1/8 mile track at 6600 get elevation

[stealthee]

Learn to launch. LOL

 

[TwinV6GTP]

Not only are your numbers off but they are irrelevant and have nothing to do with what I said. He ran 10.144 with a 2.4 60'. On that run he is going to run a 15.7-15.9 in the 1/4. If he had a 2.0 60' on that run his 1/8 improves to 9.6 which is about a 14.9...

Just a typo from posting from my phone, I meant 10.0 not 9.0 in the 1/8
The numbers are correct with the typo corrected. You just don't get my point. This is why I avoid technical discussions on forums.
people mix things up.

What I'm saying take two different cars.

One runs 10.0 1/8 mile ET but with a 2.4 60 foot. That one will run the quarter in approximately 15.5 with more MPH
The other car always runs the same 1/8 mile et of 10.0 but with a 2.1 60 foot. That one will have a slower 1/4 mile ET of 15.8-15.9 @ slower MPH.

Is that so hard to understand ???

The one car runs a 10.0 with a good take off. That means it's slower/less powerful than the car that ran the same ET but with a crappy 60 foot.

As a side note, I built a Performance calculator around 17 years ago. I was not satisfied with the existing formulas with HP/weight.
The 1/4 mile ET calculations were based off RWD/auto on slicks. They just didn't work for FWD cars. MPH was pretty close but not ET.

Then I made a 0-60mph calculator from just the 1/4 mile ET and MPH. Then refined it by having a 60 foot data added in the equation.

I actually never published it. Should redo it, I lost the program when I had a hard drive crash a long time ago. I don't back up often enough...

 

[stealthee]

All my point was that the calculations are not an exact science but are close. If the 60' sucks on one particular run then the 1/8 will suffer which means the 1/4 will suffer.

 

[TwinV6GTP]

All my point was that the calculations are not an exact science but are close. If the 60' sucks on one particular run then the 1/8 will suffer which means the 1/4 will suffer.

You didn't get my point all, re read my post.
You punched numbers in a flawed calculator.
Calculators do not take everything into the equation. Which is why on some cars calculators are correct and others are not...

For most FWD cars the calculators are very off, especially on the ET. But they are closer on the MPH.

In the case of a car with a bad launch the 1/8 to 1/4 conversion will be off. The car will be quicker than what the calculator said because it didn't take into account how bad of a start it got.

Easy to understand.

 

[SgtMarshal]

Twinv6gtp I think I saw something similar to what you are talking about. It was a formula on an excel spread sheet. I don't remember where I saw it.

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk

 

[stealthee]

You didn't get my point all, re read my post.
You punched numbers in a flawed calculator.
Calculators do not take everything into the equation. Which is why on some cars calculators are correct and others are not...

For most FWD cars the calculators are very off, especially on the ET. But they are closer on the MPH.

In the case of a car with a bad launch the 1/8 to 1/4 conversion will be off. The car will be quicker than what the calculator said because it didn't take into account how bad of a start it got.

Easy to understand.

You are almost talking in circles and making it WAY more difficult than it needs to be. The fact is a poor 60' hurts your run. It hurts the 1/8 and it hurts the 1/4. Improve your 60' and your 1/8 improves as does your 1/4. There is no denying that. I already said the conversion isn't an exact science, but its close enough to get an idea.

 

[TwinV6GTP]

You are almost talking in circles and making it WAY more difficult than it needs to be. The fact is a poor 60' hurts your run. It hurts the 1/8 and it hurts the 1/4. Improve your 60' and your 1/8 improves as does your 1/4. There is no denying that. I already said the conversion isn't an exact science, but its close enough to get an idea.

I give up ... You dont get the point at all. Like talking to a robot


Sent from my iPhone

 

[stealthee]

In the end we are both saying generally the same thing. The fact is if you improve your launch you will improve your ET.

 

[TwinV6GTP]

No we arent talking Bout the same thing


Sent from my iPhone

 

[91parkave]

So if you want to improve your launch try the basics first, square away the maintnence, invest in solid rubber or poly lower engine mounts and poly uppers. Take care of the suspension, deflection can cause more inefficiency when the engine is trying to put power down to the ground.. Also I make a note at the track when I'm slowing down after the finish line approaching the turn back I pop the hood release, allowing some air underneath to cool it down more heading back to the pit.


Best of luck on your endeavor. A general rule of thumb is for ever 1000 ft above sea level granted ideal atmospheric conditions you lose 5hp. So at 6600 your losing roughly 33hp. So don't expect miracles

 

[SgtMarshal]

Thanks

 

[stealthee]

No we arent talking Bout the same thing


Sent from my iPhone

But we are and to close this whole mess. You said

In the case of a car with a bad launch the 1/8 to 1/4 conversion will be off. The car will be quicker than what the calculator said because it didn't take into account how bad of a start it got.

It does take it into account. I have well over 100 1/4 mile time slips. The ones with crap 60' resulted in crap 1/8's. You take those crap 1/8 numbers and look at the conversion and it it damn close to what my 1/4 ended up being.

Good start = good 1/8 = good 1/4
Bad start = bad 1/8 = bad 1/4

 

[TwinV6GTP]

You say the sky is blue i agree but when i say the grass is green you keep talking about the sky ill be damned if i waste more time explaining my point to you


Sent from my iPhone

 

[stealthee]

Launch better means you will get better ET's. That is what we are both saying.