Power V Quarter mile times [Archive] - Australian LS1 and Holden Forums

HOWQUICK

10-12-2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by drewbytes
Curious about quarter mile times and how power relates to this.

Eg, Justice's SV8 did a 12.6 odd with 225rwkw, and BlownCV8 does an 11.4 with 380rwkw. Only 1.2 sec difference but 155 odd rwkw.

Is there a law of diminishing returns with power in relation to quarter mile times? Eg the more power you get, the less your time improves?

And what's the reason? is it due to traction issues with the abundance of power or is it due to other factors such as gearing or physics or what?

look to the mph for power changes...et only shows whether the car is set up well or not.

old rule of thumb is that every 10 hp at this level is equal to 1 mph...Tonner at 300rwhp to the blown mobile at 510 hp is 210 hp difference.......103 mph-127mph shows 240hp extra..pretty close taking into account the difference is using peak power not average and assuming that both cars are the same weight. 100lb is worth a tenth and 1 mph......

But deminishing returns is definitely a factor...a Top Doorslammer need an extra 100 per mph to get it in the 230mph region with 2500 odd hp where as a Top Fueller needs over 6000hp to run over 320 mph....even though it is conciderably lighter.:cheers:

dean

10-12-2003, 08:48 PM

Im curious about this as well. Ive had different runs on street tyres that can vary by 3-4mph, and Im hoping I will see higher mph with slicks. Is that normally the case?

One thing I was reading a US artical about drag racing tips and there was a bit on the staging lanes - the start of the ET timer is about 12" infront of the staging lights and if you just edge up so the second light comes on (rather than move further across the beam with your front tyres), it gives you that little bit to get moving to get a better ET. Not sure if that applies here though :hmmm:

:cheers:

bluess57

10-12-2003, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by drewbytes
Curious about quarter mile times and how power relates to this.

Eg, Justice's SV8 did a 12.6 odd with 225rwkw, and BlownCV8 does an 11.4 with 380rwkw. Only 1.2 sec difference but 155 odd rwkw.

Is there a law of diminishing returns with power in relation to quarter mile times? Eg the more power you get, the less your time improves?

And what's the reason? is it due to traction issues with the abundance of power or is it due to other factors such as gearing or physics or what?

In this case its my opinion that lack of traction is to blame.

BUT,

You hit the nail on the head with "a law of diminishing returns",
its physics, the power curve is exponential to quarter mile times.

Lets forget about traction issues for moment when I say this below:

As you mentioned 11-12 sec quarter miles with 225 - 380 rwkw.
But what does it take to halve the time?
It takes 4-8 times the power.
Top fuel dragsters have say 1000+hp (whats that in rwkw?) and run 6-7 sec quarters (?).

BTW, My numbers are very "loose", just trying to illustrate a point.

BlownCV8

10-12-2003, 10:14 PM

As i have said before, MPH over 400 meters is the only true measure of power (yes peak).

as Howqik has stated slow et high mph = poor set up. once you find out the mph you will run with your gearing and power you can then biggin to stuff around with the set up of the car and driving techniques to lower the ET.

I can tell you how hard this is! Maroso slide calc states a 10.4 is the et for a 127mph car....a whole second of the pace for me:rolleyes: working on it. the calc also tells me that for my 3850lb car to propel its self to 127 mph it must have 610hp at the fly........No dyno fudging avialable ( this is not a :stick: ), simple physics. 610fwhp - 18% drive train loss = 500rwhp......dyno says 512.....close enough for me!

CALDIR

10-12-2003, 10:38 PM

Hi

To Dean: I think the overall mph will reduce once slicks are used on a car versus street tyres.

But the quarter mile times will improve!

regards,

Richard
CLUBVX

Redline

10-12-2003, 10:41 PM

BlownCV8

10-12-2003, 10:41 PM

How the **** do you come up with that CubVX????

BlownCV8

10-12-2003, 10:44 PM

Drewbyte, to put the 1.2 sec differance into perspective for you I hade a run with brute where i pulled an 11.6 and brute ran a 12.6

the gap in seconds was 1 sec, distance was easy 6 car lenghts, Brute will confirm.

Malcolmsp

10-12-2003, 11:47 PM

Some rough numbers to consider

talking weight in pounds to power in rwhp

15:1 = 14.3
12.5:1 = 13.5
10:1 = 12.5
9:1 = 12.1
8:1 = 11.6
7:1 = 11.1
6:1 = 10.5
5:1 = 9.9
4:1 = 9.2
3:1 = 8.3
2:1 = 7.3
1:1 = 5.82 (doubling the power from 2:1)
1:2 = 4.6 (top fuel rails around here)

Work these numbers back to the weight of a commodore and you will have some idea of relative increases required.

cya
Mal

KeenGolfer

11-12-2003, 05:43 AM

Thanks for your comments guys, interesting.

BlownCV8, at your current setup, how much difference (time) do slicks make? I remember reading somewhere else that it's near impossible to crack an 11 on true street tyres. Is this right? What's the fastest you've run on street tyres?

Reason I ask is I want to give my car a run down the quarter at some stage after the kit is fitted, but want to do it it true street trim (eg as I drive it everyday on the road, not taking anything out of the car, standard 40psi that I run etc) just so I know what it will do in it's everyday setup.

dean

11-12-2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by CLUBVX
Hi

To Dean: I think the overall mph will reduce once slicks are used on a car versus street tyres.

But the quarter mile times will improve!

regards,

Richard
CLUBVX

I believe its the other way around - a set of 26" tall slicks is about 4% larger than what I currently have, which means I will be 4% faster at a given RPM. With 3.73 gears in an auto, this wont be enough to make the car bog down (esp with stall).

Which brings the question. What size slicks will give the best results 26, 27 or 28"?

:cheers:

BRUTE

11-12-2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by BlownCV8
Drewbyte, to put the 1.2 sec differance into perspective for you I hade a run with brute where i pulled an 11.6 and brute ran a 12.6

the gap in seconds was 1 sec, distance was easy 6 car lenghts, Brute will confirm.

6 cars lenghts :lol: was it that much ;)

ok here is a time slip of that run

BlownCV8 has 380 rwkw

Brute has 230 rwkw

http://home.iprimus.com.au/brute/images/blown-brute.jpg

CALDIR

11-12-2003, 01:53 PM

HOWQUICK

11-12-2003, 01:55 PM

So how many times did it run 127x mph?

Was the fastest et on the same lap as the quoted mph? :confused:

Plan B

11-12-2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by HOWQUICK
So how many times did it run 127x mph?

Was the fastest et on the same lap as the quoted mph? :confused:

http://www.purefect.com.au/planb/doughboy/robstime.jpg

HOWQUICK

11-12-2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Plan B
http://www.purefect.com.au/planb/doughboy/robstime.jpg

that clears it up....got a better scan so we can read it though?

BlownCV8

11-12-2003, 09:10 PM

cant do that Howquik, you'll be able to see where I have forged it.

Just kidding, sorry i dont have a scanner.....It was faxed to Plan B and then hosted.

It ran 127.....on its 1st run, then as the car got warmer the mph came down. 125+ was the norm for the rest of the day!

wosrt mph was the 119 in henry's post.

No Henry you were right on my rear bumber:p It just looked that way cos of the side mirror on the munro, makes everything look further away.:p

Havent run its current 381rwkw with street tyres Drew, sorry

Best it did with streets and 330rwkw was 12.4 @ 117 or the like....cant remember exact mph but it would really be a complete waste of time.....unless i used the street setup......

What wank rights would i have in running a good time on street tyres if i'm still running the drag suspension setup?...no point.
Guess I could claim a good ET on street tyres and brag.......But it aint street trim so again no point.

Craig

11-12-2003, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by BlownCV8
No Henry you were right on my rear bumber:p It just looked that way cos of the side mirror on the munro, makes everything look further away.:p Funny that I thought the mirrors made things appear closer Henry, only 6 car lengths was it :flip2:

BlownCV8

11-12-2003, 09:20 PM

:doh: "Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" Craig that means it looks further away, secondly it was a stir mate!

Henry would have had a way better view than me so if he says it was less than that........I would agree!

Craig

11-12-2003, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by BlownCV8
:doh: "Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" Craig that means it looks further away, secondly it was a stir mate!

Henry would have had a way better view than me so if he says it was less than that........I would agree! Was a joke Rob, take it easy :p

HOWQUICK

11-12-2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by BlownCV8
cant do that Howquik, you'll be able to see where I have forged it.

Just kidding, sorry i dont have a scanner.....It was faxed to Plan B and then hosted.

No dramas. Just that with a drag racing mind I like to analyse the data and see where the thing is fast and where it is slow...the incrementals are great for this....your deal must get a real scoot on after 330'...

I never implied that your results were forged...but I am not short in coming forward to ask why the mph was so slow on that lap against Brute.....hot or cold Kim's stroker never varied 8 odd mph and if you look at the time cards I posted you will see that these runs are only minutes apart...the temp soon grows once you hit the burn out pit...;) when I have driven it I watch the iat on the lappy as I wheel into stage and it not un common to see over 45deg! But it falls like a stone once you get moving....

Sorry to cost you the phone call money guys.....a simple post would of done!:eek: But if you can find a scanner it would be real interesting to have a real look at the incrementals...:cheers:

BlownCV8

11-12-2003, 09:48 PM

No probs Howquik, Stoked it up big time on the run with brute.

analysing the data is great.

other than that run, all the other 13 or so were 123 to 125+

so they were all with in 4mph of the fasted. I have no idea if this is normal mate but going over all my other time slip's i have always varied around 5mph......honestly though I think its my inconsistant driving...

Do blowers create more heat?

Plan B

11-12-2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by HOWQUICK
that clears it up....got a better scan so we can read it though?

http://www.purefect.com.au/planb/doughboy/rob4hq.jpg

BlownCV8

11-12-2003, 11:32 PM

:lol: Plan B, Your a ****ing champion mate:thumbsup:

dean

12-12-2003, 08:03 AM

They look like the same type of slips you get at Calder - gotta question the accuracy of some of the mph figures they produce.

According to one slip I have from Calder, I have the worlds fastest ls1, clocked at 222mph :doh:

:cheers:

HOWQUICK

12-12-2003, 10:52 AM

thanks for that!

Interesting analysis........

..........BlownCV8...................Stroker

60'.....1.85...........................1.62....... ............hook up will help here
330'...5.017.........................4.557........ ..........still showing s/line
660'...7.019 98.12mph........7.034 98.75mph sc on a storm!
1000' 9.649.........................9.187............... .what happened here?
1320' 11.42 127.37mph......11.02 122.44mph.

Went on to pick up 29mph from half track but lost what it had gained at half track in et.......do you shift gears in this part of the track or something? Stroker took 3.98 seconds to travel the final 660' starting from the same velocity as the SC car and gained 24 mph where as the SC car took 4.401 seconds to travel the same distance but gained 29mph. Where as the run against Brute in the City Auto lane the SC car took 4.039 seconds to travel the second half of the track and gained only 23.89 mph....near on identical to the stroker.......so the distance is a constant, the initial velocity is known, the final velocity is known, the time is known....who wants to run the math for us here?

Like I say.....Iam not trying to start shit and it is great to see the SC stuff starting to show the results that it should produce. This analysis is TOTALLY relivent to the thread using two quick cars as it illustrates the question that was first posted......physics.:cheers:

r8ls1

12-12-2003, 03:18 PM

Good comparison there HQ.

Looks like it lost almost 0.5 of ET between 660' and 1000' over the stroker , then in the last 320' must go like a ******* to get all that mph back and then some.

Every car setup is different and can do weird sh*t. mine seemed to mph a little too high too, as it did a 1.67 60ft and 12.20 et. And @ 113.20 mph, which mean's it shoud be good for a 11.80, which doesnt seem possible casue that would mean the 60ft would have to go 1.4 at least :confused: which is impossible for what;s done to it.

ps i'll post the slips if anyone wants to try figure it out.

r8ls1

12-12-2003, 03:52 PM

had a look at em and now im curious

http://mail.roadfly.com/fastandfurious/slip2.jpg

can someone tell me whats this mean (next to the red arrow)

Plan B

12-12-2003, 04:07 PM

That's the margin you won by. :)

HOWQUICK

12-12-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by r8ls1
had a look at em and now im curious

http://mail.roadfly.com/fastandfurious/slip2.jpg

can someone tell me whats this mean (next to the red arrow)

pretty simple that one John.....he welded you to the start line!:stick:

your pass was .438 seconds quicker than his but your reaction time was .236 seconds slower........therefore the difference at the end of the quarter from when the timers started (he broke the start beem) until you stopped the timer in your lane (because you were quicker) is .202 seconds.:thumbsup:

Lucky you were in the quicker car (by enough this time).......you snooze- you loose.;)

r8ls1

12-12-2003, 04:14 PM

here's the other one..

http://mail.roadfly.com/fastandfurious/slip3.jpg

r8ls1

12-12-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by HOWQUICK
pretty simple that one John.....he welded you to the start line!:stick:

your pass was .438 seconds quicker than his but your reaction time was .236 seconds slower........therefore the difference at the end of the quarter from when the timers started (he broke the start beem) until you stopped the timer in your lane (because you were quicker) is .202 seconds.:thumbsup:

Lucky you were in the quicker car (by enough this time).......you snooze- you loose.;)

Thanks for clearing that one up JL :lol: . ps I wasnt' driving on that one, i was going for max et so got someone 20kg less than me to do it ;)

BlownCV8

12-12-2003, 04:36 PM

No probs Howquik.

this will all come down to a timeing error at AIR, and well what can I say. I dont own it. Lets now have discussions on which strip is the most accurate. I too have a run where the munro cracked a 5.11 pass at 112mph.........the lights were flickering when i staged an had an obvious fault!.......so this must mean they are never accurate and therfore a total waste of time.....please spare me!

Love the analysing ........as to when it changes etc, the differing speeds would relate to when i'm selecting gears. ie some gears changing at 6000 rpm others at 6500rpm as i said my inconsistant driving. I am not yet comfortable with a hook up and at what revs i should be swapping cogs so i have bean experimenting........If that dosent explain it Please tell me what it is as your experiance here is far greater than mine:thumbsup:

all the anylising in the world may still leave us wondering though, maybe a meet at the same strip on the same day will satisfy all the curiosities?........I dont know. What I do know is it did 2 simular times with 2 differing mph readings......whats new?

So to sumerise the vortech set up is lacking in power......but the dyno say's its got plenty, we back this up with strip results and now maybe the srtip is rigged or inaccurate......not sure why we bother. Maybe I will not bother discussing its future progress, this will spare us all the grief.

I have moded a car that I love to a desired outcome, for me. I enjoy it............
At the end of the day MPH and wieght give a power reading, its backed up by the dyno reading.....how much more physics do we need.

Or is this now a whats better SC or stroked thread?....they are both quick, the both make shit loads of power, they are driven by different people and have different outcomes......what have I missed?
i'd much prefer to be told how i could lower the ET for the MPH its proven. Any suggestions.

Red CV8 R

12-12-2003, 04:52 PM

I wouldnt worry about the knockers, before you started I asked a question on S/C the LS1 and was basicly told it was a waste of money and the Vortech wont perform on the strip, having been around the forums (and ls1.com forums) a while I remembered peoples experience with Vortechs in the early days (pre edit) when alot of money was thrown around with poor results. Then you started to run these awesome times and everyone became enthusiastic about Superchargers again.

There is no doubt your efforts have made people take notice of these units again. All success will have knockers but you shouldnt be worried and just be proud of what you have achieved! Soon others will follow your path and gain similar results, then the knockers will be just a memory. I have seen this cycle lots of times since the introduction of LS1 powered commodores! I am just waiting to see turbos take off on LS1 commodores as I remember people saying that wont work either!

Keep up the great work I for one enjoy reading about your car and achievements :thumbsup:

HOWQUICK

12-12-2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by BlownCV8
No probs Howquik.

this will all come down to a timeing error at AIR, and well what can I say. I dont own it. Lets now have discussions on which strip is the most accurate. I too have a run where the munro cracked a 5.11 pass at 112mph.........the lights were flickering when i staged an had an obvious fault!.......so this must mean they are never accurate and therfore a total waste of time.....please spare me!

Love the analysing ........as to when it changes etc, the differing speeds would relate to when i'm selecting gears. ie some gears changing at 6000 rpm others at 6500rpm as i said my inconsistant driving. I am not yet comfortable with a hook up and at what revs i should be swapping cogs so i have bean experimenting........If that dosent explain it Please tell me what it is as your experiance here is far greater than mine:thumbsup:

all the anylising in the world may still leave us wondering though, maybe a meet at the same strip on the same day will satisfy all the curiosities?........I dont know. What I do know is it did 2 simular times with 2 differing mph readings......whats new?

So to sumerise the vortech set up is lacking in power......but the dyno say's its got plenty, we back this up with strip results and now maybe the srtip is rigged or inaccurate......not sure why we bother. Maybe I will not bother discussing its future progress, this will spare us all the grief.

I have moded a car that I love to a desired outcome, for me. I enjoy it............
At the end of the day MPH and wieght give a power reading, its backed up by the dyno reading.....how much more physics do we need.

Or is this now a whats better SC or stroked thread?....they are both quick, the both make shit loads of power, they are driven by different people and have different outcomes......what have I missed?
i'd much prefer to be told how i could lower the ET for the MPH its proven. Any suggestions.

who is pissing in your earhole fella??? Never set out to show it as being timing errors or the stroker is better than the SC...so give it a rest hey??

The topic of the thread is about power, weight and the laws of physics........not about anything you may want to perceive/told is being brought into it...your results are posted on a public forum and the rest of us aren't allowed to scrutinise them?? PLEEASE. The comparison with the stroker is as I stated, showing 2 quick/fast cars together against one another via time card.....FOR THE ILLUSTRATION OF THE THREAD TOPIC......Am I going to bust my ass bringing an 11 second street car to Adelaide so I could blow you off....mate I have a life....

I too remember when the LS1 kit was a POS and when the programmes sold to run them were found to be little more than mirrors and strings. Good on Martin for taking the time to get in a programme the thing so it will run...shit it is pumping in another atmosphere isn't it....it should go. Basic physics says so.

Bottom line....don't let other peoples BS sway you into making rash statements on the Forum. Iam into FAST CARS-FULL STOP-. If SC is your thing- more power to you. Am I going to hang myself because a power added car is fast?Naaa. How many other ways do you want me to post it??? Did I spend the time doing the break down to make excuses?? NAAA. I was looking at the figures and noticed the weirdness......

But seeing as we are here now. What gives with the big mph when it took longer to get there but started from the same velocity. So if we say that one is sus and let it drop and go to your next best lap...it is pretty much on a par with Matt's Whippled car then isn't it?? Must be time ST came on and give me a caning like the one he chooses to hand Matt when both cars appear to be very even and Matt's stuff was run on a track with timers beyond reproach- Heathcote-maybe Matt can post his slips so we can have a look? So there you have it....make what you want of the last paragraph...Iam sure some will make plenty of it for sure!!!!!! But rest assured, I never set out to end this way..........Want it to et? Put an auto in it.....removes the variables.

Bring, Bring..your phone is about to ring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;)

HOWQUICK

12-12-2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by HOWQUICK
who is pissing in your earhole fella??? Never set out to show it as being timing errors or the stroker is better than the SC...so give it a rest hey??

The topic of the thread is about power, weight and the laws of physics........not about anything you may want to perceive/told is being brought into it...your results are posted on a public forum and the rest of us aren't allowed to scrutinise them?? PLEEASE. The comparison with the stroker is as I stated, showing 2 quick/fast cars together against one another via time card.....FOR THE ILLUSTRATION OF THE THREAD TOPIC......Am I going to bust my ass bringing an 11 second street car to Adelaide so I could blow you off....mate I have a life....

I too remember when the LS1 kit was a POS and when the programmes sold to run them were found to be little more than mirrors and strings. Good on Martin for taking the time to get in a programme the thing so it will run...shit it is pumping in another atmosphere isn't it....it should go. Basic physics says so.

Bottom line....don't let other peoples BS sway you into making rash statements on the Forum. Iam into FAST CARS-FULL STOP-. If SC is your thing- more power to you. Am I going to hang myself because a power added car is fast?Naaa. How many other ways do you want me to post it??? Did I spend the time doing the break down to make excuses?? NAAA. I was looking at the figures and noticed the weirdness......

But seeing as we are here now. What gives with the big mph when it took longer to get there but started from the same velocity. So if we say that one is sus and let it drop and go to your next best lap...it is pretty much on a par with Matt's Whippled car then isn't it?? Must be time ST came on and give me a caning like the one he chooses to hand Matt when both cars appear to be very even and Matt's stuff was run on a track with timers beyond reproach- Heathcote-maybe Matt can post his slips so we can have a look? So there you have it....make what you want of the last paragraph...Iam sure some will make plenty of it for sure!!!!!! But rest assured, I never set out to end this way..........Want it to et? Put an auto in it.....removes the variables.

Whichever way.....this post isn't about YOU. Fast LS1 are exciting...end of story.

Bring, Bring..your phone is about to ring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;)

err meant to edit.:doh:

BlownCV8

12-12-2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by dean
They look like the same type of slips you get at Calder - gotta question the accuracy of some of the mph figures they produce.

:cheers:

HQ Read my post again, I was refering to this.

As for the rest I thought I answered your question's very diplomaticly, and then proceeded to ask some more.

Am I going to bust my ass bringing an 11 second street car to Adelaide so I could blow you off....mate I have a life....

Thats my point HQ.....No we aint but if we do will people still claim timeing errors.....wasnt a dig at you.

Also dont remember you being one of the knockers in the early day's of my install, not sure why this comment would bother you.

So to sumerise the vortech set up is lacking in power......but the dyno say's its got plenty, we back this up with strip results and now maybe the srtip is rigged or inaccurate......not sure why we bother. Maybe I will not bother discussing its future progress, this will spare us all the grief.

Cast your mind back to the comments thrown around here re the vortech and MY application then understand where I'm comeing from.

For every result there is as you say scrutiny, I have no problem with this........I dont get why it comes to yeah but AIR timeing system is crap......FFS

If you think I'm getting hot under the coller here your wrong....and as for who is pissing in my ear.......thats what kills me......you assume that ST is behind my post? Get real....does he have a vested interest in my car succeeding? probly. Does this make me a puppet, that when i post something it must be part of some wierd Agenda of ST?.......err no mate. Ask any one that knows me. It dont fit the bill.

BlownCV8

12-12-2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by HOWQUICK
Bring, Bring..your phone is about to ring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;)

Dont think he cares mate........still no phone call!:lol:

r8ls1

12-12-2003, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by BlownCV8

this will all come down to a timeing error at AIR, and well what can I say.

Fu*k it Rob, it runs what it runs, period. And even if the r/h timer was out, would be a few MPH out at the most, not the ET's.

And this is a BIG if, coz I have timeslips from both lanes with almost identical MPH when my car was in the higher 12's.

Martin_D

13-12-2003, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by r8ls1
Good comparison there HQ.

Cant you leave the guy alone? He has the fastest terminal speed LS1 in the country.....and the bastard is bloody stock...no cam, no heads, no nothing, just one big bolt on.

I would only ever ring Rob to tell him GOOD WORK ON MODIFYING AND DRIVING YOUR OWN CAR MATE. All I did was give him a couple of dyno runs. If it comes to a WA vs SA challenge....we already have the MPH on the board. Put a T56 in Kims, see how it goes, should be 140+....since Robs is a poof

(Dont blame the converter forever)

HOWQUICK

13-12-2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Street_Tuna
Cant you leave the guy alone? He has the fastest terminal speed LS1 in the country.....and the bastard is bloody stock...no cam, no heads, no nothing, just one big bolt on.

I would only ever ring Rob to tell him GOOD WORK ON MODIFYING AND DRIVING YOUR OWN CAR MATE. All I did was give him a couple of dyno runs. If it comes to a WA vs SA challenge....we already have the MPH on the board. Put a T56 in Kims, see how it goes, should be 140+....since Robs is a poof

(Dont blame the converter forever)

Got the steer by the horn again Martin? There is no SA-WA thing....there is no them and us thing either...all my work I have done is for my own (and Kim's) enjoyment - PERIOD! Blamed the converter? Pleease...never seen terminal speed win a race period. ET is the drag racers friend....but yes it is a fact that converter slip does hurt mph but whilst you lose one...you gain the other and quick cars are all we are after.

Re read my posts carefully Martin...how they are written and what they say...not how you want to interpret them. But seeing as you are here now...you have done a lot of chest beating over this FI thing-gone out of your way to berate other people attempting to do EXACTLY as Rob is doing-modify and race their own car....should we run a list? I fail to see where I have said that Rob's car is a poof...another miscomprehension of what is written? Or a feeble attempt to make what Iam posting look stupid.

Maybe you could share your pleasant words of encouragement to Rob with the Melb. guys...or is it a SA-VIC thing? But hey...as long as you are feeling warm and fuzzy and improving that feeling using "A" result that struggles under examination but comes back to the pack when it is eliminated...the FI pack that is...you are a learned fella ST...do the math for us on that run and explain the anomilly...Iam sure there is something Iam missing with the FI thing that doesn't seem to present itself in any of the other runs...I see you have glossed straight over the facts and moved to the twilight zone of insinuation and misquotation.

As I have said previously...I could give a damn about the whole FI thing...if it's your poison-good luck to you and my comments here are nothing to do with N/A-v-FI....each to their own.

Merry Xmas!

HOWQUICK

13-12-2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by r8ls1
Fu*k it Rob, it runs what it runs, period. And even if the r/h timer was out, would be a few MPH out at the most, not the ET's.

And this is a BIG if, coz I have timeslips from both lanes with almost identical MPH when my car was in the higher 12's.

No problems Jon....I never set out to tear apart Rob's work....just pointed out an obvious phenominum. There is bound to be a simple explaination for what the slips show....

The time slips are on the same day as Rob was racing? So we can definitely say the mph beems were installed correctly on Sat?

you know it is real easy to straighten up...Rob did 15 odd laps? Surely he did more than one in the"slow" lane......

maybe this sums up the whole thing.....

http://www.chargeonline.com.br/hu.php

r8ls1

13-12-2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by HOWQUICK
No problems Jon....

The time slips are on the same day as Rob was racing? So we can definitely say the mph beems were installed correctly on Sat?

No! The date's on the top left corner :) Havent' been out there for a while.

r8ls1

13-12-2003, 01:04 PM

And even if the r/h timer was out, would be a few MPH out at the most, not the ET's.

And this is a BIG if, coz I have timeslips from both lanes with almost identical MPH when my car was in the higher 12's.

OK I get where your going with this JL and you have a valid point. Cannot compare the timers on different days.

:thumbsup:

BlownCV8

13-12-2003, 03:17 PM

Still havent had a chance to chat to ST!

Have no idea of the anomily your are trying to figure out....keep in mind a FI car can and will fall of boost if the gear changes are not spot on.

fluff a gear change and it can fall way of boost and take a split second to regain its power and momentum. Not sure if this the answer but its all i can come up with.

For arguments sake though lets just throw the 127mph pass out and look at the following

11.799 @ 124.70
11.559 @ 123.42
11.515 @ 125.62
11.902 @ 124.51
11.769 @ 124.06
11.643 @ 124.37
11.446 @ 125.75 this is now the official highest mph for the car, hope we can all get on with it now. (according to the list still the fasted) but I'm sure someone will come up with a way of thinking that removes this.....whatever!
11.623 @ 119.69
11.698 @ 119.82
11.518 @ 123.66

the above was in order, and i have left out 3 runs that were in the 12's due to me just coasting it down the track cos of a poor start off the line.

The car is obviously week with only 2 runs above 125mph and 4 in the 124's .......so by todays way of thinking we can only take the worst MPH achieved on the day which was the 11.623 @ 119.82 MPH. ........ Strife you have my permission to remove it from the ''list'' mate.

I couldnt give a french fry guy's.......I raced it and will race it again. May do better may do worse.......but while I'm out doing it you may feel free to anylise the rest of the runs.

P.S. Compare it with a t56 manual 500hp+ stroker just to see if the gear changes are the diff.......just a thought not a dig.....

HOWQUICK

13-12-2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by BlownCV8
Still havent had a chance to chat to ST!

11.799 @ 124.70
11.559 @ 123.42
11.515 @ 125.62
11.902 @ 124.51
11.769 @ 124.06
11.643 @ 124.37
11.446 @ 125.75 this is now the official highest mph for the car, hope we can all get on with it now. (according to the list still the fasted) but I'm sure someone will come up with a way of thinking that removes this.....whatever!
11.623 @ 119.69
11.698 @ 119.82
11.518 @ 123.66

the above was in order, and i have left out 3 runs that were in the 12's due to me just coasting it down the track cos of a poor start off the line.

The car is obviously week with only 2 runs above 125mph and 4 in the 124's .......so by todays way of thinking we can only take the worst MPH achieved on the day which was the 11.623 @ 119.82 MPH. ........ Strife you have my permission to remove it from the ''list'' mate.

I couldnt give a french fry guy's.......I raced it and will race it again. May do better may do worse.......but while I'm out doing it you may feel free to anylise the rest of the runs.

P.S. Compare it with a t56 manual 500hp+ stroker just to see if the gear changes are the diff.......just a thought not a dig.....

Rob,

I can call you Rob can't I? Please show me where I said 119 was your best.......I didn't. I have NEVER said it was not a fast car and have in no way disputed your averages.........just the peak shows as being weird. I have never called it week so where does that come from???

I have no intentions of doing anymore comparisons to the stroker or the 346 that runs 11.3s...this was never about NA-v-FI. I have no jealously, ill fealing, regret disappointment or what ever with what you are doing and I reckon it is great you would sooner spend money on cars than golf clubs.......Understand?

You have listed all your laps and most of them seem to be consistant back to back......can you tell us what lane they were run in? No biggy just trying to get an understanding of what happened.........FI car fall under the power? So do NA cars...why do you think I asked if you were shifting gears at that point?? To be a smart ass?

I had hoped that people would be big enough to look at what Iam saying and take it for what it is worth rather than try to insinuate that I reckon it is all bogus. I don't come on here raving about how week other peoples cars are.....I leave that to the others........I try to give a more tech approach to what we are seeing. You ask me how to make it et...need to understand why it isn't before you can work out how to make it......there is no magic wand...you just sit down and do the math.......sometime it is glaring other times it is baffling. At least you can now see that it is slow to 330' Fast to half track, slow to 1000' and then fast to 1320'......maybe this will help you......

So how do you make it et if you can't compare it to something that does????? I though we all wanted to learn something.... My mistake:doh:

Martin_D

13-12-2003, 10:01 PM

Rob, dont talk yourself down here mate. Your car ran 127mph, thats that. Those that criticise, or want to overly analyse, should drive the car and realise that it has traits that make it like no other. Traits like no power, no torque, bullshit numbers. Come on guys, he ran the time on the Compulink, it was a Comp test and tune. Give both Rob and the car a break.

It doesnt pull up onto the trailer at 5000rpm on the converter, or need special transmissions. It doesnt even have rolled gaurds to take a decent tyre! Its a bone stock shitter CV8 with a blower that does 1200 something km a week. Those that build the fastest LS1s in the country, and have just been out topended by such a lightweight daily driver really need to spend some time in the room of mirrors.

Well done Rob. Keep the bastards honest I say!

BlownCV8

13-12-2003, 10:52 PM

Yes HQ Rob, is fine. I have bean called far worse.

11.422 @ 127.37 RHL
11.799 @ 124.70 RHL
11.559 @ 123.42 RHL
11.515 @ 125.62 RHL
11.902 @ 124.51 LHL
11.769 @ 124.06 RHL
11.643 @ 124.37 RHL
11.446 @ 125.75 RHL
11.623 @ 119.69 RHL
11.698 @ 119.82 LHL
11.518 @ 123.66 RHL

RHL = Right Hand Lane
LHL = Left Hand Lane

lets forget the crap, If you've got something to teach I'm all ears

there was as mentioned before 3 other runs one was a 12.224 @ 123.35mph the other two i did'nt even stop to pick up cos' I was pissed with the amount of wheel spin......

big_kev's_ss

16-12-2003, 09:34 AM

Ok Guys, just a question, have not run my car at a track yet, but have run it on a G-tech, which are supposedly pretty accurate. i have a pretty much stock vx ss series 2, m6. I just got it so i am still gettting used to launching, (and back tyres are crap), anyway, When i ran a 1/4 on private property, my best time is 14.30 @ 102.3MPH. and that was pretty much spinning the wheels through 1st. but then i ran a 14.5 @ 103.3 MPH, i was talking to my friend and he was saying for that MPH, i should be running quicker times, Any thoughts, what time would that MPH suggest, how do i improve my times without changing anything. Ie launching.

HOWQUICK

16-12-2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Street_Tuna

It doesnt pull up onto the trailer at 5000rpm on the converter, or need special transmissions. It doesnt even have rolled gaurds to take a decent tyre! Its a bone stock shitter CV8 with a blower that does 1200 something km a week. Those that build the fastest LS1s in the country, and have just been out topended by such a lightweight daily driver really need to spend some time in the room of mirrors.

Martin,

you are shooting your ass off again. My stuff was top ended months ago by a certain LS6 headed 422 or is this the vehicle you are having a shot at?:confused:

interestingly the "special trans" started life in a 1976 Holden Statesman and was chosen for reliability...definitely not for it's ratios! And we don't use a trailor either...

you probably want to leave the mirrors out of this...don't you think?;)

Rob,

it seems you have plenty of gurus helping you set your car but if you want to pm me I may have some things to offer.:)

Martin_D

16-12-2003, 11:45 AM

JL,
Plenty of good transmissions have come out of older clunkers than that! Anyone say Powerglide? Maybe, if you put the stock 1976 bits back in.......

As for the writing, your excellent adjectival descriptions of electro trickery, are wonderful. I am even going to use some of them. The lastest one - Strings and Mirrors - is excellent. Honestly! Please give me some more.

The Rob thing? I just dont know if you quite get the brevity (or lack of it) of the whole thing JL. Collectively, between Rob, myself, and those that help, we comparatively know SFA about drag racing. Its his roadie, that he simply bolts a set of slicks to, and nails when the lights go green, nails the throttle. He doesnt even take the baby seat out the back!

I am sure with some experienced input it will go faster. Even B - the plumber that 'doesnt do poo' was able to give Rob enough advice to weed a couple of tenths off it. Drag racing is your thing JL, I have no doubt you could make it quicker

HOWQUICK

16-12-2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Street_Tuna
JL,
Plenty of good transmissions have come out of older clunkers than that! Anyone say Powerglide? Maybe, if you put the stock 1976 bits back in.......

As for the writing, your excellent adjectival descriptions of electro trickery, are wonderful. I am even going to use some of them. The lastest one - Strings and Mirrors - is excellent. Honestly! Please give me some more.

hence the use of a good old fashioned mechanical/hydraulically controlled gearbox. You see all that is changed in the box is the obsoleting of the vacuum modulator and the instal of a full manual valve body so when the shifter is moved the gear changes...they built g/boxes big and tough in the olden days....they may hurt power and the ratios are a bit lame but you need to complete the lap to win.;)

we all move on Martin...it is no biggy this whole deal and be assured that what is fast today will be slow tomorrow...it is the way of hotrodding so it is no use killing yourself over it......but the biggest thing as you would understanfd through all your tuning exploits is to remove the variables and watch the constants...if the M6 is a variable......

Beej

16-12-2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by big_kev's_ss
Ok Guys, just a question, have not run my car at a track yet, but have run it on a G-tech, which are supposedly pretty accurate. i have a pretty much stock vx ss series 2, m6. I just got it so i am still gettting used to launching, (and back tyres are crap), anyway, When i ran a 1/4 on private property, my best time is 14.30 @ 102.3MPH. and that was pretty much spinning the wheels through 1st. but then i ran a 14.5 @ 103.3 MPH, i was talking to my friend and he was saying for that MPH, i should be running quicker times, Any thoughts, what time would that MPH suggest, how do i improve my times without changing anything. Ie launching.

I'll have a crack at this - I don't think G-techs are *that* accurate - the MPH they say may well be a lot higher than your actual. Get your car out to a real strip ASAP if you want to get a real time.

As for what MPH corresponds to what 1/4 mile time for LS1 Holdens - most people seem to be able to get mid 13's with MPH around 102/103 - however, basically every car pulling these times (HSVs excepted) are modified. I'd be surprised if you did better then mid 14's - maybe a freak low 14 at best - in a stock standard VX SS M6, unless your car is truly something special :-)

Like the old saying goes - when the flag drops the bullshit stops!

Cheers,

Beej

Martin_D

16-12-2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by HOWQUICK
we all move on Martin...it is no biggy this whole deal and be assured that what is fast today will be slow tomorrow...it is the way of hotrodding so it is no use killing yourself over it....

Only a just over year ago we wanted to be first into the 9s with Skyline.....now unless you are 8.8 or faster its no dice. So, yeah Im aware of the way things shift. Unless we drive each other to do it though, the bar will stay the same height.

......but the biggest thing as you would understanfd through all your tuning exploits is to remove the variables and watch the constants...if the M6 is a variable......

If Robs car was auto equipped it would be a whole lot faster. Not having to lift the gas for one would give it a couple of tenths. Thats not it for Rob though. He just wants a fast street car with a stick shift that he can occassionally run at the track. Me? Why do you think mines a self shifter....a bit less 'twigs and tape'

big_kev's_ss

16-12-2003, 02:25 PM

Yeah well, minenot exactly stock, it has been lowered a bit, although i know that wont do much for quicker times, i have a K&N and a twin 2 1/2 but like i said not really much done to it need to do alot more, edit, etc. so if your saying low 14's well thats good then i know my low 14's run on gtech was ok and i am actually getting the hang of launching.

BossV8

12-07-2004, 06:55 PM

dean

12-07-2004, 07:12 PM

Usually i have found on my and other peoples runs that a good launch will yield a good ET but lower mph, while a run with more wheelspin will result in higher mph but slower ET

Last time at calder i ran a
2.23 60', ET 13.7@105
2.15 60', 13.59@102

Not necessarily - on my last outing at Calder over 4 runs:

12.342@110.49 1.793 60'
12.284@111.06 1.781 60'
12.258@111.55 1.780 60'
12.170@112.68 1.761 60'

BlownCV8

12-07-2004, 11:03 PM

who bought this old thread up :lol:

Its funny to have a re read of something that was written awhile ago....

Howquik, I now have an auto :lol: more q's than answers though.

yes its quiker than mkI.....and I am at least happy with the way it gets out of the hole compared to the m6.

But these auto's are just crap..... :hide: As i await a real one from da man:D

BLOWN Z

09-04-2006, 09:33 PM

blown cv8 cant wait to meet u at a set of lights :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

PWNAGE

09-04-2006, 09:52 PM

BLOWN Z this thread's over a year and a half old :doh:

BLOWN Z

09-04-2006, 10:35 PM

HA HA HA told you i was new to this

BlownCV8

10-04-2006, 08:55 AM

Blown Z, U crazy man!!!

You could do me in a stock clubbie now.........The only holden in the shed is a Rodeo crew cab......and a cayenne, and a piss week 911. your gonna need to aim higher than my 3 year old achievments.....lol. I just re read the thread.....**** the car was slow by today's street car standards.......

Good Luck Z, enjoy it mate!

GMVPSS

19-04-2006, 02:13 PM

Hi

How did I come up with that assumption:

1) "2003" CLUBVX less mph with slicks than street tyres
2) "1996" VL turbo calais less mph with slicks than street tyres
3) "1999" MR2 turbo less mph with slicks than street tyres

The above is my testing/tuning only and was done with the same mods on the same nights....only change was the tyres/rims.

Of course everycar is different though. and all of the above were cars with hi 12 second passes at that stage.

Of course if you have a ten second car slicks are better as streets will go nowhere.

regards,

Richard
CLUBVX

Excuse me for being a late starter on this thread, but i'd love to see you in an MR2 Richard!!! :)

Slicks will ET better because your getting more traction from the start line where every 10th of a second counts. If your not spinning the tyres you'll get to the end quicker.

Not sure about the mph factor though as your getting to the end quicker and there are some different thoughts on how that effects the mph when you dead hook off the start line.

Just some thoughts. :)

Darren