Re: difference in 60 ft tripping clocks w/front or back
[Re: Dale]
#344827
06/12/09 01:48 PM
06/12/09 01:48 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,719
Portage,michigan
B3422W5
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,719
Portage,michigan
|
Quote:
My car normally would go 1.27 and on a long wheel stand will 1.40.
i have seen close to that a few times as well....
the last time i did it, the car went 1.341 the previous pass,not tripping with the backs
on the next pass the car only ran a hundredth different(9.86/9.85) and went 1.459 on the back tires.
Most often a 1/10 but i have had it like the above as well also, almost .12
69 Dart GTS A4 Silver All steel, flat factory hood, 3360race weight
418 BPE factory replacement headed stroker, 565 lift solid cam
Best so far, 10.40 @127 1/4
1.41 best 60 foot
6.60 at 103.90 1/8
|
|
|
Re: difference in 60 ft tripping clocks w/front or back
[Re: 440Jim]
#344829
06/12/09 08:42 PM
06/12/09 08:42 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,375
Las Vegas
Al_Alguire
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,375
Las Vegas
|
Well for me it is about a .07 difference. But then again it is arguable as to what is tripping the beams. My best with wheels up, as in the photo I posted a few days ago is 1.27 and without is 1.20. Still a turd in the 60 for a 8teen car. Hope to help that out soon with a gear change.
"I am not ashamed to confess I am ignorant of what I do not know."
"It's never wrong to do the right thing"
|
|
|
Re: difference in 60 ft tripping clocks w/front or back
[Re: Al_Alguire]
#344830
06/12/09 11:18 PM
06/12/09 11:18 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,104
Wheels up, MO
nhramark
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,104
Wheels up, MO
|
Right at a tenth for me too.
[image]http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/nhramark1/library/Racing[/image]
9.100 @ 150 mph
5.780 @ 120 mph
|
|
|
Re: difference in 60 ft tripping clocks w/front or back
[Re: Cudafied]
#344833
06/13/09 12:30 AM
06/13/09 12:30 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,375
Las Vegas
Al_Alguire
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,375
Las Vegas
|
I wish it was a tenth for me. Something other than the front tires nets me high 1.20's everytime.
"I am not ashamed to confess I am ignorant of what I do not know."
"It's never wrong to do the right thing"
|
|
|
Re: difference in 60 ft tripping clocks w/front or back
[Re: 440Jim]
#344836
06/13/09 08:52 AM
06/13/09 08:52 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,928
NC
440Jim
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,928
NC
|
Quote:
I have done it more times than I care to admit. It tends to be 0.10 second on my car. The wheel base (front to back) and the tire diameters (front and back) will make a difference. And of course if it stands straight up, that will effect things more than just carrying the front tires that distance.
This attachment show one way to estimate the effect due to distance change from the front to the back tire. The distance "d" is needed, not the wheelbase "w". The beam height "b" and the tire diameters "r1" and "r2" make "d" less than "w". This assumes the same mph at the sixty foot mark. And the car may slow down more if the wheel stand is very high.
But I can't find the details of how we estimated "d". You can estimate the mph from your normal sixty foot time:
mph = 2 x 60/time x3600/5280
Ex:
2 x 60/1.25 x 3600/5280 = 65 mph
This assumes the acceleration is constant (which it is not), and the speed at the mark is twice the average speed (which is what this calculates).
|
|
|
Re: difference in 60 ft tripping clocks w/front or back
[Re: 440Jim]
#344837
06/13/09 03:55 PM
06/13/09 03:55 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 474
Alberta, Canada
451Guy
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 474
Alberta, Canada
|
Jim, No offense but I think you are just way to smart for the rest of us!!! If I ever tripped the 60' clock with the back tires I would not be able to talk due to the joker type smile on my face! 
Thanx 451 Guy
512 cu in 71 Demon Super Street Car - NO LONGER - Broke Crank
Best ET 9.57 @ 139.96
451 cu in Pump Gas - 71 Demon Super Street Car
Best ET 9.99 @ 136.80
512 cu in 69 Charger R/T
Best ET 11.39 @ 118.11
|
|
|
|
|
