FTRA/SSRA guys, come in
01-20-2009, 03:48 PM
#21
Staging Lane
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup I thought I typed that...you can’t have a great ET with a shitty mph...but the opposite is true(you can have a shitty ET with a good mph)...
comparing ETs only works if you have the same 60ft…which is a lot harder to do
than just looking at mph which is pretty much independent of 60ft…
whether I 60ft a 1.8 or 1.4 my mph will still be right around 122…try to say the same for ET…
comparing ETs only works if you have the same 60ft…which is a lot harder to do
than just looking at mph which is pretty much independent of 60ft…whether I 60ft a 1.8 or 1.4 my mph will still be right around 122…try to say the same for ET…
01-20-2009, 05:31 PM
#22
Up to 1989, there were three timing lights at the end of the track; one AT the end of the quarter mile, and one 66 feet before, and one 66 feet after. The middle light was used to calculate the et of the run, and the time to travel the 132 feet at the end of the track was used to calculate the trap speed. This gave the average speed at the end of the track, but you can see what this lead to. Most of the racers stayed on the gas for an additional 66 feet past the quarter to get a consistent speed to evaluate their setup. The track's 'shut down area' of course is a fixed length, but the pro racers were starting to hit 300 mph plus by the end. In an attempt to get these guys off the gas 66 feet earlier and 'make' the cars appear slower, the NHRA stopped using the last light around August of 1989. Today, the trap speed is calculated between the light at the quarter mile and the one 66 feet before. So any timeslip after 1989 is really giving the average speed 33 feet from the finish, which is pretty close to one percent slower than before.
01-20-2009, 05:53 PM
#23
compare what you want but i will use MPH over ET any day...basically no difference(mph) to 1/2 sec(ET)
01-20-2009, 09:07 PM
#24
Staging Lane
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Up to 1989, there were three timing lights at the end of the track; one AT the end of the quarter mile, and one 66 feet before, and one 66 feet after. The middle light was used to calculate the et of the run, and the time to travel the 132 feet at the end of the track was used to calculate the trap speed. This gave the average speed at the end of the track, but you can see what this lead to. Most of the racers stayed on the gas for an additional 66 feet past the quarter to get a consistent speed to evaluate their setup. The track's 'shut down area' of course is a fixed length, but the pro racers were starting to hit 300 mph plus by the end. In an attempt to get these guys off the gas 66 feet earlier and 'make' the cars appear slower, the NHRA stopped using the last light around August of 1989. Today, the trap speed is calculated between the light at the quarter mile and the one 66 feet before. So any timeslip after 1989 is really giving the average speed 33 feet from the finish, which is pretty close to one percent slower than before.
nice copy paste. they consider that plagerisim
01-20-2009, 09:09 PM
#25
Staging Lane
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what would you condsider a spin then...i can go off idle and not spin and run a 11.30 with probably a 1.80 60ft...with the same mph if i were to stall it up and launch hard with a 1.4 60ft with a 10.80...both runs will give right around 122mph...
compare what you want but i will use MPH over ET any day...basically no difference(mph) to 1/2 sec(ET)
compare what you want but i will use MPH over ET any day...basically no difference(mph) to 1/2 sec(ET)
thats because you have a car with some converter. it allows the engine to be more consistant by keeping it in its power band. stock converter cars have to lug thru the first few thousand rpm because the converter is locked up
01-20-2009, 10:27 PM
#27
Staging Lane
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-21-2009, 03:24 AM
#29
11 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NW IN
Posts: 1,730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone got some sand in their vagina?
Alot of variables when it comes to looking at ET (ie. great launch, wheelspin, ect.) but MPH will usually be consistant. I've ran a 13.06 and I've roasted the tires to a 15.0 and both runs were at 108 MPH. From what I gather from other threads, you can expect to drop about .1 to .2 in et with said product.
Alot of variables when it comes to looking at ET (ie. great launch, wheelspin, ect.) but MPH will usually be consistant. I've ran a 13.06 and I've roasted the tires to a 15.0 and both runs were at 108 MPH. From what I gather from other threads, you can expect to drop about .1 to .2 in et with said product.
01-21-2009, 05:20 AM
#30
11 Second Club
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have any idea what you're talking about. You just came in here and hijacked the OP's thread
with your own silly question.
Last edited by MikeG; 01-21-2009 at 05:28 AM.
01-21-2009, 06:30 AM
#31
01-21-2009, 07:16 AM
#32
ROFL...total thread jack. Mrwilson is that d-bag we all work with, you know the guy that knows way more about cars than the rest of us, likes to stir the **** for no apparent reason, other than he likes the smell of ****. Claims to go over 200mph on a regular basis etc etc...
01-21-2009, 01:06 PM
#35
Staging Lane
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol, i wish you guys knew what you didnt know. then you could laugh with me at you.
anyways, go back to the topic at hand. I sha'nt intervene any further. Have fun living in your ignorance and driving your obsolescence.
anyways, go back to the topic at hand. I sha'nt intervene any further. Have fun living in your ignorance and driving your obsolescence.
Last edited by Mrwilson; 01-21-2009 at 01:14 PM.
