you don't like to have fun do you! hehe! he wasn't trying to get low laptimes ffs! you should know that just by looking.. btw, that's norways fastest roadgoing car.. 
Yes, and I bet many other road cars would get faster laptimes. Being fastest doesn't mean quickest. I'd be pretty sure that a 200hp Seven would be quicker round most tracks.
i wasn't saying he has the fastest car around a track.. but u only hear what you wanna hear, so.. 
you should try looking for more norwegian streetcar vids, cause there are sooo many fast and fun cars to check out, not that i think you'd bother, but worth mentioning...
the meaning of my posts, was not to use blurp out RICER everytime someone mentions something turborelated..
you should try looking for more norwegian streetcar vids, cause there are sooo many fast and fun cars to check out, not that i think you'd bother, but worth mentioning...the meaning of my posts, was not to use blurp out RICER everytime someone mentions something turborelated..
I don't blurp out ricer when ever turbo is mentioned.
I do blurp out ricer when people say dump valves are the best sound ever, or if someone tries to show me a 1000hp BMW.
I do blurp out ricer when people say dump valves are the best sound ever, or if someone tries to show me a 1000hp BMW.
lol i tell you! what's so jap (or ricer as u call it..) about a 1000hp BMW?
what's so jap (or ricer as u call it..) about a 1000hp BMW?Because, for all that power, it's not a quick car. It's got a powerful engine, but not enough grip. They've done it not to be fast, but to show off.
Showing if is what ricer is all about. That BMW = 100% Rice.
Showing if is what ricer is all about. That BMW = 100% Rice.
hehe! yeah, you're right about showing off.. but i really don't like the ricer-expression.. and it really doesn't fit the bmw! hehe! for me, a ricer is a overstyled car, most likely a jap car, not a hugely fun bmw!
Clearly we're not going to agree here. I don't like rice, and I don't like stupid overdone BMW's that aren't much fun to drive. You can if you want to though.
hope so.. hehe! what's your definition of rice btw?
Perhaps we need a clear definition of "rice"....
"A cereal grass (Oryza sativa) that is cultivated extensively in warm climates for its edible grain.
The starchy grain of this plant, used as a staple food throughout the world. "
Or perhaps a car referred to as "rice" has been previously "riced":To sieve (food) to the consistency of rice.
Which is somewhat fitting of cars with many small fragments glued on such as "roof scoops" (note that scoops are often employed in the portioning of rice... ironic? I think not)
Anyhow, Tristan are you saying then that you concede atmospheric style BOVs are better for pure acceleration - seeing as how they are used extensively in motorsports? And your point is simply their application in street cars is not necessary for everyday drivability (although better for "pure performance and nothing else")
"A cereal grass (Oryza sativa) that is cultivated extensively in warm climates for its edible grain.
The starchy grain of this plant, used as a staple food throughout the world. "
Or perhaps a car referred to as "rice" has been previously "riced":To sieve (food) to the consistency of rice.
Which is somewhat fitting of cars with many small fragments glued on such as "roof scoops" (note that scoops are often employed in the portioning of rice... ironic? I think not)
Anyhow, Tristan are you saying then that you concede atmospheric style BOVs are better for pure acceleration - seeing as how they are used extensively in motorsports? And your point is simply their application in street cars is not necessary for everyday drivability (although better for "pure performance and nothing else")
Erm, there is no FIXED definition of rice. The parameters are flexible depending on what other paramaters there are.
If a car has a silly body kit on it, regardless of if it's useful, and is used on the road = Rice
If the car has a silly body kit on it that probably wouldn't achieve anything, and is used on the track = Rice
If the car has far too much power compared to it's grip = Rice
If the car has far too much grip for it's power = Rice.
I could go on for hours. It's the thing considered as a whole for me, and my Rice 'limits' are probably a lot lower than most people (i.e. I think something is 100% rice that most people think is sound engineering or proper race technology).
If a car has a silly body kit on it, regardless of if it's useful, and is used on the road = Rice
If the car has a silly body kit on it that probably wouldn't achieve anything, and is used on the track = Rice
If the car has far too much power compared to it's grip = Rice
If the car has far too much grip for it's power = Rice.
I could go on for hours. It's the thing considered as a whole for me, and my Rice 'limits' are probably a lot lower than most people (i.e. I think something is 100% rice that most people think is sound engineering or proper race technology).
No - the atmospheric dump valve is better on high performance turbos (i.e. turbo's that have to do a lot of work, say on a restricted engine) when used on a track or rally stage, and a very large proportion of time is spent at either full or zero throttle.
A recirculating dump valve is better on lower stressed turbos (say a small turbo on a Huge V8 with very little restrictions on air flow), or on 99.9% of cars on the road (stock or modified) as they spend over 95% of the time at part throttle.
But as with most definitions, there are exceptions to either rule, so to anyone who subsequently posts a pic of a Bi-Turbo Fiesta 998cc, it proves nothing.
Interesting:
So then if one only owns one car, and he uses it on the track as well as a daily driver... then if the car has an appropriate body kit that actually helps on the track, it would be referred to as rice on the street but not on the track, making a type of "rice Jekyl & Hyde" scenario, where the car switches designations on the way into and out of the track....
hehehe
EDIT before you post it, I know you said the parameters are flexible - I was just solidifying some of the ramifications of that philosophy....
Yes - but who, in their right mind, drives such a car?! Most race series that would be useable on the road (unless so far off the pace) don't allow bodykits and silly things. But it would be funny - I'd chat to him happily in the paddock about his car, but as soon as he went on a public road with it, I'd point and laugh until he hit me.
I am not trying to drag this out or seem dense but I still don't understand exactly why you feel this way... And if you're right I really want to understand this. Here are some things I fail to comprehend:
A) What does does spending 95% of your time at part throttle have to do with your dump valve?
B) How does the restrictiveness (word??) of the engine affect the dynamics of how well either method performs?
LOL
I guess you don't get up to downforce inducing speeds really in autocross events
Perhaps a 45 degree spoiler... 
But I was referring to someone that drives their car everyday and takes it to the track on the weekend for some fun - not necessarily driving a WRC car on the road (although that would be fun come on)
Well, if your car is meant to be used at WOT lots, then the turbo will be lighter, and freer flowing etc etc. You know the driver will be going from full throttle to no throttle to full throttle.
On a road car, the periods of full throttle are small. So when the driver gets some boost, then lifts, it's unlikely he'll be going back to full throttle. Therefore you use a recirculating dump valve - this means that what little engery you've managed to build up isn't just chucked out of the car needlessly.
The restrictiveness is probably the wrong word. A WRC engine is restricted via a plate somewhere (I forget exactly where, but that's not important for this discussion) in the induction system. So the turbo is designed very differently to a non-restricted engine, simple because the maximum air flow of the system is very different. A larger engine like a Big V8, will have much less breathing problems that a small WRC engine, and that needs to be taken into account of (on top of trying to match the turbo to the power you want, where you want it, what type of driving it'll do etc etc).
Turbo's and their related components are huge sciences. Anyone who looks in a catalogue for Supra Turbo kit, and expects it to work with the rest of his system from a different catalogue, or not exact spec, is deluded to some degree. But being deluded is a necessity for ricing.
Well, thats a different matter. If they used it primarily on the road with a silly body kit then it's rice. If that rice-mobile goes on a track for a track day, then it's still rice. All because of the PRIMARY reason of the car.
On a road car, the periods of full throttle are small. So when the driver gets some boost, then lifts, it's unlikely he'll be going back to full throttle. Therefore you use a recirculating dump valve - this means that what little engery you've managed to build up isn't just chucked out of the car needlessly.
The restrictiveness is probably the wrong word. A WRC engine is restricted via a plate somewhere (I forget exactly where, but that's not important for this discussion) in the induction system. So the turbo is designed very differently to a non-restricted engine, simple because the maximum air flow of the system is very different. A larger engine like a Big V8, will have much less breathing problems that a small WRC engine, and that needs to be taken into account of (on top of trying to match the turbo to the power you want, where you want it, what type of driving it'll do etc etc).
Turbo's and their related components are huge sciences. Anyone who looks in a catalogue for Supra Turbo kit, and expects it to work with the rest of his system from a different catalogue, or not exact spec, is deluded to some degree. But being deluded is a necessity for ricing.
Well, thats a different matter. If they used it primarily on the road with a silly body kit then it's rice. If that rice-mobile goes on a track for a track day, then it's still rice. All because of the PRIMARY reason of the car.
MUHAHAHAHA! If you're ever in Norway, give me a call and I'll give you a ride to show you "tiny amount of time at WOT"
(but no, I dont care about that stupid "ptttsshhhhh"-sound, so i've got no BOV)
Seriously - if you add up every throttle opening you ever do, I bet it's only a tiny amound overall at WOT.
Hell, most of us here (that can drive in real life) probably drive more spiritedly than most drivers, but still, a surprisingly small amount of total time is spent at WOT. Unless you are either a complete idiot with no disregard of others, have your own private race track/road/dirt track, or you live slap bang in the middle of nowhere, about 200 miles from the nearest other house.
Hell, most of us here (that can drive in real life) probably drive more spiritedly than most drivers, but still, a surprisingly small amount of total time is spent at WOT. Unless you are either a complete idiot with no disregard of others, have your own private race track/road/dirt track, or you live slap bang in the middle of nowhere, about 200 miles from the nearest other house.
The only downforce that bodykits make is static downforce.
For me personally, a purist if you may, that's not the case. I approve any modification as long as it improves performance. That is usually the goal, right? That beamer makes a faster laptime than a stock one and therefore doesn't fit my idea of rice.
It's handy too, I don't have to explain why a WRC car isn't rice and something else that is similar is.I guess we both can agree though that a 37hp Daihatsu Charade 1.0L 3 cyl diesel on hybrids isn't rice? It doesn't have too much power nor too much grip
Depends what the owner has done to it. Some stick on carbon fibre plastic, window tinting, bodykit, pointless huge alloys - they'd all make it rice.
Indeed this tends to be my stance also, and Tristan has stated himself that his standards for "rice" are less tolerant than most.... His definition by nature is dynamic, I prefer the simplistic definition you alluded to above...
Geez, I'm glad you guys managed to steer this one back onto topic.....
We went from off topic, back to topic, off topic again, and now a discussion on whether it's on or off topic, which must be neither and both at the same time.
*then the universe imploaded in a burst of logic*
Douglas Adams rocks
*then the universe imploaded in a burst of logic*
Douglas Adams rocks
Blow off / bypass sound like this
(151 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG