Topfuel dragster technology late 90s- present.
Discussion
Just wonderered. How much in terms of development and rule changes has Topfuel racing changed since the 90s? I gather there was less strict guidlines in terms of the rules in the late 90s? (ie: better nitro percentages, no rev limiters etc.)
What actually has changed?(if anything?)ie: Wing angles, materials, clutch technology, blowers, pistons, rods, ballast, blower overdrive. I know the tubing has been thicker on the chassis and certain safety things.
The tyre tech keeps being updated (2420 tyre at the moment?) What have they actually done to the tyres?
What actually has changed?(if anything?)ie: Wing angles, materials, clutch technology, blowers, pistons, rods, ballast, blower overdrive. I know the tubing has been thicker on the chassis and certain safety things.
The tyre tech keeps being updated (2420 tyre at the moment?) What have they actually done to the tyres?
Filmed by me. Tony Schumacher runs 325.6mph on a 1000ft. Are the cars set up the same to run a 1000" to what we run the 1/4mile?
Click on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_uWFtGFxxU
Click on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_uWFtGFxxU
As you say, most of the top fuel spec is frozen, which is reflected in the distinct lack of e.t. progress since the late 1990s.
Gary Scelzi ran 1320 ft in 4.480 at Houston in 1999
Tuner - Alan Johnson
Tony Schumacher ran 1320 ft in 4.428 at Pomona in 2006
1.2% improvement over Scelzi's run, after 7 years
1000 ft. increment was 3.759
Tuner - Alan Johnson
Tony Schumacher ran 1000 ft in 3.771 at Long Grove in 2008 - Current US national record
0.3% slower than his 4.428 run in 2006
Tuner - Mike Green
Does this mean the current US national record is effectively under 1% quicker than 1999?
Gary Scelzi ran 1320 ft in 4.480 at Houston in 1999
Tuner - Alan Johnson
Tony Schumacher ran 1320 ft in 4.428 at Pomona in 2006
1.2% improvement over Scelzi's run, after 7 years
1000 ft. increment was 3.759
Tuner - Alan Johnson
Tony Schumacher ran 1000 ft in 3.771 at Long Grove in 2008 - Current US national record
0.3% slower than his 4.428 run in 2006
Tuner - Mike Green
Does this mean the current US national record is effectively under 1% quicker than 1999?
Edited by CH3NO2ADDICT on Saturday 18th December 07:49
Perhaps then another interesting question might be 'what would the cars be running without restrictions to rear end, wing size, blowers, fuel percentage etc over the quarter?'. would we be seeing cars in the mid threes at over 360 mph? What if NHRA had made the tracks get safer rather than slowing the cars down?
That's a good question Jon but, in the defence of NHRA etc, we would probably be seeing some stunning performances from the odd 2 or 3 teams for a while. The rest will be priced out of it and that would be the end of racing. I would be very interested if a group of people were to bring a machine which has no performance limitations and run it as part of a big drag race show but not in competition. How quick could it go? I have no idea. The laws of physics must provide a limit somewhere.
snakehips said:
Just a mo! Did'nt i read somewhere that for 2011 Nhra will limit engines to. Single pump and mag and a 430 ci limit? ( Believe it was Melanie Troxhil who said it in an interview with E/D )
she actually said the NHRA had SUSPENDED testing of those items "untill this season is done"
"these items being required for full 1/4 mile racing" (in AA/FC)
http://www.eurodragster.com/news/features/melanie_...
Edited by veryoldfart on Saturday 18th December 21:51
Edited by veryoldfart on Saturday 18th December 21:52
Personally I have never really bought this "1000 ft is safer" idea, so long as you have a decent length run off area I can't see that the difference between the 320 mph terminals they get now and 345 mph terminals they used to get is worth worrying about. I can see though the idea of trying to control cost and keep things competitive which has been what F1 has been doing {without much success}for decades. The idea of restricted fuel engines they have been playing with to make a class that is noisy, spectacular, not vastly expensive, and competitive has merits although for example the A Fuelers in TAD already give a lot of this.
Personally I would keep TF as a full house class with as few restrictions as possible and if a restricted class has to come in start to try it on Fuel Funnies first. My personal view is if TF never goes any faster than the current cars {which seems to be the NHRA position} the top end of the sport will gradually decline as so much of the mythology of the sport is tied up with the "first 6" "first 300mph" runs that used to happen up until the last few years.
It is interesting to speculate how quick TF cars with unlimited nitro %, engine size, gear ratios etc could be running now though I suspect that we are at the diminishing returns level these days and to run a 3 with a piston engined car would require a step up in horsepower on a scale that would be too much for the current types of engines used.
Bill
Personally I would keep TF as a full house class with as few restrictions as possible and if a restricted class has to come in start to try it on Fuel Funnies first. My personal view is if TF never goes any faster than the current cars {which seems to be the NHRA position} the top end of the sport will gradually decline as so much of the mythology of the sport is tied up with the "first 6" "first 300mph" runs that used to happen up until the last few years.
It is interesting to speculate how quick TF cars with unlimited nitro %, engine size, gear ratios etc could be running now though I suspect that we are at the diminishing returns level these days and to run a 3 with a piston engined car would require a step up in horsepower on a scale that would be too much for the current types of engines used.
Bill
WJM said:
Personally I have never really bought this "1000 ft is safer" idea, so long as you have a decent length run off area I can't see that the difference between the 320 mph terminals they get now and 345 mph terminals they used to get is worth worrying about. I can see though the idea of trying to control cost and keep things competitive which has been what F1 has been doing {without much success}for decades. The idea of restricted fuel engines they have been playing with to make a class that is noisy, spectacular, not vastly expensive, and competitive has merits although for example the A Fuelers in TAD already give a lot of this.
Personally I would keep TF as a full house class with as few restrictions as possible and if a restricted class has to come in start to try it on Fuel Funnies first. My personal view is if TF never goes any faster than the current cars {which seems to be the NHRA position} the top end of the sport will gradually decline as so much of the mythology of the sport is tied up with the "first 6" "first 300mph" runs that used to happen up until the last few years.
It is interesting to speculate how quick TF cars with unlimited nitro %, engine size, gear ratios etc could be running now though I suspect that we are at the diminishing returns level these days and to run a 3 with a piston engined car would require a step up in horsepower on a scale that would be too much for the current types of engines used.
Bill
is it the horesepower or how to get it down to the ground thats the restriction?...Personally I would keep TF as a full house class with as few restrictions as possible and if a restricted class has to come in start to try it on Fuel Funnies first. My personal view is if TF never goes any faster than the current cars {which seems to be the NHRA position} the top end of the sport will gradually decline as so much of the mythology of the sport is tied up with the "first 6" "first 300mph" runs that used to happen up until the last few years.
It is interesting to speculate how quick TF cars with unlimited nitro %, engine size, gear ratios etc could be running now though I suspect that we are at the diminishing returns level these days and to run a 3 with a piston engined car would require a step up in horsepower on a scale that would be too much for the current types of engines used.
Bill
Jon C said:
Perhaps then another interesting question might be 'what would the cars be running without restrictions to rear end, wing size, blowers, fuel percentage etc over the quarter?'. would we be seeing cars in the mid threes at over 360 mph? What if NHRA had made the tracks get safer rather than slowing the cars down?
That would be so cool. Imagine all of those possiblitys with a monostrut wing on the back aswell!Clearly had a red wine too many this evening and started considering the possible advantages of having four rear slicks, multi-element wings, disposable ballast (just dump it on the track when you're done with it), dragsters on rails, additional rocket motors to aid at the start ..... but that would be stoopid!
ribaric said:
Clearly had a red wine too many this evening and started considering the possible advantages of having four rear slicks, multi-element wings, disposable ballast (just dump it on the track when you're done with it), dragsters on rails, additional rocket motors to aid at the start ..... but that would be stoopid!
OK i've built it, now you drive it...... you might need another wine though 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHXk12T3MuY&fea...
Gassing Station | Drag Racing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff