Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 07 6:57 pm
by AllKiller
reaction dont matter, unless your heads up racing, in the same class,
with those 60's, you ve not enough power to get near Kev

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 07 7:18 pm
by Pete
pete walton wrote:This a copy of my last run at the nats.reaction.4048,,,,,,,,60ft 2.0831,,,,,,,330ft 5.9462,,,,,,,,,1/8 8.8562,,,,,,,,,1/8 mph 86.53mph,,,,,,,,,1000 et 11.1961,,,,,,,et 13.2612 mph 113.70. I would guess if i had not had a cup of tea and a biscuit on the line that could have been a chuffing good time poss fastest a bod.
Julies Dart ran 11.6 @ 112mph at the Nats.
Went 11.4 @ 117mph at Shakey with a 1.5 60 foot time.
A bit to go yet, Pete
When Dave & Mags Bailey are running we are not even in the Ballpark..........
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 07 7:54 pm
by AllKiller
My 60 was 1.755 ET 12.008 @ 115.510

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 07 8:20 pm
by Kev
1.58 on me 11.72 run

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 07 8:24 pm
by Anonymous
pete walton wrote:I will get there Pete just got to make enough power to drag my massive wheels of the line

Pete , why are you running on those mahoosive wheels , genuine question , not tryin to be funny , cos I'm sure you'd get better results with another combo.

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 07 8:26 pm
by Kev
Very true Adam! But would you chop up an original 60's race car???? Work with what you have, Pete (and what gears are you running!!!!!!! Again!!!!!!

)
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 07 8:30 pm
by Anonymous
Yea , thought it must of been summat to do with it.
Can always experiment with different wheels though , when he beats you & Pete he can put the mahoosives back on.

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 07 10:05 pm
by AllKiller
3.55 ?
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 07 10:07 pm
by Dave999
here is the maths that will work if a few things are constant
in reality your acceleration isn't but for back of fag packet calc to see if 1 second on 60 foot time = 2 seconds extra at the line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion
the classic equations are easier to understand
A level stuff unless you did O'levels
GCSEs just involve drawing a picture of the thing in motion

so if ya 35 or under you are screwed...
I know, i taught it (in english to children who couldn't speak english, i was supposed to i wasn't being spiteful).
I think if you use classic equations 1 and 4
where u is the speed at 60 foot V is the speed at the line
use equation 1 to work out average acceleration
R or S is the distance traveled 1/4 mile - 6o foot in this case
use meters, meters/second and meters per second squared for acceleration its easier
convert back to mph later
can't be arsed to do one.... i had to erase everything i learned to fit in idiocy, humour, how to rebuild a VW flat 4 and how to make things go bang
let me know if it works, i probably got it wrong...sbeen a long time
James!!!
integration diferentiation and stuff it scares me and I've lost me notes
dave
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 07 10:11 pm
by Anonymous
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 07 10:22 pm
by Dave999
yeah it seemed like such a good idea then i thought.....i really can't be arsed too much like hard work
acceleration is the key
and maintaining it for the full 1/4
first 8th its accelerating a big lump of car as fast as poss
second 8th its overcoming the wind resistance that goes up exponentially with every mph. which is why a ford pop aint the best car to go drag racing in
to do it right and miantain the same acceleration for the full 1/4 you would need a very wide torque curve and a lotta gears
a variator gearbox like on a modern scooter would be the go.
dave
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 07 10:25 pm
by Kev
Pete wrote:When Dave & Mags Bailey are running we are not even in the Ballpark..........
Yeah! But they are hardly street driven to and from the track,eh? Oh! I forgot! Mr TrailerQueen!!!!!!
Reckon I could go 11.4 if I
trailered my car!!
Should we have a "Trash Talk" section???
