Moparts

Big Wheelie, UPDATE w/ pic at 60'...

Posted By: cudabin

Big Wheelie, UPDATE w/ pic at 60'... - 07/19/11 05:28 AM

Ok, gratuitous Wheelie shot from Sunday. Went 1.37 - 60 foot tripping the beams with the back tires... What would that equal if I had the front down before then???

http://www.pbase.com/nitroimage/image/136530907

UPDATE, here is a pic at the 60 foot mark. The Orange box under the left front tire is the beam which was at 4.25" off the ground. I think the next thing to trip it would have definitely been the rear tires.



Cheers,

Arnie

Attached picture 6736279-60footwheelieyorkton.jpg
Posted By: wheelsup68dart

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 06:04 AM

Nice shot Probably somewhere in the 1.27-1.28 range.
Posted By: ChrisJohnston669

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 06:26 AM

I love that!
Posted By: Al_Alguire

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 06:29 AM

Nice wheelie shot. As for what it might be who knows depends on the car. .03-.08 numbers seems like a reasonable guess.

Calm that thing down a bit and see what she can do. Oh yeah time for a diaper
Posted By: gregsdart

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 11:49 AM

Doing the math figuring 52 mph at the 60 ft clocks (average) I come up with .01224 lost time. Sounds about right since you run mid 1.20s normally. 60 fts should be better when you settle the launch down to a minimal wheelstand.
What are your 330 ft times with a comparable mph at the 1/8th?
Posted By: Leon441

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 01:04 PM

I used to trip clocks on rear tires quite often. Used to ignore the 60 ft times for a while and just look at the 330. As long as the 330 ft time stayed the same, didn't get concerned. With equal 330ft times rear tire 60 fts were 1.21 and front tire 60 fts were 1.17. Obviously the slower the 60 ft MPH the more differnce it would make. Wheelbase would also be a factor. My wheelbase is only 106. When running the 727 transmission we actually had a couple 330 ft rear wheel times. The powerglide calmed the car down but, we also lost ET for a short while. Some lower rear gears fixed that. Never tried the aftermarket 727 gearsets.
Posted By: gregsdart

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 01:12 PM

Quote:

Doing the math figuring 52 mph at the 60 ft clocks (average) I come up with .01224 lost time. Sounds about right since you run mid 1.20s normally. 60 fts should be better when you settle the launch down to a minimal wheelstand.
What are your 330 ft times with a comparable mph at the 1/8th?


Should have been .1224 , not .01224.
Still, the comparable 330 ft marks are a better indicator of how much difference there is.
Posted By: MR_P_BODY

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 01:23 PM

You need to figure the wheel base and the tire diameters
to figure the difference
Posted By: CRT

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 03:58 PM

Sweet
Posted By: demon440

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 06:21 PM

I see a lot of waisted time and power.
You want the car to go forward not up.
Looks cool though.
Posted By: 451Guy

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 09:18 PM

I don't care about lost time and wasted energy. That is JUST cool!!! Let the Pro Stock guys worry about that stuff! Is that in Saskatoon? Did they put in a cement launch pad?
Posted By: RemCharger

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 09:44 PM

Quote:

I don't care about lost time and wasted energy. That is JUST cool!!! Let the Pro Stock guys worry about that stuff! Is that in Saskatoon? Did they put in a cement launch pad?

That was in Yorkton. But Saskatoon has had 160' or so of concrete for some years now. We're the only 1/4 mile in sask other than swift currents outlaw program. You should come try it. www.racesir.com

Sorry to highjack Arnie, you coming out this weekend?

Rem
Posted By: cudabin

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 10:08 PM

Thanks guys,

First hit of the day, it dead hooked, but as the track got hot, it simply popped the tires up about 6" and carried them out about 15 feet, then set down. High heat and humidty and a greasy track dropped the 60 foot down to 1.30 (tripped by the front tires)

Hey Remi,

Yes, i will be at SIR this weekend and will hope for traction and cooler weather.

Cheers,

Arnie
Posted By: 451Guy

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 11:12 PM

Hey Boys!

Last time I was in Saskatoon was in 2006. Love going there. The people are awesome and we always had a great time. Last time we were there I could not get my car to hook. Every time I let go of the tranny Brake it would smoke the tires. It was spinning so bad that I ended up braking the case in the tranny and a couple weeks later in Edmonton it ended up grabbing a rod bearing. This is why I am asking about the starting line. I have not raced for a few years but I am hoping to make it back next summer.

Best of luck this weekend! Hope the weather holds!
Posted By: dOc …

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/19/11 11:51 PM

Quote:

I don't care about lost time and wasted energy. That is JUST cool!!! Let the Pro Stock guys worry about that stuff! Is that in Saskatoon? Did they put in a cement launch pad?



NEVER had a car that would do that ... but I would be more worried about what happens when the car comes-to-earth ...

I have seen 'nuff of these wheelies in the past and have seen PLENTY of damage to frontends, suspensions, headers, oil pans and even engines.

DOES look neat though ....

TO the OP ... with that heavy VFN frontend on it .. I would have thought it would have stayed-low !

YOU sure have some decent power THEN ...to do what you did ...
Posted By: cudabin

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 12:06 AM

Hey Doc,

Yes it is heavy on the front with about 57% of the wieght there. The 4 gallon fule cell is front mounted which does not help...

451 guy, I pulled the same type of wheelie 2 weeks ago in SIR, so yes the traction is much better there. I then tightened everything up on the suspension and spun the tires in eliminations loosing by .002

Cheers,

Arnie
Posted By: REHBERGERRACING

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 12:52 AM

Quote:

I see a lot of waisted time and power.
You want the car to go forward not up.
Looks cool though.


The only ones who say this, can't do it.....
Flat Tracker...Just kidding.
Its all about the wheelie!!!
COOL!!!!
Posted By: 440Jim

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 12:53 AM

Quote:

Doing the math figuring 52 mph at the 60 ft clocks (average) I come up with .1224 lost time.

That is about the same as I come up with if I assume 52 mph and 111" between the front and rear tire trip points.

But I think closer to 55 mph and with a 108" wheel base, and tire diameters of 26/31 (~105.5" between trip points):
55 mi/hr x 5280 ft/mi /3600 sec/hr x 12in/ft = 968 in/sec
For 105.5", that is about 105.5/968=0.109 sec
So the rear tire 1.37 might be about 1.26 with the fronts.

I might not have this 100%, but that is my estimate. The experience with my car is about 0.10 sec difference.
55 mi/hr x 5280 ft/mi /3600 sec/hr x 12 in/ft = 968 in/sec (again)
And my car is 111 -(32/2-26/2)=108.0" between trip points, (not exact need equation of a circle at beam height)
So... 108.0/968 = 0.11 sec and I have seen about 0.10 on the same day.

Attached picture 6737446-Wheel_sixtyfoot.jpg
Posted By: 440Jim

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 01:18 AM

Equation of a circle:
R^2 = x^2 + y^2
Dia R_ y y2 x2_ x
32 16 5 25 231 15.199 Rear tire trip point
26 13 5 25 144 12.000 Front tire trip point
3.199 Trip point difference
So on my car the beam trip points are 3.199" different than the wheel base. ie 111-3.2=107.8

And for Cudabin, I think he has 31 and 26 tires:

Dia R__ y y2 _x2___ x
31 15.5 5 25 215.25 14.671
26 13.0 5 25 144.00 12.000
2.671
And with a 108" wheel base, that changes the trip points to 108-2.67=105.3" (pretty close to my original estimate in post above).

Attached picture 6737510-Wheel_sixtyfoot_calcs.jpg
Posted By: Chris'sBarracuda

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 03:03 AM

Unless it was in that position thru 60'... The clocks most likely caught a part of the car further forward.. The sensors aren't ground level..

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 8" off ground..

You really can't figure it out..

That's why you go with the 330' mark..


Chris..
Posted By: MoparPitBull

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 04:11 AM

VERY NICE!
Posted By: gregsdart

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 04:17 AM

Quote:

Equation of a circle:
R^2 = x^2 + y^2
Dia R_ y y2 x2_ x
32 16 5 25 231 15.199 Rear tire trip point
26 13 5 25 144 12.000 Front tire trip point
3.199 Trip point difference
So on my car the beam trip points are 3.199" different than the wheel base. ie 111-3.2=107.8

And for Cudabin, I think he has 31 and 26 tires:

Dia R__ y y2 _x2___ x
31 15.5 5 25 215.25 14.671
26 13.0 5 25 144.00 12.000
2.671
And with a 108" wheel base, that changes the trip points to 108-2.67=105.3" (pretty close to my original estimate in post above).


Well, thats gettin with it, math wise. pretty much spot on I bet. Arnies other 60 fts reflect what you stated hear.

"
Yes it is heavy on the front with about 57% of the wieght there. The 4 gallon fule cell is front mounted which does not help.."
And I thought I was heavy up front at 52.5 %,,,,,,,,,,,
Posted By: tboomer

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 04:22 AM

Wow!!
Posted By: cudabin

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 04:43 AM

Quote:

Equation of a circle:
R^2 = x^2 + y^2
Dia R_ y y2 x2_ x
32 16 5 25 231 15.199 Rear tire trip point
26 13 5 25 144 12.000 Front tire trip point
3.199 Trip point difference
So on my car the beam trip points are 3.199" different than the wheel base. ie 111-3.2=107.8

And for Cudabin, I think he has 31 and 26 tires:

Dia R__ y y2 _x2___ x
31 15.5 5 25 215.25 14.671
26 13.0 5 25 144.00 12.000
2.671
And with a 108" wheel base, that changes the trip points to 108-2.67=105.3" (pretty close to my original estimate in post above).



Wow Jim! You never cease to amaze me... thanks for all the great tech.

Greg, I agree with you as my best ever 60 foot was a 1.25 and i have pulled a couple 1.27's so far.

I need to build some taller limiters for the upper control arms so that I can leave the front end loose, yet limit the wheelie.

It is fun to see nothing but sky for the first second or so, but it won't win any races if i cant repeat.

Cheers,

Arnie
Posted By: steeldust

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 04:50 AM

What RPM are you leaving at and what`s the weight of the car it looks killer and it has good ets man that DUSTER at that track looks killer two all of the guys cars here looks cool my car the harder i leave it don`t come up as high but it gos out but i did put wheelie bars on

Attached picture 6738017-JUNEBOUNTYRACE.jpg
Posted By: Al_Alguire

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 05:12 AM

Quote:

Unless it was in that position thru 60'... The clocks most likely caught a part of the car further forward.. The sensors aren't ground level..

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 8" off ground..

You really can't figure it out..

That's why you go with the 330' mark..


Chris..



With what he said. Kinda what i was getting at. The thing is you dont know what tripped the beams. Likely something other than the rear tire did.
Posted By: Cudafied

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 11:28 AM

Nice Wheelstand

Just food for thought - I welded this on my K-frame before I went out with the new (replacement) oil pan





P.S. the oil filter in the picture was just for breaking in new engine
Posted By: 440Jim

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 03:01 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Unless it was in that position thru 60'... The clocks most likely caught a part of the car further forward.. The sensors aren't ground level..

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 8" off ground..

You really can't figure it out..

That's why you go with the 330' mark..


Chris..



With what he said. Kinda what i was getting at. The thing is you dont know what tripped the beams. Likely something other than the rear tire did.

Yes, lots of other factors including upseting the chassis, wind drag on the bottom (high wheel stand), etc, etc. Not all wheel stands and cars are the same. That is just the math, not the total picture. It is only as good as the assumptions...
Posted By: CRT

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 03:33 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I don't care about lost time and wasted energy. That is JUST cool!!! Let the Pro Stock guys worry about that stuff! Is that in Saskatoon? Did they put in a cement launch pad?



NEVER had a car that would do that ... but I would be more worried about what happens when the car comes-to-earth ...

I have seen 'nuff of these wheelies in the past and have seen PLENTY of damage to frontends, suspensions, headers, oil pans and even engines.

DOES look neat though ....

TO the OP ... with that heavy VFN frontend on it .. I would have thought it would have stayed-low !

YOU sure have some decent power THEN ...to do what you did ...



Doc, when was the last time you have been down the track in a race car ?
Posted By: nhramark

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 03:44 PM

The 60' difference on my car is right at 1/10. In my case the car was accelerating very hard, was not as high in the air, and did not touch down till about 130' so I'm pretty sure it was the rear tire that tripped the 60' beam.

That skid plate looks like a good idea for protecting the oil pan but what kind of ground clearance do you have now? Looks like trailer loading/unloading could be complicated.
Posted By: gregsdart

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 03:55 PM

"I need to build some taller limiters for the upper control arms so that I can leave the front end loose, yet limit the wheelie."

A pretty sharp racer pointed out to me to keep the limiters from being too harsh when they stop the front travel. Sure seemed to help having a soft stop, rather than the metal on metal ones a lot of guys use. It makes for a smooth transition, rather than something that can unload the rear enough to cause problems.
Posted By: ggddemon

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 05:45 PM

Quote:

Unless it was in that position thru 60'... The clocks most likely caught a part of the car further forward.. The sensors aren't ground level..

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 8" off ground..


Hey Chris.
As far as the sensors go . I look after the track "airport" here in yorkton, when we have our events. We use 115 ft. of concrete launch distance--- more is available----, the sensors are : prestage 2.25"...stage is 2.25" ....60' is 4.25"along with m.p.h. and e/t being 4.25" also . All distances from ground level.
Unfortunately, our yearly event is held at our local municipal airport for a annnual 2 day event, along with the landing strip and taxi area they seam sealed the joints 4-5 weeks ago and were our stage beam lines up the seamseal wound up right on the rear tire mark on most common wheel based door cars This combo along with +34* Celcius temp and sky high humidity gave the odd racer a lower 60' than other years.. But all great for chits and giggles.

Dave
Posted By: mcat4321

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 09:24 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Doing the math figuring 52 mph at the 60 ft clocks (average) I come up with .1224 lost time.

That is about the same as I come up with if I assume 52 mph and 111" between the front and rear tire trip points.

But I think closer to 55 mph and with a 108" wheel base, and tire diameters of 26/31 (~105.5" between trip points):
55 mi/hr x 5280 ft/mi /3600 sec/hr x 12in/ft = 968 in/sec
For 105.5", that is about 105.5/968=0.109 sec
So the rear tire 1.37 might be about 1.26 with the fronts.

I might not have this 100%, but that is my estimate. The experience with my car is about 0.10 sec difference.
55 mi/hr x 5280 ft/mi /3600 sec/hr x 12 in/ft = 968 in/sec (again)
And my car is 111 -(32/2-26/2)=108.0" between trip points, (not exact need equation of a circle at beam height)
So... 108.0/968 = 0.11 sec and I have seen about 0.10 on the same day.


ouch... my head hurts
Posted By: gregsdart

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 09:37 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Doing the math figuring 52 mph at the 60 ft clocks (average) I come up with .1224 lost time.

That is about the same as I come up with if I assume 52 mph and 111" between the front and rear tire trip points.

But I think closer to 55 mph and with a 108" wheel base, and tire diameters of 26/31 (~105.5" between trip points):
55 mi/hr x 5280 ft/mi /3600 sec/hr x 12in/ft = 968 in/sec
For 105.5", that is about 105.5/968=0.109 sec
So the rear tire 1.37 might be about 1.26 with the fronts.

I might not have this 100%, but that is my estimate. The experience with my car is about 0.10 sec difference.
55 mi/hr x 5280 ft/mi /3600 sec/hr x 12 in/ft = 968 in/sec (again)
And my car is 111 -(32/2-26/2)=108.0" between trip points, (not exact need equation of a circle at beam height)
So... 108.0/968 = 0.11 sec and I have seen about 0.10 on the same day.


ouch... my head hurts



Teacher- Robert, what is Pi R squared ?
Robert- A poptart?
Posted By: dOc …

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/20/11 09:56 PM

Quote:


Doc, when was the last time you have been down the track in a race car ?



Hay J C .....wassssupy ? ...

I have never HAD a real race car ... don't think I ever will ...uNless Apple computer stock goes up aNother couple of huN !

But a NASTY off-shore boat would come first ....
Posted By: cudabin

Re: Big Wheelie, tripped the 60's with rear tires... - 07/21/11 12:10 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Unless it was in that position thru 60'... The clocks most likely caught a part of the car further forward.. The sensors aren't ground level..

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 8" off ground..


Hey Chris.
As far as the sensors go . I look after the track "airport" here in yorkton, when we have our events. We use 115 ft. of concrete launch distance--- more is available----, the sensors are : prestage 2.25"...stage is 2.25" ....60' is 4.25"along with m.p.h. and e/t being 4.25" also . All distances from ground level.
Unfortunately, our yearly event is held at our local municipal airport for a annnual 2 day event, along with the landing strip and taxi area they seam sealed the joints 4-5 weeks ago and were our stage beam lines up the seamseal wound up right on the rear tire mark on most common wheel based door cars This combo along with +34* Celcius temp and sky high humidity gave the odd racer a lower 60' than other years.. But all great for chits and giggles.

Dave



Hey Dave GGDDemon,

My first pass was this wheelie and yes it did trip with the rear tires as I have a poor quality video showing it...

Next 2 passes when track was hot it slipped a bit. Were others having same problem??

Cheers,

Arnie
Posted By: cudabin

Re: Big Wheelie, UPDATE w/ pic at 60'... - 07/22/11 04:43 AM



New pic in the original post at 60 feet...
© 2024 Moparts Forums