1/4 estimate - Page 3

FS5 · 22-06-2007, 09:32 PM

i wouldn't have put it as bluntly as vrx said ,but a 2.6 60ty and a 15.0 without wheelspin ,i dunno ........
but i guess theres no arguing with a time slip.
i dunno maybe its late and i've to many xxxx's .
2.6 60ty without wheelspin
15.098 @92.2
just don't add up to me.

stiddy · 22-06-2007, 10:08 PM

I'll admit its faster than I thought it would be.. but I am a little skeptical on the other hand.
0-100 in 6.8 seconds, but a 2.6 60? that doesnt add up.
the mph and et add up.

But if its true, good stuff you have another rare freak car.

XR8-260 · 22-06-2007, 10:23 PM

Nice time make. It was much faster than most of us (me included) thought it would be. Can you post up the time slip?

Casper · 22-06-2007, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stiddy

I'll admit its faster than I thought it would be.. but I am a little skeptical on the other hand.
0-100 in 6.8 seconds, but a 2.6 60? that doesnt add up.
the mph and et add up.

But if its true, good stuff you have another rare freak car.

Without a 1/8th mph to calculate on its impossible to say. Its possible but it would need to have fairly bolted after the first 330' mark.

Would like to see the timeslips myself.

The Monty · 23-06-2007, 03:03 AM

He did say he took off from very low revs, which means there wouldnt have been wheelspin. When Im out at the drags, I stall up to the point where its nearly breaking traction, which I think is around 22-2300rpm.

FS5 · 23-06-2007, 08:06 AM

in all truthfullness,running a flat 15 with a crap load of gear in the boot is an awsome time and very acheivable.
but with a 2.6 60ty??????
imagine if you took the gear out of the boot ,stalled it up a bit on the line and got a 2.2 60ty (which there quite capable of).your ET would be in the low 14's
xr6rnv are you sure your 60ty was 2.6?
with an ET like that it should be around the 2.06
but anyhow ,good on you mate for taking it out and giving it a run .

stiddy · 23-06-2007, 03:10 PM

hmm after thinking about it for a little and looking at the timeslip datebase.. Im going to assume its bullshit til I see a timeslip.
A stock auto AU will usually net a 2.2 60ft.. If you got a 2.6 60ft but ran a 15.0 you would need to be doing 95mph+ across the line...

Whats the the mph for the 1/8th?
Maybe we should wait a few more days for xr62nv to spin the wheel and pull some more numbers out...

jonbays · 23-06-2007, 03:16 PM

You would want to see the slip on this one!

it's very hard to make up the time with a 2.6 60'.

You would need real big power and would get a higher TS as well.

Casper · 23-06-2007, 03:28 PM

I've been trying to add it up and I cant make it work. Something is way off here.

Looking at my times as a comparison as we both ended up at 92.xxmph so crossed the line at similar terminal speeds.

I am 0.6 ahead at 60' and almost 0.9 ahead at 660'.
At the end I'm supposedly only 0.7 ahead. MPH is similar (mine was a little faster). Therefore he needed to catch my speed and then pull me back 0.2 seconds after the 660'.
That means he needed to be going faster than me at 660' by quite a bit to gain back that 0.2 and then let me end up at a slightly higher MPH at the end.

Now given I know what sort of 60', 330' and 660' acceleration my car has (and many here have seen it and know its capabilities) I am having trouble reconciling that a stock xr6 with a 2.6 60' time and a 10.1 660' time will have a significantly faster MPH to the 660' than I do to gain back 0.2 seconds... and then manage to finish the 1/4 with a slightly slower MPH. This doesn't add up to me.. I would like to see the time slips or I'll just let people make their own assumptions.

xr62nv · 23-06-2007, 06:09 PM

there has to be a mistake with this many responses. But the times i posted are 100% acurate to what the time slip says

the 660ft speed was 72.88mph

probably adds more confusion now, i'll try find someone with a scanner and scan the timeslip to post it up

**Stav** · 23-06-2007, 06:09 PM

Youve got me thinking here...2.6 60footer. No way 0-100 in 6.8 seconds

xr62nv · 23-06-2007, 06:13 PM

it was 7.01 not 6.8 wen i did the run on the track. I will run again in the next fortnite without gear in the car and sum better tyres.. Maybe a 14 is achievable

**Stav** · 23-06-2007, 06:15 PM

Cool man I understand. I do believe you ran the time you said.Scan it up and post it.Chances are that you have an unusually higher amount of power in the midrange which gave the et.

AUTickford · 23-06-2007, 06:19 PM

Hey xr6 go and prove everyone wrong id love to see that,how many passes did you do that night can you compare timeslips?Its a vct isnt it so maybe the vct works better than average in your car.

Casper · 23-06-2007, 06:28 PM

This makes even less sense now.

If I was doing 9.255@73.63 at the 660' and you were doing 10.117@72.88 (0.86 seconds behind) then you were still losing distance (0.75mph is roughly 2.7 meters a second at that point). Then at the end you were doing 15.098@92.2 compared to 14.57@92.92 (still roughly losing 2.7 meters per second in mph) yet you have managed to cut the time margin down to 0.53 seconds. So somehow you have gained 0.33 seconds by traveling approximately 2.7 meters per second SLOWER on average from the 660' mark to the end of the 1/4 in comparison to my car.

I'm happy to try and work this out with other cars on the database if you want just to show that something is wrong with the time slip, its breaking the laws of physics.

Casper · 23-06-2007, 07:01 PM

sorry, was 2.7 meters not 27... same issue though.

To give an idea, the last 660' takes roughly 4 seconds.. in that time the difference is extended by over 2 car lengths. Thats extended from almost 1 second difference (at 660') anyway.

I simply cant make this add up. At no point would you be traveling faster.. therefore at no point could you "gain" ground.

stiddy · 23-06-2007, 07:01 PM

There must of been a 120km/h tail wind just after the 660' mark, then turned into a head wind at 3/4 track, so it sped him up then slowed him down.. makes sence.. kinda like his times LOL.
OR
He thought he was bracket racing and couldnt run below 15.00 so he jumped on the brakes before he crossed the line

The Monty · 23-06-2007, 07:17 PM

There is a possibiliyt he slowed down before the finish line. I know that up here (dont know if its the same down that way) but the finish line is a fair bit past the timing boards, and a lot of first timers think that the finish is at the timing boards, and you only have 400m to slow down, so a lot of people jump on the brakes straight away.
Just some scenarios that COULD make sense.

Casper · 23-06-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monty

There is a possibiliyt he slowed down before the finish line. I know that up here (dont know if its the same down that way) but the finish line is a fair bit past the timing boards, and a lot of first timers think that the finish is at the timing boards, and you only have 400m to slow down, so a lot of people jump on the brakes straight away.
Just some scenarios that COULD make sense.

if that were the case then we've now got a case of a car with a 2.6 second 60' and a 10.1 second 660' potentially running mid 14's.

I dont think thats the case.

stiddy · 23-06-2007, 07:23 PM

Its not the same down here... when you pass the timing boards you've already finished.
Plus at WSID its not hard to see where the finish line is.

xr62nv · 23-06-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stiddy

He thought he was bracket racing and couldnt run below 15.00 so he jumped on the brakes before he crossed the line

possible i braked early..... But that means i did the same thing twice (doubt that) and if so it means i could of run alot better

new time. Without the subs in the back i am now running consistant 6.6's to 100. Not trying to start more controvesy here but its how it is

Mid 14's coming soon
hehe

Casper · 23-06-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xr62nv

possible i braked early..... But that means i did the same thing twice (doubt that) and if so it means i could of run alot better

new time. Without the subs in the back i am now running consistant 6.6's to 100. Not trying to start more controvesy here but its how it is

6.6's do not equal a 2.6 60' time or a 10.1@73mph 660' time. In fact its closer to a 2.0 second 60' time and a 9.3@74mph 660' time.

This is getting harder and harder to correlate back to your time slip.
I'm just trying to make sense of it using the laws of time and physics.. and I'm not getting an answer that makes sense. What the only possible answer could be is you struggle badly off the line (a stock auto xr6 does 2.3 60' times with ease) and then the car simply goes mental and rev's like a rocket.. and then backs off again quite dramatically.
I'm not trying to have a go at you, I'm just not seeing how this is possible.

stiddy · 23-06-2007, 07:33 PM

LOL you had us buddy, you stired us up real good.. now cut the ****.

xr62nv · 23-06-2007, 07:33 PM

its cool man i no no ones having a go at me just all confused here.

just for the record though the 6.6 time is today without stereo. On the track i did 7.01.

i no this still doesnt solve anything.

23-06-2007, 07:37 PM

Like I said I smell bullshit. I had a run against FS5 who I met at the 7till11 night at willowbank this thursday gone. Here's the info

Me FS5
60ft 2.121 2.127
330ft 6.050 6.148
660ft 9.317 9.550
M.P.H 74.78 73.10
1000ft 12.113 12.415
E.T. 14.478 14.830
MPH 95.72 93.79

I really doubt he ran those time's in his car, unless he provided some proof ie put a pic up of the time sheet, take a pic on his phone and send it to a memeber who can then put it up on here to prove it.

That's my say

Casper · 23-06-2007, 07:38 PM

Beats me.. but I'm finding it hard to take the numbers as they appear on the timeslip. Its just not mathematically plausible.
That said, I've had a 13 second ET ticket from Heathcote (as have a few others) that we know were timing errors. I've also seen mph timing errors at WSID where mph was probably 93-95mph but showed 107 or something strange like that. Thats why I suspect you have an error on the ticket.

Would still like to see the ticket though.

xr62nv · 23-06-2007, 07:41 PM

wat ever more trouble this causes im just going to conclude this

the only wrong number here is the end mph. I believe they may have been alot better possibly around the 95mph mark.

If this was the case then the slowish take off was made up for after half track and with a decent take off the car is in the 14's as the approximated 95mph (which i believe should of been) will suggest

stiddy · 23-06-2007, 07:44 PM

Go to WSID next wednesday and race again without your system and see how you go.

private9 · 23-06-2007, 07:55 PM

Well, his story's consistent at least....

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=71879

Racecraft · 23-06-2007, 08:39 PM

my car has similiar mph, mid 92mph and looking at about 5 or so slips in front of me, my average 60 footer of 2.2? is 15.0? .. AS soon as I fluff the launch and hit a 2.3-2.4 60 footer the mph stays but the time falls off to 15.3+

That is the fact, I am quoting figures from when my AU was running the 3.45 and 5 speed.. The only difference was this lad is running the XR cam and it is winter not Qld summer :(