Originally posted by azgn
if you don't increase HP, just traction, you will slow down......less time to build speed, as stated
Originally posted by Scott231
The trap speed is not a function of 60 foot time. ET is a function of 60' time and HP. You can make guesses, but don't forget that the shorter amount of time you are on the track, the less time you have to gain MPH....
Originally posted by murphster
This makes absolutely no sense at all. My old cavalier would be on the track for a very long time.... wouldn't help the MPH even though it would have about 18 sec...
to relate 60 foot time to MPH, you have to transfer the time you saved in the first 60 feet to the end of the quarter mile.
For example, you cut your 60 ft from 2.1 to 1.8 sec. You saved 0.3 sec.
If you transfer that 0.3 sec to the end of the quarter mile, and guestimate how much MPH you would gain in 0.3 sec at the END of the quarter mile, you could get an idea of the MPH increase.
Typically, these cars are not accelerating very much at the end of the quarter mile and in 0.3 sec you would not gain much MPH.
Of course, that depends on what turbo you are using and what kind of HP you have. A car with tons of HP who is mainly traction limited in the 1st 60 ft is still accelerating a lot at the end of the quarter mile and will gain a bigger amount of MPH with the extra 0.3 sec.
The more amount of HP, the bigger the gain in MPH with lower 60 ft.
Transfering the 0.3 sec to the end of the quarter mile is not exactly right, but is just used as an analogy so everyone gets the idea of how the shorter 60 ft relates to MPH. In fact, the final MPH relates to the 60 ft MPH rather than 60 ft time. I think its its a good assumption that lower 60 fts have higher 60 ft MPH's though...
I've seen it mentioned quite a few times about shorter time to build MPH with quicker 60 ft, and it makes absolutely no sense and is wrong in every possible way.
UNGN makes a good argument for the reasons MPH can drop by adding slicks, etc.
But that assumes that the lower 60 foot is a result of a different (presumably stickier) tire. However, traction has many more variables than just tire adhesion. I would bet however, that if the two tires are the same size, there would not be a sizable difference in MPH as a function of tire adhesion. A car that achieves a quicker 60 foot time because of a HP increase will probably also attain a higher MPH...but both the 60 foot time and the elapsed quarter-mile time are functions of the HP increase. A car that achieves a quicker 60 foot time because of a tire change (same size) will probably ahcieve the same MPH as he still only has Xamount of HP to turn the tires for a given amount of time.so MPH would probably drop from the added resistance of a tire that allows 1.60 60 fts on a 12 second car.
Originally posted by cool 84
Damn, are you still trying to figure out why my car has a few extra mph on you when I'm running 18 degrees of timing and 13psi vs your race trim. Give it up. For all who wonder, my car is the 2.3 60' car that went 110mph. I doubt I would lose anything. What WFO forgets to point out is the car spun first and all of second gear. When you spin that far down the track it hurts mph too, not just ET.
Originally posted by cool 84
I've already done research on this and you can't make a sound decision based on the 60'. Yes, you have longer to accerlerate with a bad 60 but with a good 60 you're going faster sooner.
Originally posted by cool 84
Why don't you go to the lounge next and post a poll of who has gone 110mph with my combo in street trim and prove yourself wrong again.
Originally posted by WFO
the other thread got me thinking.i've been told about the correlation between 60' time and trap speed,and assumed it was true.i came here to find out.look at the facts:
me,you,crazygn and turbo6x2 all have similar builds.
you and crazygn went 12.8/9 @110 with 2.1-2.3 60'.
turbo6x2 and i went 12.3/5 @106/7 with 1.6-1.7 60'.
do the math.you "doubt it would lose any".but you don't know.hell,you don't know much of anything.
Originally posted by turbo6x2
Actually the converter was a 3200 lock up converter. One we had set up locally. As far as being concerned with other people's times or amount of boost, no not at all. I'm more concerned in trying to find out just how fast I can go with a hot air set up. I just like seeing the hot airs go fast and achieve their goals.