Author Topic: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...  (Read 4386 times)

dratts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Liked: 14
  • Member Rating Points: +3/-0
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2013, 09:37:20 AM »
 I have absolutely no interest in running against anything other than a Murci.  I am fully aware that there are lots of cars that will leave mine in the dust.  There is no point in contacting your friends at this point.  I am negotiating a tesla purchase at the moment and if it goes through my motorhome trip will be delayed a year.::bounce
Are you in CA?  I am hoping to start my motorhome trip this fall and my first stop will be Northern CA.  Win or lose I would like to put it up against the real thing.  No kidding, you can arrange it?
I really would like to run a real Lambo just to see what would happen.  Supposedly I have about the same hp with 400 lbs lighter weight and none of the hp is wasted on four wheel drive.  What is your donor car?  I don't offer to run for pinks if the other car has big fat tires on it.  Anyway my point was that there is always a car out there that is faster eventually no matter what you do.

I have a Fiero like most of the other guys do.

I really hope that V8 Archie isn't selling you on the BS that you can run 10's because you have a V8 in your car. I can make that happen if you want to run a real Lamborghini though since I know enough people with real exotics.

I'm in North San Diego.

Ill put the word out this weekend and see who I can find thats down. Like I said I know my friend on base whos got a C5 Z06 is down., I got another with a nice supra who can turn his boost down for a better race. But we'll find you a race with something decent!

BigPines

  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
  • Liked: 272
  • Member Rating Points: +28/-1
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2013, 03:56:10 PM »
If you end up racing anywhere in SoCal, I would really like to be there to see it. Please let me know.
If I don't have time to do it right, when will I have time to do it over?

dratts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Liked: 14
  • Member Rating Points: +3/-0
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2013, 02:02:43 PM »
Are you in CA?  I am hoping to start my motorhome trip this fall and my first stop will be Northern CA.  Win or lose I would like to put it up against the real thing.  No kidding, you can arrange it?
I really would like to run a real Lambo just to see what would happen.  Supposedly I have about the same hp with 400 lbs lighter weight and none of the hp is wasted on four wheel drive.  What is your donor car?  I don't offer to run for pinks if the other car has big fat tires on it.  Anyway my point was that there is always a car out there that is faster eventually no matter what you do.

I have a Fiero like most of the other guys do.

I really hope that V8 Archie isn't selling you on the BS that you can run 10's because you have a V8 in your car. I can make that happen if you want to run a real Lamborghini though since I know enough people with real exotics.

dratts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Liked: 14
  • Member Rating Points: +3/-0
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2013, 01:35:28 PM »
I get the impression that you favor your V6 over any V8.  That's fine, we all have our preferences.  You might want to fact check some of your V8 information.  Mad curls engines are not only not built by Archie, they're not even sbcs.  They are Cadillac Northstars with design ones conversion kit.  Nice and chromy and about 300hp.  There is a world of difference between. N*s, sbcs, and LS series.  Yes, they are all V8s.

SchulzeA

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 536
  • Liked: 217
  • Member Rating Points: +33/-1
  • Lambo Mafia
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2013, 10:37:12 AM »
Vf1, what does you car run in the 1/4 mile? Have you taken it to the track? Have some time slips you can post? Just curious what the fiero v6 runs.

SchulzeA

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 536
  • Liked: 217
  • Member Rating Points: +33/-1
  • Lambo Mafia
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2013, 01:56:11 AM »
Plenty of 800-1000hp supras out there.
::thumbup  Now they've reached over 2000HP in the drag cars. The 2jz is one awesome engine.

solrac

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 52
  • Member Rating Points: +2/-0
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2013, 09:00:25 PM »
i have owned an 11 sec CRX. It was a wicked fast car on the 1/4 mile but i wouldnt trust it on the freeway. lol.
and i have also owned a fast WRX which is awd.
on all cars u lose power and it all depends on the set up they have. Also gears mights help . when u gear up a differencial it will make it faster or slower depending the gears u put it in.
It would be hard to argue if its good or bad  or how much power is lost cus of the set up. I had a wrx with gear diffs and that thing was quick.
some engine/trans/diffs designs are more efficient that others . Hondas for example, They make more HP per litter than a Ford. Its the design and that goes for everything.

BigPines

  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
  • Liked: 272
  • Member Rating Points: +28/-1
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2013, 08:54:26 PM »
Thanks. This is clearly a complicated subject but an interesting one. So, I accept that drivetrain losses in an average AWD vehicle are greater than in an average RWD vehicle. The Murcielago has a beefier transmission, an extra drive shaft and two extra differentials where power is lost. How much? We will probably never know.

Is sounds like trying comparing these losses to another built RWD vehicle is pointless. There is no good way to know which has more drivetrain losses let alone how much loss there actually is.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2013, 08:56:16 PM by BigPines »
If I don't have time to do it right, when will I have time to do it over?

Jadams

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 25
  • Member Rating Points: +3/-0
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2013, 08:35:18 PM »
I found this article

Drivetrain loss is a common topic of conversation in the tuner world because any time you strap your car to a chassis dyno, the output being measured is at the wheel, not at the crank like the published SAE net horsepower figures used by the auto industry. Strap your 298-bhp RevUp G35 Coupe to the dyno and you may be disappointed to see little more than 220-230 horses measured at the rear wheels. Where did that 60-plus horsepower go missing? It was used up in a variety of ways before it could reach the drive wheels, the primary source being what's broadly described as drivetrain loss.

 What's interesting about this example is that when you do the math you'll see that the percent loss is much higher than the 15 percent "rule" you'll find in any number of online threads on the subject. For whatever reason, drivetrain loss seems to be one of the most poorly understood subjects discussed on online car forums, so despite my love of the Internet and the limitless pornography it makes available to me, when it comes to a fairly technical subject like this it's hard to find good information.

 A few years ago, I needed to educate myself on drivetrain losses while heading a rulebook committee for a local racing series that wanted to use dyno tests to measure engine output and then convert the results to net horsepower. After fruitlessly Googling and sifting through endless car forum threads polluted with half-truths and misinformation, I turned to the same source that developed the current manufacturer horsepower standard, the Society of Automobile Engineers (SAE). On its website you can access brief summaries of technical papers published by some of the world's leading automotive engineers and download the complete documents for a relatively small fee (usually less than $10 per article). As luck would have it, in 2002 the SAE held a symposium on transmission and driveline systems, and the papers that came out of it covered drivetrain loss in great detail.

 One of the first things I learned from reading these papers was to completely disregard the 15 percent drivetrain loss "rule" (or any other percent value) that so often comes up during online discussions of whp versus net horsepower. The fact of the matter is every vehicle experiences different levels of drivetrain loss as determined by the design of its transmission and driveline components. Simply put, the amount of horsepower lost to the forces of inertia, drag, windage, pumping and friction are different for every engine, transmission and driveline design.

 So the total power lost between combustion and forward motion is specific to each vehicle and therefore no single rule, percentage or fixed number, could possibly apply to all vehicles. Even on the most superficial level, this is easy enough to understand because an all-wheel-drive Subaru obviously has a lot more driveline components to spin (front, middle and rear differentials along with front and rear driveshafts and two prop shafts) and a beefier transmission to hold all that turbocharged torque, so it's naturally going to suffer from greater drivetrain losses than a Honda Fit with its much smaller and less robust transmission, smaller and lighter driveshafts (and no prop shaft) and single differential.

 Breaking down the different types of losses that occur within a vehicle's drivetrain, steady-state losses occur while the vehicle is cruising at a steady or constant speed, where average angular acceleration is zero because no additional torque is being called upon to accelerate the drivetrain's rotational mass. Within the drivetrain, steady-state power losses occur from the following components: the transmission torque converter (in the case of automatic transmissions), the transmission oil pump, clutch pack drag, one-way clutch drag, seal and bearing drag, gear windage and friction, and final drive losses.

 Dynamic drivetrain losses, on the other hand, include the rotational inertial losses from angular acceleration occurring within the drivetrain while accelerating. In fact, during acceleration there are losses from the rotational inertia of spinning transmission and differential internals as well as driveline components like driveshafts and prop shafts, but also from the increased load and friction being generated between the gears within the transmission and differential(s). And as you already know, with increased friction comes increased heat (more on that later).

 It's important to understand the difference between steady-state and dynamic losses because SAE net horsepower, as reported by the auto industry, is measured in a steady-state condition. What this means is that the horsepower rating for your vehicle doesn't take into account dynamic losses that occur during acceleration. However, when you strap your car to a chassis dyno to measure its engine's output, the test is conducted at wide-open throttle and power is measured by the speed at which the dyno's rollers are accelerated. This means that drivetrain losses from rotational inertia and increasing friction, drag and windage are at work and will reduce the peak horsepower reading at the wheels.

 Within the drivetrain itself, the primary loss sources are the differential and final drive, with further losses stemming from within the transmission, and in the case of AWD vehicles, from the transfer case. Within the transmission, as much as 30 to 40 percent of power loss can be attributed to the pump, with the clutch contributing another 20 to 25 percent. The rest of the loss within the transmission comes from seal drag, gear meshing, bearings, bushings and windage (drag on the gears caused by the gear oil). However, when dyno testing in the direct drive (1:1) gear, power is delivered directly through the mainshaft of the transmission, so the only loss sources are windage, friction and drag, resulting in total at-the-wheel losses as low as 1.5 to 2 percent, according to the published data.

 Differential losses tend to be considerably larger, especially in the case of RWD and AWD vehicles where the torque path is turned 90 degrees as it enters the rear diff and exits it toward the rear wheels. In the case of hypoid-type gearsets (where the gear tooth profile is both curved and oblique) that are commonly used in RWD differentials, losses in the 6 to 10 percent range are the norm, while loss from the driveshaft(s) and prop shaft(s) tend to account for about 0.5 to 1 percent of total loss, depending on how well they're balanced and how many the vehicle is equipped with. In the case of FWD vehicles, the torque path is more direct to the front wheels and the use of efficient helical final drive gears means that drivetrain losses can be as much as 50 percent lower than on RWD and AWD vehicles.

 In any drivetrain component with meshing gearsets, heat generated by contact friction between the gears is a significant contributor to drivetrain loss. This is true during steady-state driving, but is far more of an issue when the throttle is mashed to the floor and the resulting thrust force and angular acceleration builds up in these drivetrain components. The heat generated by this dynamic friction is absorbed by the transmission and differential fluid as well as radiated to the atmosphere through the transmission and differential housing(s), and in some cases, via a heat exchanger or oil cooler. This absorbed and radiated heat is literally the conversion of engine torque into thermal energy because you can't technically "lose" power, but can only convert it into other things (some of our favorites being forward motion and tire smoke).

 It's also worth noting that the more powerful you make your engine, the greater the thrust force and angular acceleration it's able to exert on the drivetrain, generating even more friction and heat in the process. But because both steady-state and dynamic friction vary depending on engine speed, engine load and the efficiency of the engine and drivetrain's design (how well they limit friction and the associated thermal conversion of torque to heat), there's no way to apply a universal percent loss to it. Nor is it possible to apply a fixed drivetrain loss figure to your car (say 60 whp from my RevUp G35 example), because as you modify the engine and increase its output its ability to generate thrust force and angular acceleration also increases (though not in a linear fashion).

 In the end, there's no easy way to estimate the drivetrain loss your vehicle experiences on the road or even on the dyno. Coast-down tests are sometimes used on a dyno to attempt to measure frictional losses, but because this test is not dynamic (meaning they're not done while accelerating, but rather while coasting to a stop with the direct drive gear engaged but the clutch depressed so that the engine and transmission aren't linked) it really only captures steady-state drivetrain losses as well as rolling resistance. So rather than attempting to convert your vehicle's dyno-measured wheel horsepower to a SAE net horsepower figure using a percentage or a fixed horsepower value, you're far better off accepting the fact that these two types of horsepower measurements aren't easily correlated and forego any attempt at doing so.

BigPines

  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
  • Liked: 272
  • Member Rating Points: +28/-1
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2013, 08:22:18 PM »
From what I have been reading, sounds like AWD may actually have the advantage off the line due to the insane amount of traction (that is if you don't break something) but once you get rolling, the 15% or whatever loss due to the extra diffs will start to have an effect. If anyone knows more than this, I would really be interested to hear it.

Personally, I like the idea of AWD. Then again, I'm probably never going to the drag strip.  :D
If I don't have time to do it right, when will I have time to do it over?

dratts

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Liked: 14
  • Member Rating Points: +3/-0
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #16 on: June 09, 2013, 08:14:00 PM »
If we were talking front engine awd I could see where the awd might help with rear wheelspin.  With mid engine and rear engine cars and the weight transfer to the back on acceleration with them I question the benefit of power to the front wheels.  I could be wrong though.  Hp loss through awd?  The more mechanical stuff you push the hp through the more the hp loss.  You don't see too many awd cars at the drag strip.  At least I don't think that you do.  I haven't been to the strip lately.

BigPines

  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
  • Liked: 272
  • Member Rating Points: +28/-1
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #15 on: June 09, 2013, 07:41:11 PM »
I have no idea how much hp is lost driving the front wheels, but logic would indicate that there is some.  I don't think that four wheel drive would make a mid engine car quicker on acceleration.  I could be wrong though.  I was wrong once before.
As I said before, I don't think much if any HP could be lost due to AWD but I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure I was wrong once too. ;) To me, that is like saying a limited slip differential would be less efficient (waste more HP) than an open diff would because an open diff puts power to only one wheel when there is wheel slip instead of two wheels. When you think about it, this is actually backwards. In an open diff, more HP can be potentially wasted due to tire slippage. When the tires slip, this energy is wasted and isn't turned into forward propulsion. On the other hand, a limited slip allows less tire slip so more forward propulsion is obtained for the same amount of energy being expended by the engine/transmission. Basically, more traction equals less wasted energy/torque. Right?

Let's apply this to the Murcielago as an example since I know a LITTLE bit about how it works. Both front and rear differentials have limited slip which means using this AWD system, even if only one tire has grip, the car will keep moving forward - this is good. The front and rear diffs have the same gearing so it doesn't matter if the torque is sent to the front or the rear, the forward propulsion gained should be the same. The transmission sends one drive shaft to the front differential and one to the rear diff. From what I understand, these drive shafts are mechanically coupled - in other words when one turns, the other turns at the same rate.

The rear diff is not materially different than any other RWD vehicle. It uses a standard type of drive shaft connection at the diff. In fact, some people who prefer the feel of RWD actually disconnect/remove the front diff in a Murcielago to essentially make the car RWD.

Now lets talk about what is different between this AWD implementation and RWD. Between the front drive shaft and the front diff, there is a center diff called a viscous coupler which is a type of 1:1 limited slip differential. Like most front/rear diffs, this device is completely mechanical and requires no electronics to control it. The viscous coupler controls how much of the power from the front drive shaft is transferred to the front diff and eventually the front tires. The default power split is 30/70 front/rear. The viscous coupler is able to sense front/rear tire slippage and change this ratio by controlling the amount of torque transferred to the front diff depending on wheel slip in the front or rear.

So exactly where are we losing HP? It shouldn't be the front diff because it is the same effective ratio as the rear. The only thing left is the center diff but since the rear wheels always have power from the transmission, if all things are equal, they should always be able to turn torque into forward propulsion at the same rate of a RWD vehicle.

The Murcielago is said to do 0-60 in 3.6 seconds (3.4 for the LP640). It isn't the fastest car out there but it isn't a slouch either. It doesn't seem like AWD is hurting it.

I'm not trying to be a smart butt here. I would like to hear your logic of why you believe HP is lost. I am very interested in this subject for personal reasons. :)

Mike
« Last Edit: June 09, 2013, 08:05:52 PM by BigPines »
If I don't have time to do it right, when will I have time to do it over?

madmods

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 17
  • Member Rating Points: +1/-0
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #14 on: June 09, 2013, 07:33:21 PM »
Plenty of 800-1000hp supras out there.
Keep dreaming-I'm sweating, glassing, welding and building every night!
Gagliardi Vendetta
Vetter Carrera Gt
Vetter Lp 640

lamboman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • Liked: 0
  • Member Rating Points: +1/-0
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2013, 07:24:06 PM »
awd cars will walk away from a rear wheel car with the same bhp if it is geared correctly. I have seem some awd cars race some balls out cars and beat them in the 1/4 mile. Amazing  ::beers

satinta

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Liked: 12
  • Member Rating Points: +0/-0
Re: Proof the Aventador Still Isn't Fast Enough...
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2013, 11:55:38 AM »
I aspire to get my replica as fast as the Supra someday. #Impressive!

http://youtu.be/pJNW_Yt3sJk


Jayso

That's a highly modified Supra with probably well over $20,000 invested in parts alone if not more vs a bone stock Aventador. Not really a fair comparison. Id like to see that Supra run a UGR Aventador to equal the playing field


You don't ever have to race That Supra.  It's been melted down into soup cans by now...