Which Company makes "best" replica?

[RodKnock]

Silver, I wasn't really out to prove you wrong, but it didn't sound right. So I had to look it up myself. I'm wrong all the time and there's no way I could ever calculate the "I" value without first looking for the formula somewhere on the Internet.

I hope I did not offend you. Not my intention.

[Silverback51]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Silver, I wasn't really out to prove you wrong, but it didn't sound right. So I had to look it up myself. I'm wrong all the time and there's no way I could ever calculate the "I" value without first looking for the formula somewhere on the Internet.

I hope I did not offend you. Not my intention.

Not offended at all. I'm glad you pointed out my mistake so I could correct it.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Silverback51

Not offended at all. I'm glad you pointed out my mistake so I could correct it.

There are other significant differences as well, such as the cross members, number of them, and how they are placed which I would think significantly affect frame rigidity.

I think CSX4000/Kirkham's have 4 cross members. I don;t know about ERA's, Superformances, and how they they all compare to one another.

I now see you already posted about this.

Originally Posted by Silverback51

--Now this is just basic strength of materials for structural shapes and does not take into account the other structural bracing and such that makes up the frames. The only way to really compare any of these frames to determine which is the strongest would be to build a FEM model and run it through a stress program to determine what is happening when like loads are applied.

Unless one of the above manufactures has actually done this for all three frames, they cannot make any claims that theirs is the strongest.

Yes, the ERA 3 X 4 X .125 tube is the strongest, but that single component does not make it the strongest frame. All it would take would be one series of truss members to make the Kirkham tube assembly 10 times stronger.

Besides, don't beleive everything you read from manufactures (or politicians) as they are all trying to sell you something.

Is that better?

And thank you for challenging my response. I don't get to play with numbers much at work anylonger. Even this simple stuff was kind of fun.

Yes, perfect response. And I don;t believe everything what is told to me from politicians, doctors, and especially lawyers

[Dinobyte]

To compare, you need to compare apples to apples.

Same motor in all cars...since we are talking the SC, then it has to be the 427 FE.

For the SB guys, we will allow a 427 Windsor with 500 or so HP.
(We don't want to upset the SB guys too much with that size thing again.)

Start off with Weighing the cars...measuring the cars (width, length, ride height).

Have a panel look at the cars for fit, comfort, ease of driving.

Rate the car on authenticity based on an agreed upon criteria.

Measure the 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile, time to lap Willow Springs (etc...pick your track), so as to understand the performance characteristics of each car given the same power plant.

Next we need to measure the skid pad rating for each.

Then we need equipment to measure the cars responsiveness to lane changes...how fast through the slalom, etc.

Now the bracking....going 100 MPH, slam on the brakes..how quickly does it stop...120 MPH...brakes...how quickly does it stop....140 MPH...brakes, etc.

Now 0-100-0 time...how fast.

0 to 100 time

0 to 120 time

0 to 140 time

All of these measures should be able to provide not only performance in like prepared cars, but also tell us when equipment starts to break.

Last but not least, cost to purchase each car with the identical equipment.


If the kit companies and an engine builder could prepare the various common engines, then we would have real data to look at and not just some BS opinion of someone who thinks they know which car is better. Put them through the Car and Driver test and see who wins. How dumb is that?

[jmimac351]

Originally Posted by Dinobyte

How dumb is that?

Because performance is a very small part of the cobra "ownership experience". I get considerable enjoyment out of just looking at the damn thing while drinking a beer and smoking a cigar in my garage.

The "best" depends on what you want. For me, and many others, it would be a Kirkham.

For guys that want to track the car and build it - maybe a FFR. Building and working on your own car is a completely different experience.

For someone that wants to build but wants a more "authentic" look - Hurricane or the new FFR body.

For a turnkey minus car that looks like a more exotic cobra / tough - Backdraft.

For a turnkey minus car without the cost of the Kirkham - SPF.

I think running the numbers matters very little in this regard. Certain cars will provide different owners entirely different experiences.