ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
thats good enough for me ....they r idiots to contradict themselves though !
Jock
Rich-D
ClioSport Club Member
E90 LCI 330d
Even the lad that owns the CTR is dubious about the accuracy of that result.
The 0-60 time is ok, but the 0-100 time is fast, way too fast for a boggo CTR.
Now I was in the car at the time and it did feel fookin quick and I knew it was gonna be quick, but were like "uh?!" when we saw the time!
I wish hed taken it to Pod this weekend then we could have seen how fast it ran the 1/4 mile!
The only real way to tell is to run the thing head-to-head in a drag style race against the Clios we had last night.
If it does "genuinely" toast them all then yes, it is a fookin quick car, but well have to see...
ok, fact the AP22 IS VERY, VERY ACCURATE !
it needs to be set up for each vehicle for power runs.. but not for speed timing (that is based on Gforce and time only)
the only thing that leads to innacuracies is the mounting position in the car, and the flatness of the road it is tested on.
providing the mounting pos is the same in all cars tested, and the same road is used, the results are accurate across the range.
if the road is not flat.. then you will alter the figures - ie - a car can accelerate downhill faster than on the flat.. and will be subsequently slower uphill.
Joe..
ps, anyone not happy with the ap22 then I will give you 100 quid per unit...
cant say fairer than that huh ??
Hmm Im not so sure about the accuracy of speed/acceration timings Joe. Remember it has a squat setting to compensate for the effect that the rear of the vehicle squatting has on the accelerometer. So it clearly makes a difference how hard your suspension is.
To the accelerometer it makes no difference how the acceleration force deflects the device itself - whether this is achieved through genuine forward acceleration or through the tilt of the car to the rear because of squat. To the accelerometer there is no difference in the direction of these two forces, only in the size.
So vehicle squat clearly has an effect on the speed that the unit calculates from its continuous acceleration readings. And if it is a factor that could effect the speed/acceleration calculations, why then is there a simple range from 0.14 to 0.07 (this is just from memory btw!) with the explanation 0-14 for a road car and 0.7 for full race suspension, or something along those lines. Not exactly accurate I dont think. Would be better to actually put a fixed weight in the boot of the car, eg an 80kg person, measure the squat at the back of the car, and then enter the 80kg weight and the amount of squat in mm. Then the unit could work out a proper accurate squat correction.
Another thing as well if youre not convinced - you can put the unit in your hand and tilt it front to back slowly and steadily and get a 0-60 reading for your hand!
I know this is a silly example, obviously the unit would give a reading because its measuring acceleration force caused by the movement of your hand. But the point is, however much you tweak it, the unit still has no way of discerning what the force is caused by and whether its relevant to the timing its doing. I still say some form of external measurement is the only truly accurate way. Alternatively, have the accelerometers somewhere low down where they be subject to only forward and backward motions, not up and down - perhaps on the subframe somewhere, on a rubber pad.
Hi Nick, yes, the squat does have an effect, but it is minimal.
the ap22 isnt meant to replace bolt on timing gear or RR. It is a means of reference. (And as such, is extremely accurate as said).
squat at the rear causes an increase in timing, the transition to flat can cause a corresponding decrease.
but, as a means of comparison it is bloody excellent
If you mount it in the same place in your car, and use the same road.. then the differential is totally accurate (to all intents and purposes)
I like your idea re the weight in the back though !
Joe.
Rich-D
ClioSport Club Member
E90 LCI 330d
Soooo... you reckon these times are good then Joe?!
The Clios last night were all tested on the same strip of road, all around the same time, with same weather, etc... so good for doing a like-for-like comparison, which was why we used the AP22 in the first place!
The CTR was done at lunchtime today on a dead straight, very level piece of road (A59 at Samlesbury actually), so a good surface to get an accurate result, or so we though!
It did feel fookin quick at the time and we did expect it to be a fast time.
Just seems "too" quick really...
13.5 seconds sounds astonishing for a CTR. My well run in ITR, which ran 194 bhp on Power Engineerings RR, did 16.2 to 100, and 6.7 to 60, with the AP22.
For those of you who quote magazine figures, remember that the UK magazines test their cars with two people on board and half a tank of petrol, do several runs back and forth, and average the runs. There was a discussion about this in Performance Car magazine once. For example, the ITR did a one way run of 5.5 seconds( now that IS fast! ), but the overall and official test result was 6.2 in Performance Car.
The AP22 is definitely useful for assessing the difference that modifications do to the car, but is not advocated as an absolute and scientific measurement of acceleration, although it IS rather accurate. The best way nowadays is to use GPS based accelerometers, but these are very expensive.
The Mk1 172 sounds like it was slightly down on power, and probably needs a proper RR setup, and a good look over by the car doctor.
I am still looking forward to the CUP...
VW Transporter 174
Ive raced 2 CTRs and done one and stayed with the other but i have drawn no conclusions from my encounters with them as i dont know how many miles a CTR needs under the belt to achieve full power.
If the truth be known i found the 172s harder to race.
172 slayer
Renault Laguna Coupe
I test drove the CTR loads before buying the Clio - there was very little i it, certainly not that much!! Overall I reckoned I could get more fun out of the Clio hence the purchase. Still smiling!
Rich, re the ctr.
try it again, but this time do runs both ways on the same stretch of road..
Joe.
My CTR test was obviously not quite right some way. At the end of the day all the mags say the 0-60 times of the CTR and 172 are similar(slightly quicker in the Cup) and the 0-100 is a bit (second, second and half) quicker in the CTR....at the end of the day it comes down to driver so doing the testing to compare them is a bit pointless IMHO....all the mag tests cant be wrong afterall!
On the road there isnt going to be any significant difference, just whos the better driver and who puts their foot down first!
0-60 order youd say:-
V6
Cup
CTR/172
0-100 order youd say:-
CTR
V6/Cup
172
But all in all there isnt much between any of them.
Whats the point? on one day one might be faster, another day the other might be faster...the difference in speed is obviously small and wont be apparent on the road (only if there is a big difference in driver skill). The mags have all covered this and come to the near enough the same times considering different cars, drivers and conditions.
that will be good if you do that test ... ive always wanted to talk to someone who has raced a CTR Vs 172..... my assumption is that to 60mph it will be pretty similar ..then around 70mph the CTR will start to pull away... when r u going to do the test????
Jock
i am fully aware of all the mag tests between these 2.... i am also very aware of the bullsh*t they spin as well. Theres been so many contradictions i dont know what to believe ..... ive never seen or heard of someone putting a CTR Vs 172 against eachother in 0-100 sprint b4 .... This is more interesting to me !! therefore am anxiously curious to know the results
Jock
Well if you were in France on the trip you would have seen just that. CTR vs 172 many times, up to at least 100 cos when I was racing Jas in his 172 I got a dodgy start and reeled him in slowly but he said I would have overhauled him at 115 or something. To be honest I wasnt watching the speedo, just the revs, but the dragstrip was at least 1/3 of a mile.
Now, one thing I do know is that I outran a CTR and someone in a 172, so if a CTR can do 0-100 in 13.5 then that means I can do it in less than that. Which is b****cks cos I just ran a 15.2 @ 91mph at Santa Pod, whose timing gear I trust. That probably comes out as 0-100 in around 16-17 seconds.
did u watch any of the CTRs take on the 172s ?????
who won ???? by how much ???
Jock
Jock, they are much of a muchness...prolly 172 slightly faster to 60, CTR faster to 100...read all the tests and the 172 is faster to 60 in most and the CTR is always faster to 100....on the road the differences will be very small. Be happy with the 172 and CTR, IMHO the best cars u can buy for the cash (CooperS is just to girly and not fast enough ).
Heres a fun little link for u to alls look at... http://www.syclone.freeserve.co.uk/rivals_cars.htm This gives ya the 1/4 miles for all cars, just about half way down u will c clio sport 172 2000 model, doing 1/4 mile .2 seconds quicker than clio v6! And faster by .1 second over the sunny gti-r! And mushing the vw V6 four motion! And my blessed vr6! Aparently quicker than Civic Type R! have a looksies! Me gotta get one of these badboys..... oh and knick me m8s turbo conversion! Btw Im the kiddy who was with manch at the rolling road day 2 sundays ago. Those who went will know. LOL nice Novas...... cough
Rich-D ... i think amongst your tests of the CTR ..u should ask someone to bring there uk mk1 172 down ..so u can do tests on that again ....
Jock
Rich
surely you forgot the other renault sport model - the 1.4 16v, with my blacked out tints, body coloured bumpers, front splitter, modified 205 spoiler, DTM mirrors, fat zorst, and when I got my 17s on!!!! it definetly looks nicer than the 172!!!
next time i think you should include this rude boys motor.
