383 H/C/I Results!!
01-24-2018, 01:39 PM
#701
I had to convert all this to metric to figure it out, so bear with me on this, and please be patient with the equations etc...
distance=1/2 x acceleration x time squared. so, acceleration = 2 x d / t^2 = 25.4 m/s/s or 2.6G. Now before everyone flips out over that, top fuel sees >5G at launch. Effective coefficient of friction of racing tires seems to range from 1.8 to 4 before you get into top fuel stuff. So, 2.6G checks out.
Next, velocity = acceleration x time = 25.6 * 1.2 = 30.5 m/s = 68 MPH. So, he would have had to be in second gear by the end of his 60'. At this point though, the engine power and wind resistance would really become limiting, so acceleration would fall off greatly in third gear and especially 4th.
next F=ma. Using 3250 as RW, that's 1477 Kg x 25.4 m/s/s = 37.4KN of force, or 8429 lbf.
I used 350 lbs of torque for this, but 350 x gearing and correcting for tire size gets it to 8928.3 lbF available at the pavement.
So, if the car is set up perfectly, and everything goes right, and the driver executes flawlessly, it's technically possible by the math.
Edit, using 1.26 and not 1.2, drops to 2.3G, 65mph at the 60' mark, and 7650lbf to push the car. The hard part is average power vs instantaneous power, etc, so you don't get the force constantly like a classroom physics world
distance=1/2 x acceleration x time squared. so, acceleration = 2 x d / t^2 = 25.4 m/s/s or 2.6G. Now before everyone flips out over that, top fuel sees >5G at launch. Effective coefficient of friction of racing tires seems to range from 1.8 to 4 before you get into top fuel stuff. So, 2.6G checks out.
Next, velocity = acceleration x time = 25.6 * 1.2 = 30.5 m/s = 68 MPH. So, he would have had to be in second gear by the end of his 60'. At this point though, the engine power and wind resistance would really become limiting, so acceleration would fall off greatly in third gear and especially 4th.
next F=ma. Using 3250 as RW, that's 1477 Kg x 25.4 m/s/s = 37.4KN of force, or 8429 lbf.
I used 350 lbs of torque for this, but 350 x gearing and correcting for tire size gets it to 8928.3 lbF available at the pavement.
So, if the car is set up perfectly, and everything goes right, and the driver executes flawlessly, it's technically possible by the math.
Edit, using 1.26 and not 1.2, drops to 2.3G, 65mph at the 60' mark, and 7650lbf to push the car. The hard part is average power vs instantaneous power, etc, so you don't get the force constantly like a classroom physics world
Unless you were going to integrate the duration of the 60' and 1/4 mile knowing what torque is over the curve and taking into account the shift time, since you're claiming he made the 1-2 shift before the 60', and take into account the difference in gearing between 1st and 2nd gear.
Where this also falls apart is using the equations for engine horsepower at the end of the 1/4 mile using trap speed and ET. The ET and MPH both yield ~525hp.....now, all I hear about is how efficient and cryogenic treated this and that blablablaa, so lets use that to his advantage and say 10% drivetrain loss, or 470rwhp out of a stock LS6
Sorry, distracted, anyways.....putting these into the ideal calculator/equations referencing 60' and ET/MPH, its STILL off by a couple tenths at 3250lbs......So like I said, yes I believe that a stock LS6 can 1.26 sixty foot and yes I believe a 3250lb car can 1.26 sixty foot....but based on all the equations and calculators I've seen I do NOT believe a 3250lb car with a supposedly stock LS6 that has to take time for the 1-2 shift, can 1.26 sixty foot. 
01-24-2018, 01:51 PM
#702
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,446
Received 1,838 Likes
on
1,146 Posts
Originally Posted by ddnspider
The funny part to me is I looked at this before you posted. The equations for linear acceleration, etc; and quickly came to the realization that using the equations at all is loaded with assumptions and I can skew the data either way....just like "the guy ran a normal pass". Those equations can only be used with uniform acceleration and anything otherwise is an assumption.
Unless you were going to integrate the duration of the 60' and 1/4 mile knowing what torque is over the curve and taking into account the shift time, since you're claiming he made the 1-2 shift before the 60', and take into account the difference in gearing between 1st and 2nd gear.
Where this also falls apart is using the equations for engine horsepower at the end of the 1/4 mile using trap speed and ET. The ET and MPH both yield ~525hp.....now, all I hear about is how efficient and cryogenic treated this and that blablablaa, so lets use that to his advantage and say 10% drivetrain loss, or 470rwhp out of a stock LS6 Sorry, distracted, anyways.....putting these into the ideal calculator/equations referencing 60' and ET/MPH, its STILL off by a couple tenths at 3250lbs......So like I said, yes I believe that a stock LS6 can 1.26 sixty foot and yes I believe a 3250lb car can 1.26 sixty foot....but based on all the equations and calculators I've seen I do NOT believe a 3250lb car with a supposedly stock LS6 that has to take time for the 1-2 shift, can 1.26 sixty foot.
Unless you were going to integrate the duration of the 60' and 1/4 mile knowing what torque is over the curve and taking into account the shift time, since you're claiming he made the 1-2 shift before the 60', and take into account the difference in gearing between 1st and 2nd gear.
Where this also falls apart is using the equations for engine horsepower at the end of the 1/4 mile using trap speed and ET. The ET and MPH both yield ~525hp.....now, all I hear about is how efficient and cryogenic treated this and that blablablaa, so lets use that to his advantage and say 10% drivetrain loss, or 470rwhp out of a stock LS6
Sorry, distracted, anyways.....putting these into the ideal calculator/equations referencing 60' and ET/MPH, its STILL off by a couple tenths at 3250lbs......So like I said, yes I believe that a stock LS6 can 1.26 sixty foot and yes I believe a 3250lb car can 1.26 sixty foot....but based on all the equations and calculators I've seen I do NOT believe a 3250lb car with a supposedly stock LS6 that has to take time for the 1-2 shift, can 1.26 sixty foot.if it was completely impossible, it would have given something ridiculous like 5G of acceleration or required far more force than the car was capable of delivering.
For the record, there was a disclaimer in the edit statement. And it got the post count over 700, so you're welcome
01-24-2018, 01:53 PM
#703
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,446
Received 1,838 Likes
on
1,146 Posts
Oh and I assumed FP trans so minimal shift time. Not like me granny shifting. Only hio could tell us if he was in second gear. I wasn't there. Hell I didn't know hio back then. Only saying that it passes the laugh test.
01-24-2018, 02:00 PM
#704
Yeah, check the edit statement. In the real world there's an impact load followed by a huge taper down in applied force. I know it's not as simple as linear acceleration, but its ballpark.
if it was completely impossible, it would have given something ridiculous like 5G of acceleration or required far more force than the car was capable of delivering.
For the record, there was a disclaimer in the edit statement. And it got the post count over 700, so you're welcome
if it was completely impossible, it would have given something ridiculous like 5G of acceleration or required far more force than the car was capable of delivering.
For the record, there was a disclaimer in the edit statement. And it got the post count over 700, so you're welcome
I noticed that, thank you. For me, all it comes down to is 2 simple questions.1) Explain how a 3250lb vehicle with a stock LS6 says it makes 470whp or 525fwhp?
2) How does a 3250lb vehicle making 470whp cut a 1.26 sixty foot?
If those 2 can be answered then, again, for me, then I'll buy it. Until that happens, there is about a million other vehicles at the same claimed race weight and claimed mods that don't 1.26 sixty foot.
01-24-2018, 02:25 PM
#705
10 Second Club
I had to convert all this to metric to figure it out, so bear with me on this, and please be patient with the equations etc...
distance=1/2 x acceleration x time squared. so, acceleration = 2 x d / t^2 = 25.4 m/s/s or 2.6G. Now before everyone flips out over that, top fuel sees >5G at launch. Effective coefficient of friction of racing tires seems to range from 1.8 to 4 before you get into top fuel stuff. So, 2.6G checks out.
Next, velocity = acceleration x time = 25.6 * 1.2 = 30.5 m/s = 68 MPH. So, he would have had to be in second gear by the end of his 60'. At this point though, the engine power and wind resistance would really become limiting, so acceleration would fall off greatly in third gear and especially 4th.
next F=ma. Using 3250 as RW, that's 1477 Kg x 25.4 m/s/s = 37.4KN of force, or 8429 lbf.
I used 350 lbs of torque for this, but 350 x gearing and correcting for tire size gets it to 8928.3 lbF available at the pavement.
So, if the car is set up perfectly, and everything goes right, and the driver executes flawlessly, it's technically possible by the math.
Edit, using 1.26 and not 1.2, drops to 2.3G, 65mph at the 60' mark, and 7650lbf to push the car. The hard part is average power vs instantaneous power, etc, so you don't get the force constantly like a classroom physics world
distance=1/2 x acceleration x time squared. so, acceleration = 2 x d / t^2 = 25.4 m/s/s or 2.6G. Now before everyone flips out over that, top fuel sees >5G at launch. Effective coefficient of friction of racing tires seems to range from 1.8 to 4 before you get into top fuel stuff. So, 2.6G checks out.
Next, velocity = acceleration x time = 25.6 * 1.2 = 30.5 m/s = 68 MPH. So, he would have had to be in second gear by the end of his 60'. At this point though, the engine power and wind resistance would really become limiting, so acceleration would fall off greatly in third gear and especially 4th.
next F=ma. Using 3250 as RW, that's 1477 Kg x 25.4 m/s/s = 37.4KN of force, or 8429 lbf.
I used 350 lbs of torque for this, but 350 x gearing and correcting for tire size gets it to 8928.3 lbF available at the pavement.
So, if the car is set up perfectly, and everything goes right, and the driver executes flawlessly, it's technically possible by the math.
Edit, using 1.26 and not 1.2, drops to 2.3G, 65mph at the 60' mark, and 7650lbf to push the car. The hard part is average power vs instantaneous power, etc, so you don't get the force constantly like a classroom physics world
01-24-2018, 02:39 PM
#706
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
The funny part to me is I looked at this before you posted. The equations for linear acceleration, etc; and quickly came to the realization that using the equations at all is loaded with assumptions and I can skew the data either way....just like "the guy ran a normal pass". Those equations can only be used with uniform acceleration and anything otherwise is an assumption.
Unless you were going to integrate the duration of the 60' and 1/4 mile knowing what torque is over the curve and taking into account the shift time, since you're claiming he made the 1-2 shift before the 60', and take into account the difference in gearing between 1st and 2nd gear.
Where this also falls apart is using the equations for engine horsepower at the end of the 1/4 mile using trap speed and ET. The ET and MPH both yield ~525hp.....now, all I hear about is how efficient and cryogenic treated this and that blablablaa, so lets use that to his advantage and say 10% drivetrain loss, or 470rwhp out of a stock LS6 Sorry, distracted, anyways.....putting these into the ideal calculator/equations referencing 60' and ET/MPH, its STILL off by a couple tenths at 3250lbs......So like I said, yes I believe that a stock LS6 can 1.26 sixty foot and yes I believe a 3250lb car can 1.26 sixty foot....but based on all the equations and calculators I've seen I do NOT believe a 3250lb car with a supposedly stock LS6 that has to take time for the 1-2 shift, can 1.26 sixty foot.
Unless you were going to integrate the duration of the 60' and 1/4 mile knowing what torque is over the curve and taking into account the shift time, since you're claiming he made the 1-2 shift before the 60', and take into account the difference in gearing between 1st and 2nd gear.
Where this also falls apart is using the equations for engine horsepower at the end of the 1/4 mile using trap speed and ET. The ET and MPH both yield ~525hp.....now, all I hear about is how efficient and cryogenic treated this and that blablablaa, so lets use that to his advantage and say 10% drivetrain loss, or 470rwhp out of a stock LS6
Sorry, distracted, anyways.....putting these into the ideal calculator/equations referencing 60' and ET/MPH, its STILL off by a couple tenths at 3250lbs......So like I said, yes I believe that a stock LS6 can 1.26 sixty foot and yes I believe a 3250lb car can 1.26 sixty foot....but based on all the equations and calculators I've seen I do NOT believe a 3250lb car with a supposedly stock LS6 that has to take time for the 1-2 shift, can 1.26 sixty foot.In all reality the ls6 does make over 500fwhp. The 417 dyno was in the heat on a dyno dynamic. It dyno'd 413 on a dj dyno before the fast intake and the 1.8 rockers. They picked up 18whp together.
I was told by quite a few 130 traps was impossible when it first did it. It was 4mph faster than the next highest trapping ls6. The record for a ls6 is now 135. The possibility of me picking up 2-4 mph from where i was to now is very real...........now what?
Yeah, check the edit statement. In the real world there's an impact load followed by a huge taper down in applied force. I know it's not as simple as linear acceleration, but its ballpark.
if it was completely impossible, it would have given something ridiculous like 5G of acceleration or required far more force than the car was capable of delivering.
For the record, there was a disclaimer in the edit statement. And it got the post count over 700, so you're welcome
if it was completely impossible, it would have given something ridiculous like 5G of acceleration or required far more force than the car was capable of delivering.
For the record, there was a disclaimer in the edit statement. And it got the post count over 700, so you're welcome
I noticed that, thank you. For me, all it comes down to is 2 simple questions.1) Explain how a 3250lb vehicle with a stock LS6 says it makes 470whp or 525fwhp?
2) How does a 3250lb vehicle making 470whp cut a 1.26 sixty foot?
If those 2 can be answered then, again, for me, then I'll buy it. Until that happens, there is about a million other vehicles at the same claimed race weight and claimed mods that don't 1.26 sixty foot.
2. The other forces previously mentioned.
How many of those trap 130?
01-24-2018, 02:48 PM
#707
Lets assume for a moment that I will agree that the stock ls6 makes over 500fwhp. That is only half the story. If you notice I said that even if it was at 525fwhp you're still 2 tenths lower than what the ideal 60 ft is. This is specifically why I said the questions also included weight. It's pretty simple to use the calcs at 525fwhp and see what the car weighs....but it's not 3250lb.
01-24-2018, 03:02 PM
#708
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,446
Received 1,838 Likes
on
1,146 Posts
* Reducing crank MOI can be as effective or even more effective than going cam only. Making power vs the ability to accelerate the engine are two very different things. Reduced MOI won't always translate into more power, but it will into vehicle acceleration
* Reducing pumping losses, such as with a vacuum pump will also dramatically more affect acceleration than it will affect power. By taking the windage down, the engine can accelerate itself faster.
There's others, but for the purpose of not getting into internal mods, leaving that alone.
The goal is acceleration, and that can be accomplished two ways. make more power or reduce losses. Another way to say it -- you can raise the bridge or lower the river to get a bigger boat under a bridge.
01-24-2018, 03:13 PM
#709
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
Lets assume for a moment that I will agree that the stock ls6 makes over 500fwhp. That is only half the story. If you notice I said that even if it was at 525fwhp you're still 2 tenths lower than what the ideal 60 ft is. This is specifically why I said the questions also included weight. It's pretty simple to use the calcs at 525fwhp and see what the car weighs....but it's not 3250lb.
So, here's an interesting tidbit. i was talking to a very well-regarded engine designer about various details of engine design, and there's a few items for consideration here:
* Reducing crank MOI can be as effective or even more effective than going cam only. Making power vs the ability to accelerate the engine are two very different things. Reduced MOI won't always translate into more power, but it will into vehicle acceleration
* Reducing pumping losses, such as with a vacuum pump will also dramatically more affect acceleration than it will affect power. By taking the windage down, the engine can accelerate itself faster.
There's others, but for the purpose of not getting into internal mods, leaving that alone.
The goal is acceleration, and that can be accomplished two ways. make more power or reduce losses. Another way to say it -- you can raise the bridge or lower the river to get a bigger boat under a bridge.
* Reducing crank MOI can be as effective or even more effective than going cam only. Making power vs the ability to accelerate the engine are two very different things. Reduced MOI won't always translate into more power, but it will into vehicle acceleration
* Reducing pumping losses, such as with a vacuum pump will also dramatically more affect acceleration than it will affect power. By taking the windage down, the engine can accelerate itself faster.
There's others, but for the purpose of not getting into internal mods, leaving that alone.
The goal is acceleration, and that can be accomplished two ways. make more power or reduce losses. Another way to say it -- you can raise the bridge or lower the river to get a bigger boat under a bridge.
01-24-2018, 04:29 PM
#710
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
Really? A heavy slow junker like mine wit a **** combo truck motor? Covering distance very close to a high 10 low 11 sec/130mph car? Again not sure if can even use that slip for that. Post a normal 1.7/11sec slip. Heck. A .1 better 60' & .3 less, from bog, to 330'. All else same is round 11.4 or better. But my car don't do dat.
Not getting on anyone's maf. That stuff looks crazie. I like how it comes up he would have to be in second gear by 60'. Watch that vid he has & try to visualize him accelerating, to top speed of first, & shifting before the 60'. Lol.
The term KISS is good. Common sense is good. Hiho. Just do another,even a high 1.3, & we cool.
01-24-2018, 05:30 PM
#712
So, here's an interesting tidbit. i was talking to a very well-regarded engine designer about various details of engine design, and there's a few items for consideration here:
* Reducing crank MOI can be as effective or even more effective than going cam only. Making power vs the ability to accelerate the engine are two very different things. Reduced MOI won't always translate into more power, but it will into vehicle acceleration
* Reducing pumping losses, such as with a vacuum pump will also dramatically more affect acceleration than it will affect power. By taking the windage down, the engine can accelerate itself faster.
There's others, but for the purpose of not getting into internal mods, leaving that alone.
The goal is acceleration, and that can be accomplished two ways. make more power or reduce losses. Another way to say it -- you can raise the bridge or lower the river to get a bigger boat under a bridge.
* Reducing crank MOI can be as effective or even more effective than going cam only. Making power vs the ability to accelerate the engine are two very different things. Reduced MOI won't always translate into more power, but it will into vehicle acceleration
* Reducing pumping losses, such as with a vacuum pump will also dramatically more affect acceleration than it will affect power. By taking the windage down, the engine can accelerate itself faster.
There's others, but for the purpose of not getting into internal mods, leaving that alone.
The goal is acceleration, and that can be accomplished two ways. make more power or reduce losses. Another way to say it -- you can raise the bridge or lower the river to get a bigger boat under a bridge.
For hypothetical purposes, I am saying let's assume you ARE making over 500fwhp....I'm saying let's assume you're right about the power....but at 3250lbs the math still doesn't work for a 1.2 sixty.
01-24-2018, 06:30 PM
#713
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
01-25-2018, 07:07 AM
#714
7 Second Club
You know what could fix this 1.26 debate?
Hio just take his camero to the track and back it up, it's been over 3 years of mods, surely it's faster now.
I bet Hio or anyone $100 that his camero doesn't come within a tenth of that 60ft. He needs a 1.368 or better to win. (note: we can bet any amount Hio wants)
Hio just take his camero to the track and back it up, it's been over 3 years of mods, surely it's faster now.
I bet Hio or anyone $100 that his camero doesn't come within a tenth of that 60ft. He needs a 1.368 or better to win. (note: we can bet any amount Hio wants)
01-25-2018, 07:57 AM
#715
You know what could fix this 1.26 debate?
Hio just take his camero to the track and back it up, it's been over 3 years of mods, surely it's faster now.
I bet Hio or anyone $100 that his camero doesn't come within a tenth of that 60ft. He needs a 1.368 or better to win. (note: we can bet any amount Hio wants)
Hio just take his camero to the track and back it up, it's been over 3 years of mods, surely it's faster now.
I bet Hio or anyone $100 that his camero doesn't come within a tenth of that 60ft. He needs a 1.368 or better to win. (note: we can bet any amount Hio wants)
But then again DD, MM has had more than one timing error at that track. So... you never know.
01-25-2018, 08:01 AM
#716
7 Second Club
Well...I won't allow timing errors for a bet.
But Hio can use any tire/fuel or amount of hole saws that he wants to win this bet.
But Hio can use any tire/fuel or amount of hole saws that he wants to win this bet.
01-25-2018, 09:09 AM
#717
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
You know what could fix this 1.26 debate?
Hio just take his camero to the track and back it up, it's been over 3 years of mods, surely it's faster now.
I bet Hio or anyone $100 that his camero doesn't come within a tenth of that 60ft. He needs a 1.368 or better to win. (note: we can bet any amount Hio wants)
Hio just take his camero to the track and back it up, it's been over 3 years of mods, surely it's faster now.
I bet Hio or anyone $100 that his camero doesn't come within a tenth of that 60ft. He needs a 1.368 or better to win. (note: we can bet any amount Hio wants)
And with the way your pea brain thinks a bet don't fix this or any other debate. It's merely a way for you to try and grandstand like those dems just tried.
A little back story
Islander lost years ago when you claimed h/c ls cars couldn't run 10s. Well i broke it off in your *** then and you've been tangent ever since. And i lol at him all the time.
I also didn't think phil pulling the wheels with a m6 car running a 1.73 60 was legit till i seen the vid. Hell i didn't think 13 sec cars coukd bull the wheels to run 13s till i seen that.
If you woulda told me back in 02/03 that this same engine in the same car will be trapping 10-12mph more now then it was then i woulda probably laughed at you. Now it's looking to trap 2-4 mph more than it ever has.
Keep crying bitch......it makes giggle.
01-25-2018, 09:15 AM
#718
10 Second Club
You know what could fix this 1.26 debate?
Hio just take his camero to the track and back it up, it's been over 3 years of mods, surely it's faster now.
I bet Hio or anyone $100 that his camero doesn't come within a tenth of that 60ft. He needs a 1.368 or better to win. (note: we can bet any amount Hio wants)
Hio just take his camero to the track and back it up, it's been over 3 years of mods, surely it's faster now.
I bet Hio or anyone $100 that his camero doesn't come within a tenth of that 60ft. He needs a 1.368 or better to win. (note: we can bet any amount Hio wants)
01-25-2018, 09:20 AM
#719
7 Second Club
So Hio is too much of a bitch to take a bet to 60ft worse than his best? ??????????????
Anyone that races would take this bet to the bank a bet huge on it! I know I would....
Obviously he don't think he can do it and his slip is a timing error. LOL
Anyone that races would take this bet to the bank a bet huge on it! I know I would....
Obviously he don't think he can do it and his slip is a timing error. LOL