12.01 bolt-on auto camaro(no power adder/headers)
12-13-2011, 08:23 AM
#22
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: STL
Posts: 1,764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My car runs exactly what it should, to the tenth. You are familier with the law of physics, right? Using the engine motor horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula, his car needs to be putting down 372.80hp to trap at 112 mph. and thats IF his car weighs 3400 pounds with him in it. This is from a well known and accepted mathmatical formula that has been in use around the world for years. [ look it up]. So unless your going to explain to me how it is that his car can defy physics, what else has been done to the car?
This guy can't be serious, bench racing at its finest. So you're saying no matter the track, whether it's at sea level or 20,000+ ft above on top of Mt McKinley, AK ..this car should run an EXACT time based off of this super duper horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula?
You're trollin', good job man you almost had me for a second.
Last edited by Tan327; 12-13-2011 at 08:28 AM.
12-13-2011, 01:20 PM
#23
While I do agree that the numbers are a little too good for those mods, you have to remember that this is ATCO in December. The so called "downhill" track coupled with 40* air temps and not surprised by the outcome.
At any other track on the east coast in the summer and he probably runs no better than 12.6s @ 108-109 which is believable.
At any other track on the east coast in the summer and he probably runs no better than 12.6s @ 108-109 which is believable.
12-13-2011, 03:53 PM
#24
11 Second Club
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: South Jerzy
Posts: 1,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My car runs exactly what it should, to the tenth. You are familier with the law of physics, right? Using the engine motor horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula, his car needs to be putting down 372.80hp to trap at 112 mph. and thats IF his car weighs 3400 pounds with him in it. This is from a well known and accepted mathmatical formula that has been in use around the world for years. [ look it up]. So unless your going to explain to me how it is that his car can defy physics, what else has been done to the car?
You still did not answer my question(s) though.
This guy can't be serious, bench racing at its finest. So you're saying no matter the track, whether it's at sea level or 20,000+ ft above on top of Mt McKinley, AK ..this car should run an EXACT time based off of this super duper horsepower calculator-trap speed-quarter formula?
You're trollin', good job man you almost had me for a second.
You're trollin', good job man you almost had me for a second.
Last edited by 98TADRIVER; 12-13-2011 at 03:58 PM.
12-13-2011, 03:57 PM
#25
11 Second Club
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: South Jerzy
Posts: 1,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I do agree that the numbers are a little too good for those mods, you have to remember that this is ATCO in December. The so called "downhill" track coupled with 40* air temps and not surprised by the outcome.
At any other track on the east coast in the summer and he probably runs no better than 12.6s @ 108-109 which is believable.
At any other track on the east coast in the summer and he probably runs no better than 12.6s @ 108-109 which is believable.
12-13-2011, 05:29 PM
#27
TECH Fanatic
For his car to run the listed trap, it HAS to have right around 372hp. And yes, if his car is at 20,000 feet, it HAS to have 372hp to trap at 112. Granted, it will have to have suplemented oxygen, but to run 112mph it has to have 372hp at 20,000 feet.
So his car, stock bore, stock heads, stock cam, and I will ASSUME stock compression, is somehow making the horsepower to trap 112?
How?
Are you saying then that my car, which runs almost exactly what it should given the hp it has, would somehow drop another half second or more at that track?
If your going to make the statement that his car is trapping that speed with the given mods, then WHERE is the extra power coming from? Go ahead and dispute mathmatics all you want, but numbers do not play favorites, nor
discriminate. Now it is possible there was an error in the track equipment.
I have a friend that was kicked off the track for running an 11.55 in a bolt on new edge convertable, [ no cage ]. We went to the tower and showed them the slip and showed them that somehow he had covered the last half of the 1/4 mile in less then two seconds.
So maybe thats what happened.
The bottom line is that a car, bullet, space shuttle or whatever, has to have a certain level of power to attain a given velocity at a set distance from the point of launch.
All the name calling, heckling and joke calling in the world will not change those facts.
12-13-2011, 05:51 PM
#30
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: STL
Posts: 1,764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If my cammed/n20 car only ran 11.5x I'd be upset to, but no need in trying to justify your slow times by calling BS on others.
12-13-2011, 07:21 PM
#31
11 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Fredericksburg,Va
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya it is nice running at a track like this with it being so close to sea level. MIR is the same way the 1/4 mile track I run at. Its like 70-85ft above sea level. In the Nov weather it can be -1800 to -2000 below sea level. Where you can get you PB on any giving pass.. OP what was your 1/8 time sorry if I missed it..
12-13-2011, 07:22 PM
#32
What book or calculator does it say that you have to have 372 rwhp to run 112 trap? There are plenty of cars making less than that running 11s.....Why can't you see that -DA can make a car run faster regardless of what horsepower it makes. Dyno numbers are one thing, real world is at the track! Maximizing your set-up and being efficient is where alot of the great ets come from.
12-13-2011, 08:30 PM
#34
TECH Fanatic
Sorry guy's, but this is not adding up to me. The trap speed isn't right for the listed mods. I run a 12.05 at 112.8 mph w/a 1.65 60'. I also have 370rwhp,[NA] So, to the op, unless you have a lot of weight stripped out of your car, there are more performance mods then what you have listed.
Seriously, a bolt-on 2V running mid 11's? Riiigghht....
12-13-2011, 08:34 PM
#35
TECH Fanatic
12-13-2011, 08:37 PM
#36
TECH Fanatic
No point in even trying to fool the calculator-racing expert here, we're obviously just a bunch of grown men with nothing better to do than exaggerate 1/4 mile times on the internet.
If my cammed/n20 car only ran 11.5x I'd be upset to, but no need in trying to justify your slow times by calling BS on others.
If my cammed/n20 car only ran 11.5x I'd be upset to, but no need in trying to justify your slow times by calling BS on others.
12-13-2011, 08:40 PM
#38
TECH Fanatic
What book or calculator does it say that you have to have 372 rwhp to run 112 trap? There are plenty of cars making less than that running 11s.....Why can't you see that -DA can make a car run faster regardless of what horsepower it makes. Dyno numbers are one thing, real world is at the track! Maximizing your set-up and being efficient is where alot of the great ets come from.
12-13-2011, 08:44 PM
#39
TECH Fanatic
Could be. It's highly unlikely his car could run as quickly at any other track w/o his only witness being present.
12-13-2011, 08:46 PM
#40
TECH Fanatic
There is something wrong with your car then, it should definitely be a good bit faster than that, you should be somewhere in the mid 11's I'd say. Bolt-on/properly stalled LS1's are in the deep 12's-high 11's all day from what I've seen. You should reevaluate your setup. OP's car runs real strong though for what it has done to it though.
Seriously, a bolt-on 2V running mid 11's? Riiigghht....
Seriously, a bolt-on 2V running mid 11's? Riiigghht....