Dodge Tomahawk vs Dodge Viper

thybigballs Says:

May 20, 2012 - Whats with the bullshit all over the screen? This was a failed video.

SlyNine Says:

May 20, 2012 - Yes, but at least driving a car upside complies nicely with the laws of physics, since the downforce ensures that the car would indeed push down (up) more then gravity would pull it down.But their is no way this bike can hit 400mph outside of a vacuum, and of course in a vacuum it couldn't run.

Lovefree007 Says:

May 20, 2012 - nice to know that you're riding something that can smoke absolutely ANYTHING on the road, even without racing them.but the problem is,a guy who would pay gazillion dollars to have that much power between his legs , has gotta be compensating for something ;)

tanusangelo Says:

May 21, 2012 - two undriveble pieces of american shit jajajajajajajaa

Thisissaj12100 Says:

May 21, 2012 - @Tanusangelo it's hahahahaha not jajajajaja

unicyclerider15 Says:

May 21, 2012 - its only half the weight of the car? why even make the bike?! just keep the car

hongtiger Says:

May 22, 2012 - daaaaaaaaaam Thisissaj12100 shut you up bad lmao

evaant14 Says:

May 23, 2012 - honda civic is ugly as fuck but are good for tuning

Angel07CE Says:

May 24, 2012 - As ridiculous as it may sound, yes. It would just take longer to accelerate to that top speed. Weight reduction is very important, but for acceleration and cornering ability rather than top speed. 

ticonike2 Says:

May 24, 2012 - el clio 1.6 es mejor

ROMECISTA Says:

May 24, 2012 - ten motor jest beznadziejny

MultiIdontwantachann Says:

May 24, 2012 - rofl

FreeRunMonster802 Says:

May 24, 2012 - all i'm saying is if u have to blocks with wheelsone that weighs 500 poundsone that ways 5000and they both have the same engine, wheels, and aero, the 500 pound block would have a higher top speed. theres no way they'd have the same.

Angel07CE Says:

May 24, 2012 - So one would think. I know it's counterintuitive but it's somewhat similar to how if you simultaneously drop a 200kg ball and a 2kg ball from 3 stories up, they'll hit the ground at the same time. In that case one would expect the extra weight would make a ball fall faster, but acceleration due to gravity doesn't depend on mass. Same goes for terminal velocity of an object where gravity isn't a propulsive force (ie. On a straight road. Downhill the top speed would be faster for a heavier car)

Angel07CE Says:

May 24, 2012 - From a basic physics perspective, an object with a net force in one direction, accelerates in that direction, F=ma. Top speed is defined as the point where you can't accelerate any further, i.e. a=0. Now mass can't be zero, so F=0. For force to be zero you can either not start the engine and have zero force that way, or you can cancel out the maximal power output of the engine. Ie. engine power = resistance forces. What pushes back on a car on a straight road is road friction + air resistance.

Angel07CE Says:

May 25, 2012 - Road friction is given by CRF*N, CRF depends on the properties of the tyre only and is usually around 0.01 for a car. N is the normal force, roughly 9.8*mass in kg. So a 1000kg car would have 98N of road friction, a 2000kg car would have 196N. Air resistance on the other hand is given by 0.5*rho*v^2*CdA. Rho is the density of the air, CdA is the drag area, which describes how streamlined an object is basically, 0.745 for a Viper GTS body. V is speed.

Angel07CE Says:

May 25, 2012 - So the top speed would be where road friction + air resistance = maximum forward force (ie. no acceleration). Converting forward force to engine power at the wheels (using P=Fv, in a straight line), and rearranging to get velocity at propulsive force = resistance (top speed), we get v=((2P-2CRFN)/(rho*CdA))^(1/3). So for a 1000kg viper with a 340kW engine, v=((680000-196)/(1.2*0.745))^(1/3) = 91.27m/s = 328.58km/h. For a 2000kg viper, v=((680000-392)/(1.2*0.745))^(1/3) = 91.26m/s = 328.55km/h.

Angel07CE Says:

May 25, 2012 - This is very simplified, in reality the car's CdA will depend on air temperature, pressure, windspeed, the car's own velocity and the how the downforce is distributed, but this change is the same for both the 1000kg and the 2000kg viper, so again the difference will be less than 0.5km/h between a lighter and a heavier viper.

awesomedude319783 Says:

May 25, 2012 - Angle u r a nerd

dazipfl Says:

May 25, 2012 - FUCKING UGLY BIKE !

88XR4TI Says:

May 25, 2012 - Lets see....a bike with a viper engine vs a viper, and you are "pretty sure" the bike would win?

KTM990WFO Says:

May 26, 2012 - Weight has very little to do with top speed, thats why the Bugatti Veyron is the current fastest production car and why aircraft carriers are faster than frigates. Weight pertains mostly to acceleration. Top speed requires a slippery drag coefficient and peak power. Air doesn't care how much you weigh, only how aerodynamic you are.

waldomademedoit Says:

May 27, 2012 - No, Angel07CE is correct... the heavier block would go faster. *smh*

waldomademedoit Says:

May 27, 2012 - If acceleration isn't due to gravity, how is the top speed higher for the heavier car while going downhill, but not straight down as per your bowling ball anecdote?I do agree though. I have a Buick with a 3.6 liter supercharged engine and I kick a lot of lighter cars with the same motor's asses.

Angel07CE Says:

May 27, 2012 - I only mentioned that to show how physics can seem seem counterintuitive at times. But you're right, eventually the heavier bowling ball will reach a higher top speed, that's why I specified 3 stories because neither will have reached their top speed by that point and since they accelerate at the same rate, they'll have had the same velocities and so the same positions at the same times the whole way down..