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).

---

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

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.

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.

---

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 ?

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

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

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

---

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 ....

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