Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

QOTD: "What I like most about myself is that I'm so understanding when I mess things up."

aus+uk / uk.rec.cars.maintenance / Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?

SubjectAuthor
* 1934 Talbot why this performance?john west
`* Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?Tim+
 `* Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?Abandoned_Trolley
  `* Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?Nick Finnigan
   `- Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?Abandoned_Trolley

1
1934 Talbot why this performance?

<t2eg27$m5i$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=575&group=uk.rec.cars.maintenance#575

  copy link   Newsgroups: uk.rec.cars.maintenance
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mail.inv...@mail.invalid (john west)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cars.maintenance
Subject: 1934 Talbot why this performance?
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:08:08 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <t2eg27$m5i$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 10:08:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b433b1f2989aa1937584f35b92d72653";
logging-data="22706"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/9A+KB/TfR3OTk4LU8dOwWKTH1oaTDBVk="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:slX8crTjn8E3J/jTkhKF0YkiP3U=
Content-Language: en-US
 by: john west - Mon, 4 Apr 2022 11:08 UTC

Looking at this 1934 Talbot which was the Bees Knees at the time:

https://nationalmotormuseum.org.uk/vehicle-collection/talbot-105/

it says 2,969 cc 100hp @ 4.500 rpm. Over head valves.

top speed 85mph and 0 to 50 in 16 seconds.

With that engine capacity and HP, why was it so much slower than todays'
cars.

Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?

<1899940729.670765997.766522.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=576&group=uk.rec.cars.maintenance#576

  copy link   Newsgroups: uk.rec.cars.maintenance
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: tim.dow...@gmail.com (Tim+)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cars.maintenance
Subject: Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?
Date: 4 Apr 2022 11:54:38 GMT
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <1899940729.670765997.766522.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net>
References: <t2eg27$m5i$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net P82UOagjfzNdHJ/n1DIYiQidXY36Gi/tF1nXaNsUYIsVyZeRM=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6NCMLgNh507hJ/oTjamSeNJ3f+0= sha1:mtxMVLfY8m5PU7pMa7EruJ5NNCw=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
X-Face: VQ}*Ueh[4uTOa]Md([|$jb%rw~ksq}bzqA;z-.*8JM`4+zL['N\ORHCI80}]}$]$e5]/i#v qdYsE'yh@ZL3L{H:So{yN)b=AZJtpaP98ch_4W}
 by: Tim+ - Mon, 4 Apr 2022 11:54 UTC

john west <mail.invalid456@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> Looking at this 1934 Talbot which was the Bees Knees at the time:
>
> https://nationalmotormuseum.org.uk/vehicle-collection/talbot-105/
>
> it says 2,969 cc 100hp @ 4.500 rpm. Over head valves.
>
> top speed 85mph and 0 to 50 in 16 seconds.
>
> With that engine capacity and HP, why was it so much slower than todays'
> cars.
>

At a guess, weight (and they lied about the power output). Aerodynamics of
a brick won’t help the top speed.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?

<t2ep7n$trq$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=577&group=uk.rec.cars.maintenance#577

  copy link   Newsgroups: uk.rec.cars.maintenance
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: fre...@fred-smith.co.uk (Abandoned_Trolley)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cars.maintenance
Subject: Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 14:44:37 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <t2ep7n$trq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t2eg27$m5i$1@dont-email.me>
<1899940729.670765997.766522.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:44:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8c702f6710540299786b5b38a4111581";
logging-data="30586"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/eywhoYzGjaa+BZ5rw6QxAPxfTZpJJRTIPa30vPKr7qQ=="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JeGED7UdYlvNxK4c2upugWQNirY=
In-Reply-To: <1899940729.670765997.766522.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net>
 by: Abandoned_Trolley - Mon, 4 Apr 2022 13:44 UTC

>
> At a guess, weight (and they lied about the power output). Aerodynamics of
> a brick won’t help the top speed.
>
> Tim
>

Along with some insanely wide spaced gear ratios - probably on a 3 speed
box ?

And on the subject of aerodynamcs ... I would say that with those
extended front wings it was probably a good thing that it maxxed out at
85mph

--
random signature text inserted here

Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?

<t2ftts$1giq$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=579&group=uk.rec.cars.maintenance#579

  copy link   Newsgroups: uk.rec.cars.maintenance
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!0fCk8/gmSCYxkLAVRYpE0A.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Nix...@genie.co.uk (Nick Finnigan)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cars.maintenance
Subject: Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 00:10:53 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2ftts$1giq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <t2eg27$m5i$1@dont-email.me>
<1899940729.670765997.766522.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net>
<t2ep7n$trq$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="49754"; posting-host="0fCk8/gmSCYxkLAVRYpE0A.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Nick Finnigan - Mon, 4 Apr 2022 23:10 UTC

On 04/04/2022 14:44, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>
>>
>> At a guess, weight (and they lied about the power output). Aerodynamics of
>> a brick won’t help the top speed.
>>
>> Tim
>>

Kerb weight allegedly 1395 kg.

> Along with some insanely wide spaced gear ratios - probably on a 3 speed box ?

4 speed, manual pre-engaged.

>
> And on the subject of aerodynamcs ... I would say that with those extended
> front wings it was probably a good thing that it maxxed out at 85mph
>

But even a Landrover 90 brick with 83 hp was 0-50 in much less then 16s.

Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?

<t2h9e6$kuo$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=580&group=uk.rec.cars.maintenance#580

  copy link   Newsgroups: uk.rec.cars.maintenance
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: fre...@fred-smith.co.uk (Abandoned_Trolley)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cars.maintenance
Subject: Re: 1934 Talbot why this performance?
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:33:25 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <t2h9e6$kuo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t2eg27$m5i$1@dont-email.me>
<1899940729.670765997.766522.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net>
<t2ep7n$trq$1@dont-email.me> <t2ftts$1giq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:33:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="51ce3bc5866e7f8a40162f968889045e";
logging-data="21464"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/FJ4/zJ3Izuijamft2qBX6bFohi6fkPRaVxVo7yQKNA=="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UWi/j99awZcZo+cSjDDOSp3tMqc=
In-Reply-To: <t2ftts$1giq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 by: Abandoned_Trolley - Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:33 UTC

>
>  But even a Landrover 90 brick with 83 hp was 0-50 in much less then 16s.

I was suggesting that the front wings might provide a degree of unwanted
lift at high speed, regardless of the overall drag coefficient -
assuming that enough power was available to get there.

Some of these discussions seem to compare hp and bhp as if they are
interchangeable.

Also ..the car under discussion is the "Talbot 105" - but its not clear
if the "105" refers to the wheelbase or the horsepower rating (or
something else ...)

--
random signature text inserted here

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor