Tarheel, I can't recall any numbers since it has been so long since I read it, but in one of my suspension theory books the author delves into the limits of grip that occur as a result of the coefficient of grip between the road surface and the tire in terms of the material properties of each. The conclusion that he provides is that the theoretical grip is typically quite a bit lower than the actual grip that is capable of being generated due to surface flaws in the roadway which, on a near microscopic level, will allow for some portion of the rubber to sink into the flaws (cracks, holes, etc) and assert a sheer force against the side of these crevasses which rapidly increases the grip level, much the same way that cleats stabbing into ice is going to produce a higher coefficient of grip than smooth metal across smooth ice is capable of.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you that this car sounds like bullshit.

 

I could be completely wrong as we are talking about probably 2002 since I last heard anything about that car, but yes, that is the car I was referring to. However, according to the thread that I was discussing this car on a nearly a decade ago I was told that the car held the record as the fastest street legal car in America, meaning it could pass Texas inspection and all that is entailed in being street legal, allegedly INCLUDING street legal rubber.

At the time, I was really challenging this car's "title" and I suggested that it was on slicks only to be shown that I was mistaken and that it was on DOT approved rubber, albeit DOT approved drag radials or something to that effect. I can't tell one way or the other by looking at the video you posted.

Again, I could be remembering it wrong but I distinctly recall being proven wrong about my assertions that the car was on slicks and the car was allegedly on "street" tires when it pulled the often quoted 0-60 under 2 seconds.

Furthermore, let's not forget that a Corvette is a far cry from the ideal car to be used for drag launches and any car with a well designed four link rear end would have an advantage, all other things being equal, over an IRS Vette.

Once again, I think this Dagger thing is bs, I'm merely providing anecdotes.

 

Goddammit. Do I have to spell this out? I am not saying that this Dagger car can do any of the things it says it can, I am merely stating that the notion that it takes anything even remotely resembling a top fuel car to get the results the Dagger can supposedly get is not accurate.

Furthermore, your traction bar statement is largely irrelevant unless they are planning making the Dagger FWD.

 

Err, no. I know exactly what's you're talking about, and that's the basis for the great majority of friction. However, with that type of friction you will rarely (I'm fairly sure it's never, but never say never) get a coefficient of friction above 1. Two smooth surfaces is the best way to get lots of traction. Adhesion is a much more powerful form of friction than rough edges banging together. Tire compounds for racing slicks are designed around adhesion, not the concept of roughness. Why do you think heat matters?

I'm 100% on this, as both my 2 years of physics and the guy with 30+ years in the racing business I learned vehicle dynamics from agree upon it.

You generate much higher levels of friction in theory than in reality because we don't race on anywhere near a smooth surface, and slightest bit of sand would throw everything off.

I realize we both agree on the BS about this car, but I'm arguing the specs are literally IMPOSSIBLE on street tires and non-drag racing slicks. If you've studied suspension theory you should be familiar with traction circles and know what I'm talking about when I mention those.

 

those are my fav

 

Wow, so much hate. Where's the love guys?

 

Seriously. As car enthusiasts we should be happy if someone achieves this. Save your skepticism for politics and religion.

 

Those stats are bullshit! The price is way more bullshit.

 

Believing this car's specs would take a religious mindset.

 

You are mistaken about some of what you claim, which I will address in detail momentarily, but I want to start by addressing your last sentence. I could just as easily end my rebuttal by saying, "If you actually did study two years of physics you should know this," but I think we can both agree that such a phrase would be a bit condescending. Naturally, I'm not exactly pleased that you felt the need to evoke such a tone in an otherwise friendly discussion and I'd appreciate if this were the last of it.

[QUOTE]Err, no.