take apparently with the GT bogging down at the start. Now I am a ford guy but certainly appreciate the GTS as a car and that its likely that the HSV has an edge, power curves prove that. But the cars when run were not run fairly. I know from personal experience that I get to 100 quicker than my friends GTS every time. His is a manual though, and he will not go to the drags against me. BUT he is 6s a lap faster around QR than he was in his 310F6. In the 0-100 and 1/4mile performance stakes the cars are so similar its not funny, I just wish the magazines would reflect that as after all in 30yrs time it will be those snippets of info that will remind the world of these cars performance. The GTF went through the same doo-do and the botched dyno tests. Holden pay big money for adverts in mags, Ford dont. Dont bite the hand that feeds you.