cheapest way to boost power

[Zxrob]

Power / weight ratio has to be the way to compare performance one vehicle with another. As you have mentioned, often, adding lightness is a way of improving the ratio and thereby improving performance.

Off topic, but sort of on topic, one of my bike has a power to weight ratio of 1063bhp/tonne and that's at the rear wheel

I would suggest that a standard MR2 will be making around 110-120 at the wheels, true power not crank figures

Rob

[Joesson]

For the very pedantic ( such as @househead) among the readers bhp/ tonne is in itself not a correct measure. The reference I first made was my recollection of what was said on a TV programme. It could equally have been bhp/ ton, but the difference of 40 lb is not much more than a good lunch and the gf's handbag. Those that are bothered the following is courtesy of Which:

Most cars measure power by the horse, but bhp isn't the only unit manufacturers use to tell us how much oomph there is in the engine. Pferdestärke, or PS for short, and Kilowatts (kW) are both lesser used units for determining a car's engine power that mostly show up in mainland Europe.

So for the benefit of our international membership I guess I should have written PS/ tonne!

If "my memory serves me well" (guess the song)   I think it was an item on Top Gear looking at what was a "sensible limit" on the power that could be used on a front wheel drive car before it became undriveable as "torque steer" took over.

"Sensible" is not a word I would use for the TG presenter I'm  thinking of. I thought it was cars in general but I wouldn't bet my pension on it.

[Joesson]

Power / weight ratio has to be the way to compare performance one vehicle with another. As you have mentioned, often, adding lightness is a way of improving the ratio and thereby improving performance.

Off topic, but sort of on topic, one of my bike has a power to weight ratio of 1063bhp/tonne and that's at the rear wheel

I would suggest that a standard MR2 will be making around 110-120 at the wheels, true power not crank figures

Rob

I would be wearing brown trousers if on your bike! I am not a motorcyclist having ridden only one motorised two wheeler, on one wheel, for around 200 yards in my teens. But " affordable" bikes I guess must take first place for power/ weight ratio. Maybe something very exotic petrol powered or now an electric or hybrid would challenge that on four wheels.

[Petrus]

If "my memory serves me well" (guess the song)   I think it was an item on Top Gear looking at what was a "sensible limit" on the power that could be used on a front wheel drive car before it became undriveable as "torque steer" took over.

I have heard the 100 hp per 1000 kilo back in the late seventies as the definition of a performance car.

Concerning fwd I´ve heard and read umpteen limits that shifted over the decades as front suspension geometry design developed. Where are we currently? 320 hp in a Civic?

[Petrus]

Let us stay with the numbers for a bit and play with the 135 hp per 1000 kg.

Reducing 100 kilo equals adding 13.5 hp.

The bonus of that is that adding kWs to the lower weight multiplies the ratio per 1000 kilo by 1.11 so adding 13.5 gets to be 14.85.

Playing a bit more;
with a 190 hp TTE turbo and 1050 kilo we get 18 hp per 1000 kg.
with only 160 n.a. but 900 kilo we get 17.8 hp and a 14% lighter car.

[shnazzle]

Jesus. This thread escalated. 
Not sure we're still on topic.

[Petrus]

Jesus. This thread escalated.
Not sure we're still on topic.

Let the OP judge ;-)

In mý perception we are extensively exhausting ´more performance for limited outlay´ :-)

[Zxrob]

Reducing 100 kilo equals adding 13.5 hp.

No it does not, it increases the power to weight ratio, not magically add "real power"

Rob

[Petrus]

Reducing 100 kilo equals adding 13.5 hp.

No it does not, it increases the power to weight ratio, not magically add "real power"

Rob

Hence ´equals´ and not ´adds´.
And in effect it does MÓRE for performance than adding 13.5 would ;-)

[Zxrob]

Reducing 100 kilo equals adding 13.5 hp.

No it does not, it increases the power to weight ratio, not magically add "real power"

Rob

Hence ´equals´ and not ´adds´.
And in effect it does MÓRE for performance than adding 13.5 would ;-)

You incorporated the word "adding" in your post

Have you been a politician at some time

Rob

[kwnelson]

Ardent,  Sorted,  I am going to shed 2 stones from my body weight of 16 stone.  I will let the people of the Forum calculate the net gain on the road.    2/16 x launch =  ?

[Zxrob]

I would be wearing brown trousers if on your bike! I am not a motorcyclist having ridden only one motorised two wheeler, on one wheel, for around 200 yards in my teens. But " affordable" bikes I guess must take first place for power/ weight ratio. Maybe something very exotic petrol powered or now an electric or hybrid would challenge that on four wheels.

Power is useless without control

Take a look at this vid (skip to 7.0 min), highlights the difference between performance road bike and car, the bike is the same as mine, but 100k less than the porker

Rob

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Inl6o1psp5Q

[Petrus]

You incorporated the word "adding" in your post

Have you been a politician at some time

Rob

No need to stab under water. Regardless of the wink.

You may very well have a point but nevertheless a bit of flexibility from your part, especially since you appearantly master your language better, would suit you; I am after all expressing myself in my third language. No excuse, just be kind ;-)

Have a nice day. Have fun. Enjoy the power/weight ratio whichever that may be!

[shnazzle]

Topic locked. Gone further astray than the characters of the Incredible Journey, except for that those characters made it back home...
End