If some of you were curious what the racetrack is like in Mission, here is a video I took last week when I was there for a track day.  I think Brian has brought up track days in the past, so consider this a reminder of what fun you can have out there and not worry about the police.  lol!

The best way to get on the track is to come to a few autox events first to get a feel for how your car behaves when really pushed and to learn some real car handling skills.  Then sign up with a track day group that has instructors and you will have a ton of fun out there.

This video is 3 laps of Mission Raceway and I'm taking it fairly easy in the turns.  I'm just getting a feel for the new suspension and enjoying the ride. 

I put a speedometer on the video but it's in mph, not km/h.  Silly US-based software developers....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU-p2e3YOwI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU-p2e3YOwI

Check back near the end of August. 

AllanJ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eOlxDj-5g - New personal best lap

Man, I love that display with the video! It's great being able to see exactly where you are on the track with that moving red dot.

Is that long straightaway actually the 1/4 mile dragstrip?

Patrick wrote: Man, I love that display with the video! It's great being able to see exactly where you are on the track with that moving red dot. Is that long straightaway actually the 1/4 mile dragstrip?

It's nice software and the company seems quite responsive to enhancing it as they can when users give their feedback.

The straightaway we use (for the road course) is the end of the 1/4 mile dragstrip.  It's where the cars slow down and then they use part of the road course (turn 3 through turn 7) to slowly cruise back to the start of the drag strip.

I've quoted this from another thread, but it seems odd that nothing has yet been announced about the upcoming AutoX 101 which is now less than two weeks away. It was briefly mentioned http://forum.ubcscc.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4583 - Here , but that was 14 days ago. Anyone know anything?

AllanJ wrote: ...since you made me look at the UBC forum, I saw that the Autox 101 will be held on Sat, Oct 1.  You guys should sign up as soon as it goes online.  Check their forum everyday and sign up immediately.  It's good value and you will get a good amount of seat time.  If it is the same as when I taught it a few years ago, you will get three runs in the morning to establish a base time, then the course is broken up into a few elements.  You are put in rotating groups practicing these three elements several times each (with an instructor in your car) and then at the end of the afternoon, you get three more runs at the same course - which is combined of these same elements you've been practicing.  You will see your times drop considerably as you put all your training/practice to work. Don't think about the course - clear your calendar and do it!

Thanks Brian.

http://forum.ubcscc.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4583&p=39182#p39182 - Re: AutoX 101?

http://forum.ubcscc.com/viewtopic.php?p=39182#p39182"> by http://forum.ubcscc.com/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=415 - Behnam » Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:58 pm

AllanJ wrote: If some of you were curious what the racetrack is like in Mission, here is a video I took last week when I was there for a track day.  I think Brian has brought up track days in the past, so consider this a reminder of what fun you can have out there and not worry about the police.  lol! The best way to get on the track is to come to a few autox events first to get a feel for how your car behaves when really pushed and to learn some real car handling skills.  Then sign up with a track day group that has instructors and you will have a ton of fun out there. This video is 3 laps of Mission Raceway and I'm taking it fairly easy in the turns.  I'm just getting a feel for the new suspension and enjoying the ride.  I put a speedometer on the video but it's in mph, not km/h.  Silly US-based software developers.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU-p2e3YOwI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU-p2e3YOwI

Imperial > Metric.

Bah, I hit the 'i' by accident. But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_energy - foot-pounds is what's used to calculate muzzle velocity, and is comparable to measurements using joules. People mistakenly use it for torque measurements. Thus, ft-ibs is incorrectly used as well. Torque is measured in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-foot_torque - pounds-foot , hence, ibs-ft.

If it's easier to think of, consider that one is comparing a static force to the amount of distance it covers (Foot-pounds). The other is comparing a static distance to how much force it makes (Pounds-foot).

So, Colby, how many Nm of torque does the newer Porsche engine make? What's that, no one measures in metric, because it's an asanine system? Well, guess you better use ibs-ft then. And HP. And 0-60. And MPH.

Imperial > Rough estimates using body parts > Metric

Cheese wrote: Believe it or not, you've just proved my point. Where do you think 1/5252 comes from? In metric: P=T*w where T is torque in Nm, w is frequency in radians per second and P is power in watts. 1/5252 is to the ratio to convert it so the variables can be in imperial. Imagine needing to remember an extra constant for each calculation, that's no fun.

The 1/5252 is simply an abbreviation of the angular speed. Yes, it does take in to account the torque's distance (The "foot" part of "pounds-foot") but that's always a static measurement. Something else to consider is that Imperial and Metric are just as complex - one couldn't be more complex for the other for the calculation to make sense.

Ibs-ft = How many pounds of force are being applied in a foot of work.

Nm = How many Newtons of force are being applied in a metre of work.

It should also be noted, that technically speaking, when dealing with metric, you don't have the nice easy "Torque X RPM / 5252" formula. If you follow metric to the most stringent of definitions, you'll find they calculate in radians per second. Good luck getting that off your tach.

Romeo wrote: ...No it's not. The 1/5252 is simply an abbreviation of the angular speed. Yes, it does take in to account the torque's distance (The "foot" part of "pounds-foot") but that's always a static measurement. Something else to consider is that Imperial and Metric are just as complex - one couldn't be more complex for the other for the calculation to make sense. Ibs-ft = How many pounds of force are being applied in a foot of work. Nm = How many Newtons of force are being applied in a metre of work.   It should also be noted, that technically speaking, when dealing with metric, you don't have the nice easy "Torque X RPM / 5252" formula. If you follow metric to the most stringent of definitions, you'll find they calculate in radians per second. Good luck getting that off your tach.

Yes it is, I even worked it out to verify. I got 0.000189 putting in some rough conversion factors and putting them all on one side. Compare that to 1/5252 = 0.0001904. You can call it "an abbreviation of the angular speed" if you want, but it's there because of the issues with imperial.

Metric was designed to make calculations simpler. Units are defined in terms of other units, rather than on an arbitrary measurement, ie. watts = newtons x meters compared to horse power which is some arbitrary unit so people could roughly compare the power output to that of a horse. Because of this, yes, sometimes it's awkward to measure with, but that's no reason to hate it.

karnak wrote:

AllanJ wrote: My poor thread....

Colby... Tristan... get a room!