Latest calculated figures 2.22 0-60!!
Discussion
I went from Harrogate (robsco) to Skipton via four wagons and a numpty in a merc estate. Total time not much but I wasn't clock watching. Bugger nearly forgot I called in and bought a jumbo fish dinner. Sorry no pictures or graphs of my record journey but I will try harder in future.
PS. The fish was lovely.
PPS. Called in at Halfords for some tidy ties.
PPPS. Told you I don't clock watch.
PPPPS. Nice graphics
PS. The fish was lovely.
PPS. Called in at Halfords for some tidy ties.
PPPS. Told you I don't clock watch.
PPPPS. Nice graphics
I would be seriously impressed if any 2 wheel drive car can do 0-60 in under 3 secs, 2.2 is almost against pysics unless it is a drag car, i spent my life growing up with rallycross and these cars where 4 wheel drive 600-900hp and running 0-60 in 2.2. Dude not saying your car wont but if it does f
k me that is proper quick!!
k me that is proper quick!!Brummmie said:
I agree 2.22 sounds fantasticle, but i had Mickey Thompson ET Streets on, so i reckon its about 3 wheel drive! Fact is its a sub 7 second 0-100mph car, unless the timing gear is faulty, so in between 0-100 mathamatics have to apply, slower if i stop for fish n chips though....
hey regardless of actual set figures your car is pretty damn quick! 0-100 would equate to just over 3 secs 0-60 from my experience, when we did john welch's xtrac escort that recorded 0-60 in 2.2 that had a 0-100 of 5.5, it would be definetly worth getting your car rigged up for a true reading as it has got to be one of the quickest tivs out there? Fact is its a sub 7 second 0-100mph car, unless the timing gear is faulty, so in between 0-100 mathamatics have to apply, slower if i stop for fish n chips though....Paul you'll find salt and vinegar helps with traction.
Sorry to say one of my old fish and chip shops has closed down, I'm gutted. Not as gutted as the fish though.
What about a little alchol to make it go faster but at some point it has to be down to traction I suppose? SALT has to be the winner as it works for me in winter.
Sorry to say one of my old fish and chip shops has closed down, I'm gutted. Not as gutted as the fish though.
What about a little alchol to make it go faster but at some point it has to be down to traction I suppose? SALT has to be the winner as it works for me in winter.
My little brain can't accept 2.22
Those numbers are quicker than on the timing ticket so are not comparable enough.
I still believe sub 3 but only just.
Either seek to get proper timing equipment on the car for a true test or bring it to York when they have the camera set up.
Nice graphs and numbers. Maybe that is the perfect run possible. Until you cave in and fit nitrous that is
Those numbers are quicker than on the timing ticket so are not comparable enough.
I still believe sub 3 but only just.
Either seek to get proper timing equipment on the car for a true test or bring it to York when they have the camera set up.
Nice graphs and numbers. Maybe that is the perfect run possible. Until you cave in and fit nitrous that is
dbv8 said:
My little brain can't accept 2.22
Those numbers are quicker than on the timing ticket so are not comparable enough.
I still believe sub 3 but only just.
Either seek to get proper timing equipment on the car for a true test or bring it to York when they have the camera set up.
Nice graphs and numbers. Maybe that is the perfect run possible. Until you cave in and fit nitrous that is
The idea for that run of the sim was to get a 0-60mph time, if you look at the 60 foot time it is slower(not by much though) than Pauls actual run!Those numbers are quicker than on the timing ticket so are not comparable enough.
I still believe sub 3 but only just.
Either seek to get proper timing equipment on the car for a true test or bring it to York when they have the camera set up.
Nice graphs and numbers. Maybe that is the perfect run possible. Until you cave in and fit nitrous that is
Also look at the 60 foot speed, 47mph.
47/60 = 0.78, so at 60 feet the car has 78% of the speed relative to 60mph.
Turning this upside down we need 27% longer to get to 60mph. As already mentioned this is taking not needing to change gear, so constant acceleration.
1.27 (a factor) * 1.7 (the 60 foot time) = 2.159 (time at 60mph) QED ish
?It all makes sense when you've mentioned in the past how significant the 60 foot time is towards the final ET.
The link below seems to agree.
http://ls1tech.com/forums/drag-racing-tech/17899-c...
It was you that got me analysing drag strip performance
v8 racing said:
I would be seriously impressed if any 2 wheel drive car can do 0-60 in under 3 secs, 2.2 is almost against pysics unless it is a drag car, i spent my life growing up with rallycross and these cars where 4 wheel drive 600-900hp and running 0-60 in 2.2. Dude not saying your car wont but if it does fk me that is proper quick!!
Drag tyres take some getting your head around imho so in a way it is a drag car!k me that is proper quick!!Seeing a picture of a front engined (engine further forward than a TVR and with iron blocks) US Muscle cars pull wheelies tells you four wheel drive isn't needed in the ideal environment.
The cars you mention have tiny engines with more of a binary power delivery compared to a big smooth V8 (as you obviously know), so they won't go very fast in first, then waste time changing gears....
But then they're designed to be agile round corners (etc etc - insert stuff we all know here).
RichardD said:
Drag tyres take some getting your head around imho so in a way it is a drag car!
Seeing a picture of a front engined (engine further forward than a TVR and with iron blocks) US Muscle cars pull wheelies tells you four wheel drive isn't needed in the ideal environment.
The cars you mention have tiny engines with more of a binary power delivery compared to a big smooth V8 (as you obviously know), so they won't go very fast in first, then waste time changing gears....
But then they're designed to be agile round corners (etc etc - insert stuff we all know here).
Now you point out wheelies, 4wd would actually be a waste of energy!!Seeing a picture of a front engined (engine further forward than a TVR and with iron blocks) US Muscle cars pull wheelies tells you four wheel drive isn't needed in the ideal environment.
The cars you mention have tiny engines with more of a binary power delivery compared to a big smooth V8 (as you obviously know), so they won't go very fast in first, then waste time changing gears....
But then they're designed to be agile round corners (etc etc - insert stuff we all know here).
Never thought of that...
It has to be 2. something!?
The new valve springs have landed, which should take me to 7600rpm at least before valve float, that 60mph 1st will be a doddle!
Brummmie said:
Now you point out wheelies, 4wd would actually be a waste of energy!!
Never thought of that...
It has to be 2. something!?
The new valve springs have landed, which should take me to 7600rpm at least before valve float, that 60mph 1st will be a doddle!
I haven't been a keen follower for some years, but I don't recall any particularly successful 4wd dragsters.Never thought of that...
It has to be 2. something!?
The new valve springs have landed, which should take me to 7600rpm at least before valve float, that 60mph 1st will be a doddle!
This looked fun though (no obvious waste of power here);
Looks like a 14ft. forward facing 'periscope' would have been useful.
More here; Tommy Ivo
I would like to present my formula;
(Cerbera + wheelies)
(big spark show + cool looking run) = new tailpipes
Can anyone confirm my calculations?
Brummmie said:
a wheelie would be kinda cool! 
Another whole world of pain for the transmission...
You will never pull a wheelie in a car with IRS.Another whole world of pain for the transmission...
Now if we put a 4-linked live axle in there.....
I have a project at the back of a fagpacket stage. Just wish i was in a position to get the ball rolling.
Goaty Bill said:
I haven't been a keen follower for some years, but I don't recall any particularly successful 4wd dragsters.
This looked fun though (no obvious waste of power here);
Looks like a 14ft. forward facing 'periscope' would have been useful.
More here; Tommy Ivo
I would like to present my formula;
(Cerbera + wheelies)
(big spark show + cool looking run) = new tailpipes
Can anyone confirm my calculations?
I saw this "car" on a program on Discovery recently - the two engines on one side drove the front wheels and the two engines (facing the opposite direction) drove the rears ... and because both pairs of engines rotated in opposite directions it was also supposed to be quite "smooth" to pilot as they cancelled out each others torque reaction.This looked fun though (no obvious waste of power here);
Looks like a 14ft. forward facing 'periscope' would have been useful.
More here; Tommy Ivo
I would like to present my formula;
(Cerbera + wheelies)
(big spark show + cool looking run) = new tailpipes
Can anyone confirm my calculations?
Apparently he had quite a clear view of the track ahead when smoking all four tyres as the exhaust flow when doing burnouts kept the tyre smoke away from the centre of the car and it was claimed on the interview that it was like looking down a tunnel with the tyre smoke on either side.
Phil
tinker-27 said:
One of my customers has a rx7 with a 600 bhp rotary , still IRS it does 9.2 @ 140 mph + and it does wheelie of the line !! , he has the same tyres as paul , just need a proper prepped track !!
Interesting. I would like to know more please. Any 'tricks' to the rear suspension?Richard, this 2.2 thing is still niggling me.
It still doesnt add up in my mind.
If the 0-60 was 2.2 then 60-100 would be about 4.7 (according to the 1/8th) which is too slow for Pauls car.
If Paul staged just enough, he would be 12 inches from the timing beam, in effect getting that run up. There isnt such a thing as an actual standing start when it comes to times at teh drag strip.
I am still thinking high 2's and a further 4 seconds to 100.
It still doesnt add up in my mind.
If the 0-60 was 2.2 then 60-100 would be about 4.7 (according to the 1/8th) which is too slow for Pauls car.
If Paul staged just enough, he would be 12 inches from the timing beam, in effect getting that run up. There isnt such a thing as an actual standing start when it comes to times at teh drag strip.
I am still thinking high 2's and a further 4 seconds to 100.
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff