| Author | Topic |
|---|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Ademelaide, SA
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
are red cars actually faster??
|
Mon, 15 December 2003 13:40
|
 |
i want to paint my car, and i was just wondering, if i paint it red....wont it actually be slower??
i mean...there's more lead in red paint than most other colors...does that mean it would weigh more?
i dont want my car to go slower... 
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Mon, 15 December 2003 14:15
|
|
|
The color red has been scientifically proven to provide enhanced aerodynamics and as a result better performance...
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Ademelaide, SA
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Mon, 15 December 2003 14:17
|
|
but wouldn't the extra weight hold it back?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Ademelaide, SA
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Mon, 15 December 2003 14:18
|
|
and...
you're just saying that because your car is red...(at least in your avatar...)
|
|
|
Banned user
Location:
ADELAIDE - The Drift City
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Mon, 15 December 2003 14:26
|
|
*shakes head*
as i said steve... you're a *()Y$*(#@^
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Mon, 15 December 2003 15:04
|
|
My celica was red and it was damn fast and only had an 18rc 
|
|
|
Location:
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Mon, 15 December 2003 20:56
|
|
|
This is not quite on the subject but some insurance companies charge a higher rate for red cars. Apparently they have a higher probability of being in an accident.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Mon, 15 December 2003 22:16
|
|
| Grant wrote on Tue, 16 December 2003 07:26 |
This is not quite on the subject but some insurance companies charge a higher rate for red cars. Apparently they have a higher probability of being in an accident.
|
Only if there's a blonde p plater woman behind the wheel...
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Mon, 15 December 2003 23:45
|
|
|
i would have said more because red and black cars are harder to see at night, and theres an emotional attachment to the colour red that may make their driver think they're hot ****
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 00:16
|
|
|
but woudn't red paint be heavier than white paint?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Australia
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 00:42
|
|
|
My old Telstar was red, and that wasnt fast
|
|
|
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 00:49
|
|
|
hahahah Ford owner!
|
|
|
Location:
Richmond NSW
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 01:29
|
|
|
Why does it always come back to red being faster just cause ferrie paint the cars red dont mean its good. i reckon silver is a better colour and faster then a red car.!!!
|
|
|
Location:
Darwin
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 01:55
|
|
Just remember that red also means stop... 
|
|
|
Location:
Brisvegas
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 02:09
|
|
there was some scientific study into this actually...they somehow proved that a red car would be ever so marginlly faster due to the paint itself...something to do with less molecules or something....has no bearing on performance whatsoever as we're talking smidgins of a smidgin. If i can be bothered searching for the article again i'll post the link
re:red cars costing more for insurance...would have something to do with the driver demographic...also certain shades of red are more expensive...moroon is the most expensive colour to respray your car
|
|
|
Location:
Madrid - Spain
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 02:15
|
|
The whole idea about red cars going faster stems from a phenomenon called doppler effect. In reality it doesn't make any difference, however if you are going really fast, a white twinky will look like a red twinkey.
This is why the RED corollas are in much higher demand than the white ones, because they appear to be faster. In reality, we all know that this is just an optical illusion and that no corrola is capable of going fast no matter what colour it is painted.
This is also likely to be the reason why the driver in the corolla that you just past looks like this 
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 03:28
|
|
Who won the F1 championship this year?
a fazza
What colour is a Ferrari?
RED
Case Closed
Daniel
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 03:57
|
|
Is this really a technical conversation... leave this crap in the 'General' or 'Outhouse' ...
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 04:02
|
|
| Quote: |
However due to the wavelength of the Color RED it is actually one of the fasters colors in the spectrum, so you do actually see the Red car b4 you see the blue one next to it
|
although conversely if you were watching from rear angle the red car would appear to move away slower.
Which of course they do..
|
|
|
Location:
Madrid - Spain
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 04:03
|
|
|
I have to disagree, light travels at the same speed, fast cars just appear to be red.
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 04:04
|
|
Nah-uh (year 8 style)
Light does not travel at the same speed across the spectrum.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 05:04
|
|
| BlackSupra wrote on Tue, 16 December 2003 08:49 |
hahahah Ford owner!
|
Says Mr Ex VL Wagon owner
|
|
|
Location:
Madrid - Spain
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 05:24
|
|
|
0h yeah, well my dad said that the speed of light is the same (about as fast as his Celica) and it's the frequency and wavelength thats different wif the colours.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 06:49
|
|
jeez, it has to be fast .. why else would i have painted my car "toyota red" 
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 08:41
|
|
| gold28 wrote on Tue, 16 December 2003 16:24 |
0h yeah, well my dad said that the speed of light is the same (about as fast as his Celica) and it's the frequency and wavelength thats different wif the colours.
|
different frequency and different wavelengths are variables
v = FxL (L=lamder (Wavelength))
so yes to keep the same speed v = 3x10^8 m/s the wavelength and frequency balance out.
so apology's to GOLD28, for the doppler affect does work here too. however even on a F1 ferrari it wouldn't be noticable to the naked high.
ie: the same way a train's sound increases in frequency when speeding past you. And then its frequency lowers again when driving away. btw, Its only in effect under acceleration.
the fact is that scientists aren't 200% sure on the properties of light. The Basis of the modern physical world is that the speed of light is constant. However different colors do achive different 1/4mile times. dependent on their position on the spectrum, ie wavelength. Thanks for bringing up the discussion. It's re-kindled my passion to go back to uni.
|
|
|
Location:
Madrid - Spain
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 21:35
|
|
| T APLUS 22 wrote on Tue, 16 December 2003 19:41 |
naked high
|
|
|
|
Location:
Madrid - Spain
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 21:45
|
|
So I guess it doesn't matter what colour you paint it. If you go fast enough it will look red in their rear view mirror and blue once you pass them and dissapear in the distance.
So the ultimate question is do ou want to look fast bearing down on their tail or speeding away.
Why not paint the front of your car red and the back of it blue. You couldn't get any faster than that.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 16 December 2003 22:25
|
|
| RobST162 wrote on Tue, 16 December 2003 10:46 |
but woudn't red paint be heavier than white paint?
|
Red paint is not heavier that white paint, and it doesn't generally contain lead. You would be hard pressed to find lead based pigments in any modern car paint - it is now only used quite rarely in some industrial coatings/colours.
White paint is based on titanium dioxide (Specific Gravity of 4.1) and so will be heavier than red paint based on organic red pigments (depending on pigment have a S.G of 1.2 - 1. . White paint also generally contains higher pigment loadings than red paint.
|
|
|
Location:
Montrose, VIC
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Wed, 17 December 2003 10:18
|
|
|
The strangest thing is, that when I drive really fast, I seem to see BOTH red AND blue in my rearview mirror, and they seem to be flashing!
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Wed, 17 December 2003 10:20
|
|
| mrshin wrote on Wed, 17 December 2003 21:18 |
The strangest thing is, that when I drive really fast, I seem to see BOTH red AND blue in my rearview mirror, and they seem to be flashing!
|
HAHAHAHAH nice one man...someone get some stiches..my pancreas is falling out my sides
'naked eye' - one of those after night shift things
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney Miranda / Perth Mu...
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Wed, 17 December 2003 10:39
|
|
Aren't the particles in red paint closer together thus allowing a better drag co-effeicent?????
If not that then that John Denver is full of crap!
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Wed, 17 December 2003 10:42
|
|
|
red an blue? me too!
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Wed, 17 December 2003 10:46
|
|
lol shin - GOLD!
|
|
|
Location:
Montrose, VIC
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Wed, 17 December 2003 11:00
|
|
Thing is, it seems to have the same effect even when I'm driving Whitey. Stuffed if I can work out where the red and blue come from! It's as though they just, well, appear from behind a tree or something... 
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Wed, 17 December 2003 11:25
|
|
Go get your car sprayed corolla red 
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Australia
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Wed, 17 December 2003 13:44
|
|
| MIKE_JZA70_TYPE_R wrote on Wed, 17 December 2003 18:39 |
Aren't the particles in red paint closer together thus allowing a better drag co-effeicent?????
If not that then that John Denver is full of crap!
|
Was this before or after he lit his Country Music Award on fire?
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Wed, 17 December 2003 14:41
|
|
|
would gloss help ??
|
|
|
Location:
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Wed, 17 December 2003 21:22
|
|
|
Just going back 20 posts or so, the issue about the insurance premium and the colour of the car is to do with the fact that drivers tend to be mesmerised by bright coloured cars (not just red) so instead of stopping to avoid the accident the bright coloured car actually gets hit.
|
|
|
Location:
christchurch nz
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 02:35
|
|
|
i might go for the polished steel look, no paint = no extra weight, i need all the help i can get!
|
|
|
Location:
Crapberra
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 02:47
|
|
| hotrolla wrote on Wed, 17 December 2003 22:25 |
Go get your car sprayed corolla red
|
uhhh, but if you painted it corolla red, then wouldn't it look like a red corolla... might be a good diguse
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 05:27
|
|
I have 2 cars one red one white, guess which one is faster...
The white one..........
but I am sure that the color plays absolutly no part in this whatsoever
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
melbourne.victoria.austra...
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 05:40
|
|
|
my red ke55 was much slower than my ta22 and thats gold...
|
|
|
Location:
Bayside Melbourne.
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 06:48
|
|
If you want you car to go faster, strip ALL the paint off... That would be a significant weight reduction and as rust holes develop the car would become lighter again and therefore even faster!!!
Note: rusted areas are nature's speed holes developing.
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 07:42
|
|
| tailz wrote on Thu, 18 December 2003 01:41 |
would gloss help ??
|
actually, no. gloss creates more drag because the air 'sticks' to the paint.
similar to a golf ball. it is pitted to stop air 'sticking' to the surface and causing drag. there was a test done with a shiny golf ball and a pitted golf ball, and the pitted ball flew about twice as far as the gloss ball because the pitted surface creates tiny pockets of turbulence in front of and to the sides of the ball which helps it 'carve' thru the air.
also a sound theory why salt flat racers always have matt cars.......or it's just corrosion.....
actually land speed record drivers need a glossy car to make the air stick to the car to keep it stable and provide downforce at almost mach 2.
|
|
|
Location:
christchurch nz
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 10:05
|
|
|
what if i dont want to play golf with my car? i remember bmw came out with a motorbike helmet that was dimpled like that, it hasn't really caught on. would be interesting to see how much it helps, last time i did 220 on a bike it bloody near tore my head off when i stuck it up above the visor!
|
|
|
Location:
1st street on the right
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 20:47
|
|
|
Underwater the red car will disappear first and therefore must be faster. But green would be slow as. In regards to dimples. If they are faster you must allbe waiting for the next hail storm.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Tue, 23 December 2003 23:39
|
|
My daewoo was red, that was so fast it ended up in 4 trees and a boulder. Or was that because i fell asleep at the wheel? hmmm.
|
|
|
Location:
Montrose, VIC
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Wed, 24 December 2003 11:37
|
|
There was a guy about, oooh, 10 years ago, who took an entire EH holden and chromed the bloody thing. Looked like a toaster, and wasn't too well recieved at rego time either, but hey! From memory that had a worked 327/poweglide/9 inch/tubs/etc., and he tried to kid it was actually pretty fast... But what colour WAS it? (probly only ran a mid 13 or something anyways!)
Speaking of hitting trees, sleeping and red cars, mate of mine rang up at 4am this morning and needed a ride home. Turned out he'd fallen asleep driving home and slammed straight into a tree at, my guess, about 70km/h. He survived without a bit of damage, and his car was red... Oh, and in case you were wondering, the car was a HZ Holden, and, thankfully, has already been put through the crusher!
As for natures speed holes, well I always DID love Datsun 180b's, and I suppose this theory just proves they're trying they're damnedest to go as hard as possible
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Wed, 24 December 2003 15:05
|
|
| mrshin wrote on Wed, 24 December 2003 22:37 |
There was a guy about, oooh, 10 years ago, who took an entire EH holden and chromed the bloody thing. Looked like a toaster, and wasn't too well recieved at rego time either, but hey! From memory that had a worked 327/poweglide/9 inch/tubs/etc., and he tried to kid it was actually pretty fast... But what colour WAS it? (probly only ran a mid 13 or something anyways!)
|
My mechanic told me about that car, he said it caused many accidents coz ppl were blinded when the sun hit it. It was on the road for only a day coz it was so dangerous.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: are red cars actually faster??
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 08:15
|
|
|
I think you guys are barking up the wrong end of the spectrum. I seem to remember that a violet painted object would be faster due to the violet colour draging less. This said, the speed advandage is so small that driving the car naked, or just after you have taken a dump would give you a bigger speed advantage. Also driving a violet car makes you look ghay (for that matter driving the car naked would make you look a bit weird too)
|
|
|
