Jump to content


Photo

Half Track (660ft) E.T. & MPH


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#26 Tiny

Tiny

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,018 posts
  • Name:Tiny
  • Location:Sydney
  • Joined: 04-February 07

Posted 10 March 2007 - 10:43 AM

Chop: I've currently got a set of rims with my drag rubber on it, so that's by far the easier way to go. I'm not keen on swapping diff centres just to go racing.
It also sticks with my preferred philosophy of "street car" as the only change is the tyre!

Cheers, and the thought HAD crossed my mind.. Struggler bought my 4.11 Spooled centre to take the temptation away from me :P

#27 _MAWLER_

_MAWLER_
  • Guests

Posted 12 March 2007 - 01:30 PM

Go on Brett, you've known you need a bigger stally for ages. Drivabilty it not that much of an issue, my 4200 is still pretty good around town, and we are talking about half a second here!!!

#28 _LXXX308_

_LXXX308_
  • Guests

Posted 13 March 2007 - 11:36 PM

Dwayne form TCE just built me a converter for my Torana, got it just in time for powercruise. Cant belive how much my old converter slipped compared to the new one. Although both the same stall speed, the TCE works much better.
Haven't tested at WSID yet but this TCE locked up so well at powercruise.

#29 _MAWLER_

_MAWLER_
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2007 - 07:41 PM

O.k guys, its been a couple of days since my first passes down the track and I've had a chance to look at the numbers so now the questions start :)

60ft 2.1123 2.0203 1.9744
330ft 5.4936 5.3892 5.325
660ft 8.2719 8.1869 8.1097
660ft MPH 87.87 87.29 87.72
1000ft 10.6985 10.6247 10.5475
ET 12.7691 12.6825 12.6117
MPH 117.16 110.19 112.53


What is the difference supposed to be between the first 1/8 and the second 1/8th? My quickest time saw a first 1/8th 8.1 @ 87.72mph while the second 1/8th took 4.5 @ 24.81mph, looking at the splits the 60-330ft is also slower than the rest. I was attributing both these to lack of grip early on, would this be a fair conlcusion?

Any other observations are welcome.

Cheers,

#30 LhMusL

LhMusL

    Forum Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 468 posts
  • Location:Melbourne
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 20 May 2007 - 02:11 PM

Good work Liam them some nice numbers!! :spoton:

#31 Struggler

Struggler

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,426 posts
  • Name:Andrew or AJ
  • Location:Canberra A.C.T.
  • Car:UC Sedan
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 20 May 2007 - 08:07 PM

What is the difference supposed to be between the first 1/8 and the second 1/8th? My quickest time saw a first 1/8th 8.1 @ 87.72mph while the second 1/8th took 4.5 @ 24.81mph, looking at the splits the 60-330ft is also slower than the rest. I was attributing both these to lack of grip early on, would this be a fair conlcusion?

Any other observations are welcome.

Cheers,

Your eighth mile times and quarter times add up OK, but your terminal speeds should be closer. The 117mph one is obviously incorrect, and even 112 is weird.

#32 _MAWLER_

_MAWLER_
  • Guests

Posted 21 May 2007 - 05:38 PM

I'd agree that the 117mph is a wrong reading (I remember Brett saying he had a 125mph or something similar incorrect reading on the same day)

So the terminal speeds should be closer, how much closer? And what do you mean by the 112 being weird, as in the splits should just be closer?

Cheers,

#33 LXCHEV

LXCHEV

    Lotsa Posts!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,536 posts
  • Name:Brett
  • Location:Melbourne
  • Car:'76 LX - 383 Chev
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 21 May 2007 - 06:04 PM

Yep, Heathcote's timing is known to throw some 'weird' numbers up here and there. I had a 125mph pass, but every other pass was my usual 114-115mph.

#34 Struggler

Struggler

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,426 posts
  • Name:Andrew or AJ
  • Location:Canberra A.C.T.
  • Car:UC Sedan
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 22 May 2007 - 10:15 AM

I would have expected the 112 to be 110. You wont pick up 2mph that easily.
JMHO

#35 _MAWLER_

_MAWLER_
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2007 - 10:45 PM

O.k, I'm afraid I don't quite follow you, I'm new to all this, would you mind explaining a little bit? Why do you think the 112 should be 110?

Cheers,

#36 _lurkin308_

_lurkin308_
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2007 - 11:18 PM

ok liam what struggler is trying to say is mph is hp for eg i have a 3000pound lc and it runs 112mph that warks out to 340fwhp if my car changed a cam then run 118mph i have gained 60fwhp from that mod 1mph=10fwhp so for you to jump 2mph /20fwhp from doing nothing you are doing well i hope this makes sence to you

cheers caine

#37 _MAWLER_

_MAWLER_
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2007 - 11:06 AM

O.k so you're saying that the extra 2mph between runs 2 and 3 can't be explained in any other way (eg traction) other than faulty timing?

What about cooler engine/trans temps? On the dyno we were running 212rwkw at about 200df, let it sit for a bit without changing anything and hit it again at about 160df and got 216rwkw.

Thanks.

#38 _devilsadvocate_

_devilsadvocate_
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2007 - 03:06 PM

Do you think the temps you ran at the track were different? As stated by lurkin, another 4kW on top of 200kW isnt going to get you that speed increase.

Are wind speed and direction recorded for these events?.......that is going to have a bigger effect on the the second half than the 1st.

Just in passing: The ideal result would be to accelerate at a constant rate from start to finish. Something with jet/rocket engines and a very streamlined shape would be needed to achieve this!
The 1/8 ET would be 71% of the 1/4ET for this ideal.

Figures of ~64% have been quoted (does this figure hold for <6 sec passes?) revealing that acceleration in the 2nd half decreases.........this is no surprise since we have increased air resistance as we go faster.

Edited by devilsadvocate, 24 May 2007 - 03:07 PM.


#39 Struggler

Struggler

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,426 posts
  • Name:Andrew or AJ
  • Location:Canberra A.C.T.
  • Car:UC Sedan
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 24 May 2007 - 08:23 PM

Liam, the difference between the 3rd and second run is all in the 60'. The time you have picked up in the 60' stays with you the whole track. If you subtract the faster 60' time from the slower then add this difference to the faster ET you should be really close to the slower ET. I'm sure earlier in this thread I spoke of splitting up your time slip and comparing different splits and speeds. Cars usually run the same second half of the track, its only the first half that makes a real difference to ET. As DA pointed out acceleration is greatly reduced in the second half of the track as air resistance is greater and you don't have the torque multiplication of a gear ratio less than 1:1.

As for your dyno results..... anything with a physically smaller converter will heat the transmission fluid rapidly, causing a loss of gearbox efficiency and consequently a loss in rear wheel power. Allowing the trans to cool will always give a higher reading after a few power runs. Engines usually make a bit more power when hotter, probably because the oil is thinner, creating less parasitic drag on rotating masses. Getting the engine hot then feeding it cold air will make the most power (usually).

Hope I have explained this in english and you get something from it.

#40 _MAWLER_

_MAWLER_
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2007 - 10:12 PM

I made up a spreadsheet a while ago to do the comparision thing you mentioned earlier, which is why I came with the original question regarding difference in 1/8 and 1/4. I'll go back and have another look at it in the light of what you've mentioned and see what I come up with.

I'll be back with more questions tho, rest assured of that, hehe

DA - no the temps were'nt that different between runs or even between the track and dyno. Wind speed was actually more for 112 run that 110.

Cheers,

#41 _maxpower1000hp_

_maxpower1000hp_
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2007 - 11:30 PM

about a year or so ago street machine mag, somewhere in there said
that 1/8 mile time, times 1.555 = 1/4 time

but they are all in the same ball park as for those 4 into 1 pipes,
had a set of 4 into 1, 1'' 3/4 pri`s in a commodore, put the whole running gear in a Lj, got a set of 1" 7/8 pri`s, basiclly that was the only differents and on the dyno it had an extra 10kw(woopy) but it lost a shit load of torque

#42 _MAWLER_

_MAWLER_
  • Guests

Posted 12 April 2008 - 06:17 PM

This is what you call a resurrection!

So I went up to Heathcote a couple of weeks ago, this time with a better setup that included stepping up to 26x10.5 ET Streets and 90/10s and I managed to run a 12.16@115 (last time out 12.6@110). Naturally the gains were made in the extra traction that saw a 1.78 60ft, instead of the previous 2's.

My question is in regards to RPM crossing the line, where I am way down - crossing at 6000rpm when peak power is 6600rpm. Obviously tire and diff ratio and lots of things play a part in this equation but I was wondering what I should be doing to cross at the right spot.

I was launching at around 2000rpm and still receiving a bit of slip out of the hole. I'm thinking that better 60fts through playing with tire pressure and higher stall speeds will give me more, is this where I should concentrate? Full time was 60ft - 1.78, 330ft - 5.05, 660ft - 7.77, 660 mph - 89.89, 1000ft - 10.15, ET - 12.16@115. There is easily an 11 second pass in her, I reckon with a few more runs I could have done it!

Cheers,

#43 Tiny

Tiny

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,018 posts
  • Name:Tiny
  • Location:Sydney
  • Joined: 04-February 07

Posted 12 April 2008 - 08:42 PM

Hey Liam! Firstly well done mate!

Your times sound very similar to mine with my new engine combo so i'll post up mine and my ideas! I'm no expert to give advise though mate!

My increments:
60' - 1.767
330' - 4.995
660' - 7.659
1000' - .000 - fault
ET - 11.934
MPH - 114.60

i think always work opn your launch, gains made there are carried thru to the other end!
If you launch with higher rpm then you could see an RPM gain over the line too which puts you in your max power zone as well!

Best of luck!

#44 Struggler

Struggler

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,426 posts
  • Name:Andrew or AJ
  • Location:Canberra A.C.T.
  • Car:UC Sedan
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 12 April 2008 - 09:41 PM

Liam, you need to fit lower diff gears to get the revs up at the finish line. Ideally you want to cross the line at about 7000rpm if your engine makes peak power at 6600. This will also lower your 60' times. Do this before thinking about changing the convertor.

What pressure are you running in those slicks ? I would recommend about 12psi.

Leave the line at idle if possible. This gives the engine the biggest pump shot possible out of your carb and hits the convertor hardest to make it work properly. If you don't have a transbrake then stalling the car at the line is a waste.

#45 _pallbag_

_pallbag_
  • Guests

Posted 13 April 2008 - 08:48 AM

Leave the line at idle if possible. This gives the engine the biggest pump shot possible out of your carb and hits the convertor hardest to make it work properly. If you don't have a transbrake then stalling the car at the line is a waste.


Hopefuly not a stupid question, but would this also apply to a stock VT V6 with small street tyres on it? (but in reverse)

The 2 times I have run my Commodore, I loaded my revs up slightly to reduce a bit of wheel spin, or did I, I cant really remember why I did it, it just felt better than dumping the accelerator from idle ...

#46 _MAWLER_

_MAWLER_
  • Guests

Posted 13 April 2008 - 04:38 PM

You're right Tiny, our splits were pretty similar!

I was running 18psi. I'm assuming dropping to 12 and leaving from idle to allow greatest torque multiplication will not get me that extra 1000rpm you're recommending

Is there a formula or something to work out the optimal ratio or is it a matter of trial and error? What would you suggest?

Thanks

#47 Struggler

Struggler

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,426 posts
  • Name:Andrew or AJ
  • Location:Canberra A.C.T.
  • Car:UC Sedan
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 14 April 2008 - 10:20 AM

Leave the line at idle if possible. This gives the engine the biggest pump shot possible out of your carb and hits the convertor hardest to make it work properly. If you don't have a transbrake then stalling the car at the line is a waste.


Hopefuly not a stupid question, but would this also apply to a stock VT V6 with small street tyres on it? (but in reverse)

The 2 times I have run my Commodore, I loaded my revs up slightly to reduce a bit of wheel spin, or did I, I cant really remember why I did it, it just felt better than dumping the accelerator from idle ...

Yes, I always load up the driveline a bit by raising the rpm to about 1200-1500 rpm but there is no point revving it any harder than this, in fact as I said earlier it is a detriment.

Liam, get a Moroso power speed calculator (its a big slide rule type thing) as it has a rpm V's speed scale on it. Alternately you can access the many calculators online. I use this one.... http://www.wallacera...Calculators.htm

At 115MPH with 26" tyres you will need about 4.56 gears assuming 4-5% convertor slip. If your convertor is looser you will need a taller gear. Yes that is a fairly low gear but thats what you will need to run the best ET.

What gear do you use now ?

Also if running 12 psi in your slicks please use a conventional or bias ply tyre on the front wheels (NO radials).

#48 _MAWLER_

_MAWLER_
  • Guests

Posted 14 April 2008 - 05:04 PM

Hmm, 4.56 is a pretty low gear!

Slip would be around the 5% mark considering my 4200 converter. I'm currently running 4.11's

I am running some 165 Michelin radials on the front which made me a bit wary of dropping the rears down much below the 18psi I was using.

What I might do is try and head back out to the track in the next couple of weeks and try and get some more accurate figures to work with. If I leave from idle, try getting the 60fts down with a bigger burnout and maybe little less tire pressure, and really concentrate on hitting the shifts and then take note of what RPM I'm crossing at - I might be a ble to lift if up a little and hopefully have a higher MPH to more accurately calculate the optimal rear-end ratio.

Cheers,

#49 Tiny

Tiny

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,018 posts
  • Name:Tiny
  • Location:Sydney
  • Joined: 04-February 07

Posted 14 April 2008 - 06:18 PM

I've only ever stalled up to around 12-1500 Rpm at the moment too and i feel there is a small flat spot cause my cam doesnt really get into it's power range till the 3000 mark! THat's why i'm going up to a bigger stall soon.

My mickey T ET streets like around 17Psi, and SMALL burnouts. I've found even though I prefer a big smokey skid ( cause i'm a hoon!) the tyres seem to grip better if you just give them a little one. Maybe a big skid overheats them? I dont know!

Struggler: I assume your talking about sticking with the same style tyre all round and not mixing bias ply and raidals front/rear? I've run the ET street raidals and my normal street tyres on the front down to around 14Psi at the track ( 14Psi in the rear obviously) :). Am i right in saying that your recommendation is to keep the car stable?

#50 Struggler

Struggler

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,426 posts
  • Name:Andrew or AJ
  • Location:Canberra A.C.T.
  • Car:UC Sedan
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 15 April 2008 - 09:06 AM

Struggler: I assume your talking about sticking with the same style tyre all round and not mixing bias ply and raidals front/rear? I've run the ET street raidals and my normal street tyres on the front down to around 14Psi at the track ( 14Psi in the rear obviously) :). Am i right in saying that your recommendation is to keep the car stable?

Exactly.

Also I found similar results with the Drag Radials..... small burnout and 16psi works for me.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users