jonny Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 hey guys im in school and im doing a project on achevy lumina and i was wondering if any of you guys could find the top speed for a 99 Chevy Lumina LS . thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill K Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 Let your fingers do the walking to google. Much more Chevy info than a Caddy site. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=top+s...of+chevy+lumina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDK Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Unless said Lumnia has NASCAR on it, the following info might help determine the "Top Speed" or in this case... "Terminal Velocity". The "tumble" aspect in regards to the ever-changing drag coefficient is the most daunting part of the equation. I would employ either a Sikorsky H-53 Series or a Lockheed Corp, Galaxy C5A for the proper launch. An object which is falling through the atmosphere is subjected to two external forces. One force is the gravitational force, expressed as the weight of the object. The other force is the air resistance, or drag of the object. The motion of any object can be described by Newton's second law of motion, force F equals mass m times acceleration a: F = m * a which can be solved for the acceleration of the object in terms of the net external force and the mass of the object: a = F / m Weight and drag are forces which are vector quantities. The net external force F is then equal to the difference of the weight W and the drag D F = W - D The acceleration of a falling object then becomes: a = (W - D) / m The drag force depends on the square of the velocity. So as the body accelerates its velocity and the drag increase. It quickly reaches a point where the drag is exactly equal to the weight. When drag is equal to weight, there is no net external force on the object and the object falls at a constant velocity as described by Newton's first law of motion. The constant velocity is called the terminal velocity . We can determine the value of the terminal velocity by doing a little algebra and using the drag equation. Drag depends on a drag coefficient, Cd the air density, r the square of the velocity V and some reference area A of the object: D = Cd * r * V ^2 * A / 2 At terminal velocity, D = W. Solving for the velocity, we obtain the equation V = sqrt ( (2 * W) / (Cd * r * A) ) where sqrt denotes the square root function. Typical values of the drag coefficient are given on a separate slide. The terminal velocity equation tells us that an object with a large cross-sectional area or a high drag coefficient falls slower than an object with a small area or low drag coefficient. A large flat plate falls slower than a small ball with the same weight. If we have two objects with the same area and drag coefficient, like two identically sized spheres, the lighter object falls slower. This seems to contradict the findings of Galileo that all free falling objects fall at the same rate with equal air resistance. But Galileo's principle only applies in a vacuum, where there is NO air resistance and drag is equal to zero. I'd guesstimate about 183.746mph (on average across multiple "passes")... ...but becarefull timing it and Good Luck... Add power to leave problems behind. Most braking is just - poor planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob D Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Geeezzz..TD...you might want to use some lotion next time you try that.. '93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDK Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Bob, Well, in retrospect...I suppose it could be interpreted a teensy bit sarcastic. <_< Do you think he realizes I was only kidding...sorta Does this mean I have to turn in my "Dale Carnegie" card? ...oops I was going there again huh? Add power to leave problems behind. Most braking is just - poor planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob D Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Man, it was so dry it was makin' me head hurt. Seemed like....College! Yea, that's the ticket.. '93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenJ Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Well, in retrospect...I suppose it could be interpreted a teensy bit sarcastic. Do you think he realizes I was only kidding...sorta Darn! You mean I did all that RTFM stuff fer nuthin'? Regards, Warren There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved. - Ludwig von Mises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy_W Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 I know this is a serious subject so I will try to address it as such. If properly tuned with correct tire pressures and racing gasoline is used, you can expect a top end of about 700 m.p.h., depending on wind speed and direction and the altitude of the 747 you're carrying it in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STS Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 The 1999 Lumina with a 3.1 litre V6 would run approx 117 mph if it was not limited electronically. It will probably shut down at 110 mph due to tire speed limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Dropped out of the 747, 32 feet per second, per second until terminal velocity is reached, anyone know the calculation to determine terminal velocity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDK Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Dropped out of the 747, 32 feet per second, per second until terminal velocity is reached, anyone know the calculation to determine terminal velocity? Ah Scotty... <_< Go back about 7-posts. Granted, the equations were brief and did not include lookup tables for for varying surface areas as the car tumbled - but the answer would be rated CEFWIF. At least STS had an honest answer for the guy. CEFWIF (chemical plant lingo: close enough for who its for) Add power to leave problems behind. Most braking is just - poor planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 [Ah Scotty... Go back about 7-posts. At least STS had an honest answer for the guy. All of those formulas were too headjamming for me, I didnt realize what you were getting at.... So you think 186 MPH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackc Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 I'm thinking the tumbling would probably be limited. With the weight of the drivetrain at the front, I'd bet it would be nose down after a tumble or two. I'd say 190-193. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 I hope its got good brakes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navion Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Terminal Velocity with Charlie Sheen, featured a "1993" Allante dropping out of a C-119. It took a long time to go SPLAT! At the very least, a waste of some good & rare parts. It had some good footage of a falling car. Britt Britt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDK Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Terminal Velocity with Charlie Sheen, featured a "1993" Allante dropping out of a C-119. It took a long time to go SPLAT! At the very least, a waste of some good & rare parts. It had some good footage of a falling car. Britt Britt, Believe it or not - your post brought this wild ramble back on topic - with the '93 Allante. Good Job! Natasha Kinski was locked in the trunk as I recall, and of course they had to rig up their respective chutes in mid air at speed (sure - no problem). <_< Too bad they forgot a big chute for the real star... the Alante! I tend to agree about the weighted front end and all and considering it the lowest drag area too. I may have been a bit low in my estimate by including all 6 surface areas equally. But in my defense - so few cars, etc are falling out of the sky any more - that I haven't had have those calcs scribbled on the wall above my desk for several years nears now Add power to leave problems behind. Most braking is just - poor planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackc Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Terminal Velocity with Charlie Sheen, featured a "1993" Allante dropping out of a C-119. It took a long time to go SPLAT! At the very least, a waste of some good & rare parts. It had some good footage of a falling car. Britt A '93 Northstar Allante - now that's just wrong! Couldn't they have gone and gotten an old 4100 Allante???? Some People....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIke D Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Not to be a stickler but even in a 747 it would be hard to reach 700mph. More like the 650ish mark... Unless he is talking about coming back from asia in the dead of winter with HUGE winds aloft... My friend said 105 ish before his car petered out..... but he said why look down at that speed and it was a gues at that point.. Mike D Cop didn't see it, I didn't do it! 93 STS 225,000 Miles 99 STS 111,000 Miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy_W Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Not to be a stickler but even in a 747 it would be hard to reach 700mph. More like the 650ish mark... Unless he is talking about coming back from asia in the dead of winter with HUGE winds aloft... My friend said 105 ish before his car petered out..... but he said why look down at that speed and it was a gues at that point.. Mike D you can expect a top end of about 700 m.p.h., depending on wind speed and direction and the altitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.