I have a question for /o/ that ive had in my mind for a few weeks now. Which would win in a drag race, one car on its own or 3 of the same car bolted together? I think the 3 bolted together would win, but I dont know why.
>>15398723
More cars= more weight=less acceleration
???
>>15398723
Wow and to think I thought my shitposting was bad.
>>15398723
The 3 bolted cars since the mid and rear cars are drafting like mad behind the first one.
You'd have to get creative with engine cooling tho.
>>15398723
3 bolted cars because air resistance. 2 of 3 cars have less resistance in front or back.
If you would bolt them on doors, they would have same almost speed i think
>>15398723
Bolted together, no since power to weight ratio would stay the same. However, if they launch separately the front two cars could draft slingshoot the rearmost to higher speeds (given enough distance) than a single car could reach alone.
>>15398723
The one car, because identical power to weight ratio but without fucked-up aerodynamics and undamped vibrations.
>>15398723
Well if theyre automatics then the stringed together cars wont shift at the precisely the same time, i think thise cars will be pulling and tugging at each other the whole way down. It might not be a blowout race but it deffo wint be as fast as the single car
>>15399649
>fucked-up aerodynamics
Actually, the aerodynamics would be better, since the rear cars would be able to draft.
>undamped vibrations.
Wat?
>>15399819
Actually, given identical gearing, they would shift at the same point. Howeverx if they didn't, they would be quicker - with two cars providing power while one car shifts. Look up the Mosler TwinStar to get the gist of it.
bolted together. better aerodynamics, more drive wheels for a better launch, etc.
>>15399857
Identical number of wheels per amount of power.
>>15399849
Are you sure they shift at the same time? Wouldnt each individual car have different shifting habits? And youre saying that it would actually be beneficial if they shifted at a different time? I thought it would be an out of sync mess
>>15398736
this isn't shitposting this is normal internet discussion
you can't tell the difference anymore
>>15399911
Yes. Under full load, most automatics would shift at redline - which is the exact same point, if there's three cars with the same type of engine, same type of transmission and the same rear end ratio.
If they shifted at different times, two engines would be accelerating while one would be shifting, always putting down power.
>>15399911
The rear cars would need to shift before the front car cause.... Wait, if the rears ha e less air resistance they could accelerate faster, but they still need to push the front car. And then the front car would accelerate at the same rate (assuming all cars are manual and not slush box autos).
But isn't that the something law of relativity or sometime. As an object gets heavier it's required energy to move it gets higher? Or something along those lines.
>>15398723
The rear car will move a little faster due to drafting and push the other two more, so it'll want to shift earlier, while it's doing that the front car will have to start pulling the two behind, and the middle gets to do both jobs.
All the shifts will be mismatched pretty quickly. I think the single car would win.
>>15399937
OP clearly posted the cars are automatic, mot manual.
That's not the law of relativity. You're talking of Newton's second law (F=m*a), which basically means that, in order to achieve the same acceleration, you need to linearly increase force to compensate for added mass. Since the ratio of force to mass is identical (1 engine per 1 car in the left lane, 3 engines per 3 cars in the right lane), acceleration in a vacuum should be identical.
>>15399972
Mismatched shifts should mean the three cars are co tinously accelerating though, which should make them faster. Also, you're underestimating the effect of aerodynamic drafting.
>>15399849
>Wat?
Cars vibrate. Bolting cars together would cause those to interfere with each other.
And 'RWD automatic' suggests american shitboxes, so they'd probably shed bits all down the strip anyway.
>>15400053
Cars vibrate indeed, but suspension and motor mounts solve that. There's no reason to assume they'd suddenly starting vibrating at their harmonic frequency.
Memeing doesn't solve a pshysics problem.
>>15399972
Wouldn't the rear cars shift later since there's less air resistance? The front car would be under the most load from air resistance and redline before the mid and rear cars
Sorry if I'm retarded, I don't know much about physics
How would less air resistance make a car shift faster. As longs as all 3 move at the exact same speed, their wheels & engines will spin at identical RPMs?
Y'all are overthinking this.
There wouldn't be any difference in the single car versus the three car arrangement since the Hp/lb ratio remains the same.
>>15400578
air resistance tho
same reason why stock cars used to run in pairs at daytona
>>15400578
If it was in a vacuum, yes.
However, in the real world, aerodynamics exist. The three cars would have a better (longer) aerodynamic profile, therefore being faster than the single car.
It's good to know that /o/ isn't full of uneducated idiots.
>>15400053
OP here. E series falcons, so Australian shitboxes. I was going to specify foxbody mustangs to try and win /o/ approval, but don't kniw what kw or what gearboxes they had available
>>15400623
Aerodynamically yes, but let's also not forget that 3 cars bolted together would essentially screw up the suspension and traction would be a lot worse.
>>15400656
V8 Mustangs had between 140 and 225 hp iirc and 3 and 4 speed autoboxes.
>>15400769
220HP long and heavy Falcons aren't exactly struggling for traction.
FUCK. This is an actually interesting topic, despite what I thought after the first glance.
We have to test this.
Next level
3 cars bolted together, or three cars, not bound together, running within 6 inches of eah other.
>>15401516
The unbound cars wouldn't be able to push each other, resulting in lower trap speed (which is all we've got to decrease ET in this instance). Also, I think it wouod create aerodynamic turbulence right between the cars.
>>15400656
4.0L L6 and that power. I was sure it was a falcodore
>>15398736
no yours is worse as it invites no discussion
>>15399923
make it so when one engine is shifting the other is pulling
that way as a whole it is a shiftless transmission of power
>>15398723
depends how firmly the cars a bolted together
if its a strong link each car in front would be pushing down the front wheels of the car behind it
>>15401467
If only for the spectacle
>>15401516
>>15403456
Second car drafts the first and overtakes it while the third is still drafting the second. Then the third overtakes the second and the first (now third) overtakes and so on. Thus they could in (bad) theory keep a higher average speed.
>>15400623
>The three cars would have a better (longer) aerodynamic profile
ah, yes, the most famous natural law of aerodynamics, "LONGER IS BETTAH"
>>15404076
Or, you know, the two at the rear just draft and push the lead car and avoid the wasted energy overtaking...
>>15404497
But this is true. If you need to have X amount of weight, aerodynamically it's better to have a longer thinner object than a shorter fatter one.
Have you seen planes?
3 cars together in an ideal world would be faster. However being bolted together there might be weird things that happen engine-wise when one car is pushed or pulled by the others.. Hard to say. It would either work like a hybrid system, with the power from one being used to fill voids in the power from another (during shifting for instance), or they would kind of interfere with each other in some complex way that I would not be able to guess at (that sort of shit always happens in actual testing).
As for the other anon that mentioned the front car revving higher because it has the brunt of the drag.. That's not how rpms work unless your clutch/converter is slipping a lot.
>>15398723
the one on the left
>aerodynamics
I'm sure being shaped like a weird Toblerone is better than a car designed to be aerodynamic
>>15398723
They would accelerate at the same speed up to a point. The 3 cars together would have a much faster top speed because there's three times the power. Weight doesn't factor into top speed, just the time it takes to get there.
Aero drag wouldn't be that substantially higher to reduce the top speed of the 3 cars either.
Maybe in a 1/4 mile the 3 cars would barely edge out the one car, but over longer distances the 3 cars would pull far away from the single car.
