Brett240 Posted March 14, 2005 Share #49 Posted March 14, 2005 true that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomoHawk Posted March 14, 2005 Share #50 Posted March 14, 2005 NO, don't think my math is off. I used the wrong numbers. By going 186 MPH in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation ( to an observer in space), your'e still going 700-186=514 MPH in the same direction, which agrees with your statement. To be going backward to our observer you need to be going 700+186=886 MPH in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation.In addition, your statement about speed is correct. SPEED is only a magnitude, and VELOCITY has magnitude and direction. So if you use the word "velocity" while bragging about "speed" you need to include the "direction" (probably forward) to be correct. Ask any high-school physics student.Airplanes- I've litterally seen one fly off the ground with NO groundspeed. There was a sudden windstorm with gusts to 80 MPH. I can even attest to your other example by a friend of mine who hovered over a runway in an airplane (60 kt crosswind).thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob m Posted March 14, 2005 Share #51 Posted March 14, 2005 How fast is fast? is a relative question, but if your z can go 170mph (3.0l to 2.0l) you would set the land speed record at Bonneille Salt Flats. The record is 169, I would say that is fast.Bob M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cremmenga Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share #52 Posted March 16, 2005 all in good time and you will see my name as the new record holder!How fast is fast? is a relative question, but if your z can go 170mph (3.0l to 2.0l) you would set the land speed record at Bonneille Salt Flats. The record is 169, I would say that is fast.Bob M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moyest Posted March 17, 2005 Share #53 Posted March 17, 2005 That doesn't seem too unattainable? I once looked at buying a 240Z that did the old "diesel crank" trick to turn his 2.4litre into a 3.1litre - it was speed trialled (with documentation - which alone impressed me!) at 163mph. I'm sure if he'd lightened the car by taking out passenger seat and spare wheel, etc it might have made 170mph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyroSparks911 Posted March 17, 2005 Share #54 Posted March 17, 2005 "Dude, your face would blow off. Plus aeroplanes haven't come with targa tops in years. Vicky" Vicky, when he said the targa top was out, he meant in the Ferrari, not in the airplane. Read it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrush Posted March 17, 2005 Share #55 Posted March 17, 2005 I know, I was just funnin' the guy. :laugh: Vicky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zguitar71 Posted March 17, 2005 Share #56 Posted March 17, 2005 Where I work we have an old peice of $hit dump truck bought as surplus from the military. In that truck 35 MPH is fast to me. The thing starts to shake and the steering gets very loose and the front wheels start to shake so bad you can not even steer the truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett240 Posted March 17, 2005 Share #57 Posted March 17, 2005 That doesn't seem too unattainable? I once looked at buying a 240Z that did the old "diesel crank" trick to turn his 2.4litre into a 3.1litre - it was speed trialled (with documentation - which alone impressed me!) at 163mph. I'm sure if he'd lightened the car by taking out passenger seat and spare wheel, etc it might have made 170mph?nope,weight is only i tiny factor in top speed. aerodynamic drag would be the biggest thing to work on to go any faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now