I have been playing around with a calculator for all different sorts of auto calculations.

One of the items they have is the G-Foces based on your 60' times from your track slips.

I entered mine of 1.425 sec the last time out to the track and it gave me:

Results:
1.85 av. G's to 60'.
57.4 M.P.H. at 60'.

What suprised me is the 57.4MPH! Guess that put into perspective how fast your really going! HOLY COW.

Give me your 60' times and I will calculate them for you if you want.

I am going to have to check my old logs and see where I am shifting out of first gear at. Well upon doing so it looks pretty right cause I shift at about 6700RPM, but the actual shift is done at 7000 on my logs and that is right in the ballpark of the MPH.

Transmission Ratios:
1st: 2.52 2nd: 1.52 3rd: 1

Tire Diameter 1: 28 inches
Rear Gear Ratio 1: 3.73:1
MPH
RPM 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
1000 9 14 21 0 0 0
1500 13 21 32 0 0 0
2000 17 28 43 0 0 0
2500 21 35 54 0 0 0
3000 26 42 64 0 0 0
3500 30 49 75 0 0 0
4000 34 56 86 0 0 0
4500 38 63 96 0 0 0
5000 43 71 107 0 0 0
5500 47 78 118 0 0 0
6000 51 85 129 0 0 0
6500 55 92 139 0 0 0
7000 60 99 150 0 0 0
7500 64 106 161 0 0 0
8000 68 113 172 0 0 0


That is pretty crazy when you compare it to other exotic cars.

Viper GTS Coupe:
Engine: 8 Litre, V10
Max Power: 450 @ 5200 RPM
Max Torque: 490 @ 3700 RPM
0-60: 4.1 secs
1/4 mile acceleration: 12.2 sec/ 119.3 MPH
One Mile Acceleration: 30.6 sec/ 169.4 MPH
Top Speed: 187.3 MPH
Lateral G's: 1.01g
600ft. slalom: 73.6 MPH
Length: 4448 mm
Width: 1924 mm
Weight: 1534 kg
Fuel Economy: 15 MPG
Price: £68,800



Standard Viper Convertible:
Engine: 8 Litre
0-60: 4.4 secs
Top Speed: 165 MPH
Length: 4448 mm
Width: 1924 mm
Weight: 1552 kg
Fuel Economy: 16 MPG
Price: £62,250


Hennesy Viper Venom:
Engine: 8.5 Litre, V10
Max Power: 600 @ 5600 RPM
Max Torque: 610 @ 4900 RPM
0-60: 3.4 secs
Top Speed: 205 MPH
Length: 4448 mm
Width: 1924 mm

Plymouth Prowler:
Engine: 3.5 Litre, V6
BHP: 214 @ 5850 RPM
Torque: 221 @ 3100 RPM
0-60: 7.2 secs
Top Speed: 117 MPH

Chevorelet Corvette:
Engine: 5.7 Litre (350 cubic inch), V8, 2-valve, pushrod, aluminum.
Max Power: 345 @ 5600 RPM,
Max Torque: 350 @ 4400 RPM
0-62: 5.0 secs
Top Speed: 174 MPH
Weight: 1477 Kg
Price: £37,625

And this is really funny:
http://www.chem.ucla.edu/~na/exotics.html

I will sell my car for any of these above mentioned prices in this link

 

Da#n Jessie,
You have toooo much time on your hands.
If tranny is in and weather is good, I might make next Friday.

 

No not really the wife has me cleaning closets today and I keep slipping away and surfing....I am playing with fire sorta speak.

YES YES YES come over to Beaver this Friday and run with us. Tell the corkster to get his butt over there too. I am always traveling a bajillion miles to come race with you turkeys.

It will be a GOOD time and racing that evening gets pretty good. Damn I wish some tracks would have been open today....the weather here is pretty killer. Almost 50s outside right now. That would have been some easy 10.2 runs maybe 10.1s

Did you guys see any driveshafts down at the swap meet? I need to order one, mine is starting to get a little sloppy on the rear yoke.

Here is your Jim, think I have your 60' times right...

60' = 1.52s

Results:
1.62 av. G's to 60'.
53.8 M.P.H. at 60'.

 

hey jesse , i think i still have my driveshaft ill look around you can have it if i can find it

 

Hi Ski ...,

That would make sense... think of the funny cars say running 1/4 in 3 -4 4 seconds, they are hitting 100 mph by the time they hit the 60' mark... and hitting close to 5 g's WHOOHOO...

One thing I noticed on my logging software is that the MPH can be a touch misleading it shows me at for example 34 mph but the tire speed at 47... I'm hitting 0-60's in high 3's low 4's... averaging 4.20's I' tipping about 1.1 g but if you are hooking up really good, alot of that would be in weight transfer which is a good thing

I like runing and playing with the numbers too

Mo

 

One of my favorite basic calculus problems.


Some position S= some initial velocityVi(t)+ some accleration Ai(t)^2 + some initial position Si

so

S= Vi(t) + Ai(t)^2 + Si

Take the derivative with respect to time

dS/dt = V= Vi + Ai(t)

take anothor derivative with respect to time

d^2S/dt = dV/dt = a = Ai

take anothor dervative and you'll find something called Jerk.. a mysterious little bastard responsible for breaking our suspension and driveline pieces.

remeber 1 g is 32.2 ft per second per second.

Alot of the calculators are really basic guesses that doesn't make much sence at all. I mean if you think about it do you really think that you accomplish 1/2 of your 1/8th MPH (660 ft) in the first 60 foot?


If you can get some record what position at particular instances of time I can find instantanous velocitys and acclerations at any time.

try to see if you can find something like that.. something like I did 2' in .3 seconds 10' in .5 seconds, etc. Or even if you have a record of V vs t I can find instintanious position and accleration pretty easy.

I like to play with it.. things like that geeky stuff like 'where does the formula of a sphere' come from are fun for me.

 

Yeah that would be cool...I will give you $$ for it...

Mo, yeah the big guys are crazy to watch...they run the car to the 60' mark, blow the tires off - coast the rest of the way down and run 10.0@32MPH ETs! Makes what we are doing look like a bunch of kids playing.

Alvin...I did not want to think about it that much. Yeah the old formulas from kinematics/physics.

To answer your question do I think that your speed is 1/2 what it is at the 60' mark to the 60' mark......its probably pretty close to that, which is why the first 60' is so important...and if you think about it, by the 1/8 mile your way past 1/2 of your total mph. My car hits 104MPh in the 1/8 and only gains 28 more MPH in the last 1/2 of the track. Which is pretty good actually for the last 1/2 of the track. Which is why gains are so minimal on the topend, or should I say its VERY tough to gain ET by improvement made on the topend.

Like you said though its something neat to think about.

Wait a minute - did you and I just agree on something?

PS: dynos still suck. That was entirely a joke so people don't go into a frantic fit over things. People are getting way too defensive around here - debating is not a bad thing and doesn't have to make enemies of people.

 

Damn, 0-60 mph in 1.4 seconds? If a car can do 0-60 mph in 2.8 seconds and it has a price tag of $800,000, you may as well sell your car for $1,600,000. Buy a nice house, use a portion of that $$$ to build another 10 second car and you'd have a nice money making regime, if only people would look at the 0-60 mph time with such importance, such as either dumb rich and wealthy people/kids and/or auto performance magazines.

 

Friday looks to be shaping up well. I have to put the new(old) torque converter in sometime between now and then. Hope to see you guys there.

 

Korv,

I hear ya....that is why I said my car is for sale for any of the above prices!

Pete, Definately would be good to see you there. Get on that converter...that is only a few hour job...NO EXCUSES!

 

A little more than a few hrs. It took 5 start to finish. No excuses now!

 

well I do have an advantage with the lifts, so 5 is doing good on your back. god I would hate that. I get freaked out being under tight spaces....guess that is why I was good at wrestling. Could not stand to be held down.

hope you see you there. Give the guy on the drag section a heads up your coming. Not sure if it matters or not.

 

I was in a car wreck this summer and they sent me for an MRI. You will NOT like that. I am not normally nervous in tight spaces. The MRI tube freaked me out a bit. Posted on the other thread as well.

 

Ski,

I have your set-up in my simulator.... based upon your 1.42 60ft 6.561 @ 104.62 and 10.335 @ 131.70 pass the following is what your car does. The accuracy is literally a hundredths or so on this program, I'm to tired to explain why its accurate right now, but just trust me. I assumed a shallow stage, thus I have you at a 10" rollout, which is important to determine some of the data below.

0-30 mph = .95 seconds = 19.1 ft
0-60 mph = 2.62 seconds = 128.3 ft
0-100 mph = 6.15 seconds = 553.9 ft

btw, that online calculator you're using I think is way off.... at the 60 ft mark you hit 44 mph.

Your G's hit are:

1.63 on the initial hit
1.31 at the 20 ft mark
.89 at the 60 ft mark
.40 at half track
.28 at 1320 ft

My program actually says you're capable of a top speed of 216 mph.... however, I do not know if this portion of the program is accurate or not. I have my program dialed in with every car spec of yours and it after some tweaking it now has your set-up down to a hundredths at every incremental. To give you an example, even though I have never seen your 330 ft times on the 10.33 pass.... I'll bet its 4.22 give or take a hundreths.

btw, if you remember way back a year or two back when all of us were discussing potential et performance of your set-up on email.... I had you pegged at 10.3 @ 131 mph in average summer air, do I win anything !!!

cheers,
Beach Bum

 

Ski's setup is still an exotic car killer. A rich man could have that $600,000 Ferrari Enzo line up and hear Ski rev the 434 and I bet the owner would wet his pants while the Enzo would leak (eh ****) its coolant out.

That's still a lot of Gs whatsoever.

 

Thats a bit off too.. Look at the 0-100mph.. your over estimating by 100'. The calculator should spit out something close to 104 at 660' based on his 1/8 et/mph.

Modeling the accleration of a car is really hard because the power output is not any type of describable function. You could model it a function of time sub each gear but even that doesn't take in account for torque convertor torque multiplication and stuff like that. You could probally hit somthing closer with some complex differential equations but thats beyond me.


BTW.. has anyone seen the proof that acceleration greater than 1 g isn't possible? We all know it is, but how we get to it is with some tire/suspension tricks not on tire friction alone... pretty interesting stuff.

 

Hi Alvin,

Actually the numbers I put up our right on the nose..... in actuality, on ski's pass of 104 mph in the 1/8th, he is actually going over 106 mph... keeping in mind the trap speed on ski's timeslip is an average over the last 66 ft before the et markers. The program I have allows me to put in a engines torque curve and all variables such as tranny, and tranny ratio's, efficiency of each gear, driving conditions, torque converter flash, weather, car model (I use a pre-loaded C4).... and much more. It will usually spit out numbers fairly close to the actual timeslip created by a car, but then I massage the parameters to get the car to match the timeslip... which takes time, but once its done, you have a great baseline simulator program. It is not a an engine dyno, but instead a dragstrip simulator, that will then allow you to go back and change gear ratio's, stall, etc... to find out if they will in theory help you.

But in any regards, it spits out a very accurate time run simulation of a 1/4 mile.... think of it as connecting the dots... if I massage it to connect the dots at all of the incrementals of a et slip.... all other numbers are right their too. Here is some of ski's run chronology... I didn't take the time to dial it to the exact hundredths vs his real et slip, but as you'll see its very close. I am also not posting all increments of the run chronology...

Notice he's going to over 6 mph at 0 feet into the slip.... this is his speed to get out of the 10" rollout I have programmed.

Time......Distance......Speed mph

.258........ 0...............6.78
.947........19.............30.00
1.320......38.............36.00
1.697......60.............44.23
2.249......100...........54.40
2.586......128...........60.00
3.510......219...........73.23
4.487......330...........83.09
5.776......500...........96.45
6.150......554...........100.00
6.420......594...........102.48
6.851......660...........106.29
8.875.....1000..........122.19
9.880.....1185..........128.97
10.243...1254..........130.19
10.586...1320..........132.30

The above is the actual time from when the car moved, thus all times at each incremental are the actual et slips + the rollout. Or in otherwords the actual time the car took to accelerate to the distances listed. Thus his rollout for a shallow stage is right around .258 with his power.... which is pretty quick... most cars are more in that .330 area... its a good number to know to help you dial in your practice tree.

The above would create a timeslip that shows:

1.42 60 ft
4.22 330 ft
6.59 1/8th
104.40 mph
8.618 1000 ft
10.331 1/4
131.25 mph
(Which is very close to Ski's actual slip)

and it also it creates:

0-30 mph = .95 seconds = 19.1 ft
0-60 mph = 2.59 seconds = 128.3 ft
0-100 mph = 6.15 seconds = 553.9 ft

cheers,
Beach Bum

 

Where do you get these engine/dyno/drag strip simulators? Looks like they are very interesting programs to mess around with.

 

Beach is about dead on with the figures be presented. I checked my slip at noon of my last 10.33 run, and the 330' ET was 4.231sec, which your not going to get much closer than that with a simulator.

The other thing to consider though is I was on my brakes pretty hard that run. So it must me picking up on the top end a little more now than when you figured things out. Most likely due to my running my exhaust open and perhaps before you were using the numbers I had last year when the car went 10.33 with the exhaust on in Jersey weather.

But for the most part your figures are VERY accurate Beach.

What should it do in GOOD air this year? I am guessing I should see 10.teens with it, maybe 10.Os with a REAL good air day. There is more to be had in the 60' times which is what I am working on Friday when I go to the private track rental. My goal now is 1.3XX 60' times.

Seems like since the car is now dead hooking I still have too much squat in the rear. I am going to try stiffening up the rear and more air pressure combo. You can see it dip out a little on the 1-2 shift too. That is all wasted energy. What do you think?

http://www.azzatochips.com/Beaver9-3..._33_9-3-05.wmv

Your right too about my rollout time too. I have a tough time going from day time to night when racing. I have to almost wait till the 3rd yellow goes out or I will redlight. Where when talking to most guys they seem to go when they see the 3rd yellow. If I do that I am DONE! Most of the time at night I swear I see the green go on and I still get a redlight. I can only assume that its cause I am seeing the lights better at night and perhaps its a reflection onto the green.

I will have to get that file off you and your engine setup for the simulator. I have the software, but have not used it since redoing my combo this year. One thing i thought should have made more of a difference is the T350 trans. But I did loose some low end gearing and the topend is now better. So its pretty much a wash like I thought it might be. Sure wish I had Dave Outtens solid rear setup in my car. He gets pretty consistant 1.29 60' times! I think its pretty safe to say I would be running 9s with those 60' times.

The software is available through Summit Racing. Just saw it in their catalog this weekend.

 

Hi Ski,

I said 4.22.... but actually the sim kicked out 4.229 (4.487 - .258)... thus the sim was a mere 2 thousandths off based upon your 4.231. Which is pretty typical... it nails everything on the nose... literally has my old set-up down to a few thousandths at every increment.

Yeah, the harder the launching car, the later you gotta leave... with low 10 second cars that are capable of 60 footing well into the 1.4's.... you really can't leave on the "first sight" of the last yellow, you have to train yourself to feel the light first. My old set-up would do really well hitting on first sight of the last yellow... typically in the .510-.520 if I wasn't late.... with yours... you'd probably go red most of the time.

As far as hitting the 9's.... in good air you're close... my sim says you need mineshaft air at a sealevel track to do it, but it is doable.... problem is, the faster you go, the harder it is to find et.... 3 tenths on a 14 second car isn't all that hard.... on a low 10 second car its a real beotch is my guess.

gotta go

cheers,
Beach Bum