Beating a "Dead Horse"

[momau3]

So Bob are you sure you're not a JAG officer. Point and counter...

Fair winds and calm seas.

 

[onefastjackass]

Wow. You get defensive when you're wrong but don't wish to admit it. Ok. I'll continue to play.
Actually you are the one who started to get defensive

qoute Did you chose to ignore the other info I provided?

I see. So increasing the rotating weight of the driveline does not affect HP? Wow - I'll let my racing buddy's know this....amazing how we spend money on aluminum driveshafts, aluminum spools, aluminum flywheels, lightweight rods, etc, when that really doesn't make much difference. Why don't you go out and put a 50 lb driveshaft on your car and see how it likes it? Got physics?


Got physics while it may improve ET it does not matter much on the dyno which driveshaft you have.An object that is in motion tends to stay in motion.Once it is spinning at a certain rpm as on the dyno the dyno couldn't care less if it was solid cast iron for that matter.Also don't exagerate the difference is about 1-2 lb not 50 lbs.

Talk about dense you are the one I said Once again read the rules for factory stock and see where youre assumptions are lacking.One assumption is that they are 3300 pound cars and that they are using cast iron stock heads.They arn't!!"

using cast iron stock heads
using cast iron stock heads
using cast iron stock heads
using cast iron stock heads

Do you see stock in there any??The only time I talked about factory stock rules.I printed it four times just so that you could make out the stock part.
Once again the heads on the 5.0s that are racing are not stock!!They never came on the car!!At least not the ones that win.



Now yes they are iron not aluminum.And yes a car can make the necessary hp with iron heads.I was incorrect about an above statment about having to have aluminum heads but I never said that factory stock was allowed to run aluminum!!

qoute It does NOT take 360 RWHP to run 12.20 @ 3300 lbs. I used examples for myself and several other racers.

It does and you will never beat physics.There are many reasons why youre actual horspower at the rear wheels could be off from the dyno but It absolutly takes more then you keep stating to do it!!Physics again.It takes a certain horsepower to accelerate a certain mass to a certain speed in a certain time period.Is that easy enough for you to understand?? Or are you being dense??

You are never going to convince me otherwise!!So keep on writing back with the argument! And I will keep on telling you you are wrong we can go on for weeks like this!!

But thanks alot you have brought joy to my life I kinda like a good argument!!

 

[Bob Cosby]

Well, we're getting a little bit of somewhere. We've gotten at least one, and maybe two points beaten into submission, but we continue to insist that I - and others - are somehow defying physics (or outright lying) about running xx ET with xxx HP.

Actually you are the one who started to get defensive

Wishfull thinking, shipmate. This is entertainment for me. I enjoy it.

while it may improve ET it does not matter much on the dyno which driveshaft you have.

Uh, it would be easier to comprehend what you are trying to say if you could please use a bit better grammar. However, lets run with this a minute. Why would it improve ET if not for an increase - however slight - in HP? Rotating mass is rotating mass - and it takes more power to accelerate a heavier rotating mass than it does a lighter rotating mass. I'm far from a physics expert, but this is 5th grade stuff.

object that is in motion tends to stay in motion.

Really. Wow. Now please see my statement just about this one about accelerating a heavy vs a light mass.

Once it is spinning at a certain rpm as on the dyno the dyno couldn't care less if it was solid cast iron for that matter.

My word. Have you ever been on a dyno? Do you stay at some "certain rpm" when getting a dyno graph for you car? I do not. Rather, we start at a given rpm and then accelerate to another given rpm, and use the dyno measurements for a variety of applications. Does the dyno care what ANYTHING is made of? No. However, everything else being equal, will a lighter rotating mass take less HP to turn than a heavier rotating mass? Yes. Can this not then potentially be measured on the dyno? Yes.

No offense, but Duh.

Also don't exagerate the difference is about 1-2 lb not 50 lbs.

The 50 lbs was an effort to make a point. It obviously went right by you. You are correct that the difference is not 50 lbs. It is more like 6 lbs. How do I know? I have, and have had, both of them, and have weighed both of them.

Talk about dense you are the one I said Once again read the rules for factory stock and see where youre assumptions are lacking.One assumption is that they are 3300 pound cars and that they are using cast iron stock heads.They arn't!!"

using cast iron stock heads
using cast iron stock heads
using cast iron stock heads
using cast iron stock heads

Do you see stock in there any??The only time I talked about factory stock rules.I printed it four times just so that you could make out the stock part.
Once again the heads on the 5.0s that are racing are not stock!!They never came on the car!!At least not the ones that win.

And, as you said, "once again" nobody is saying that the heads are "stock". They most certainly are stock casting, but the racers are using bigger valves and a good valve job.

Now yes they are iron not aluminum.And yes a car can make the necessary hp with iron heads.I was incorrect about an above statment about having to have aluminum heads but I never said that factory stock was allowed to run aluminum!!

Ok. Sure seemed like that is what you meant, but if you say you didn't, then I'm good with it.

It does and you will never beat physics.

Denial is a terrible thing. Those very same F/S cars that you first referenced to it all the time.

You have my sympathy.

There are many reasons why youre actual horspower at the rear wheels could be off from the dyno but It absolutly takes more then you keep stating to do it!!Physics again.

See above.

It takes a certain horsepower to accelerate a certain mass to a certain speed in a certain time period.Is that easy enough for you to understand?? Or are you being dense??

LOL. Correct. The problem is that your "numbers" are wrong. Also, there is more to it than simply power to weight. Traction and gearing (overall gearing) have a very big effect, as I'm sure you know. Or maybe you don't? Based on the above, I take the second option. No offense.

You are never going to convince me otherwise!!

That seems pretty obvious. Then again, you'll never convince a liberal that tax cuts are good either, but I digress.

So keep on writing back with the argument!

I shall continue to beat on this hard rock so long as it remains entertaining.

And I will keep on telling you you are wrong we can go on for weeks like this!!

Perhaps. See the above line about denial. Then go visit an NMRA event near you.

But thanks alot you have brought joy to my life I kinda like a good argument!!

I'm glad I brought you some "joy". As for this "arguement", it is hardly good - in the true sense. I state facts, you deny them. Fun? Sure. Good arguement? Nope.

Keep trying though.

 

[onefastjackass]

BTW...you forgot temperature - which has the largest effect of the 3 parameters
Heat affects the pressure.So by mentioning the pressure I was already including the temp due to the fact that when the temp changes.The pressure is what changes!

Higher temp and the pressure changes so I did not think it was necessary to mention.Since barometric pressure is a direct result.

 

[Bob Cosby]

Dude....I'm a Meteorologist by trade. Your statements are quite misleading. Do you really wish to go THERE too?

 

[Robin Lawrence]

Wow Bob....

Does that mean that all those 11 Second time slips that I ran are bogus?

A few points
87 to 93 Mustangs weighed between 3050 and 3450 without the driver depending on which 5.0 you got. Not the 3600 Pounds that Mr Ass refrenced

The heads that we use were used on 93 to 95 Cobra Mustangs, 93 to 95 Lightning Pickup Trucks and 96 and early 97 Exlporer. The "P" head was used in the later Explorer

My car made from 332 to 337 SAE Corrected on 3 different Chassis Dyno's

Best ET was 11.79 @115 at Atco last year. That was at 700'Corrected Elevation
Most guys that I know can get a Turbo Buick into the 11's without major modifications, what's holding this guy back?

My car now has aluminum heads and an "S" Trim. Same stock cam and 3300 Pounds. No more Drag Radials. We run a 26x10 Slick and run 10 ohs in 3000'Corrected elevation.

 

[onefastjackass]

Re: Wow Bob....

Originally posted by Robin Lawrence

Most guys that I know can get a Turbo Buick into the 11's without major modifications, what's holding this guy back?

93 octane gas,small tires,street trim and only 17-18 lbs of boost.

I'm sure with better,tires, good gas and 25 pounds of boost it would be in the mid to low 11's but I don't want to add a roll bar my car is too nice as it is.

 

[lyonsd]

No offense, OFJA, but I think it'd be best to quit while you're behind.

 

[artrenee10]

this was good

This was good......
I learned a ton of information about physics, metereology, engineering, and auto mechanics
Makes me wonder how i failed shop in high school
This was excellent guys. Very informative.
Thanks To Both of You
Steve Chambers

 

[murphster]

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
Dude....I'm a Meteorologist by trade.

LOL... that's classic.


hey, I'm a physicist... maybe I can help.....


oh yeah, here's a quote from earlier in the thread for laughs...

Also Stroked I am calling bs on the n/a 302 running 12.20 unless the heads were aluminum and you had a bottom end girdle on the engine and were spinning it to 7000 plus.

murph

 

[momau3]

murphster wrote:

____________________________________
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bob Cosby
Dude....I'm a Meteorologist by trade.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL... that's classic.


hey, I'm a physicist... maybe I can help.....
____________________________________

So are you really a physicist because Mr Cosby is really a meteorologist with the US Navy.

No Flame, just a little background thats all.

 

[murphster]

Originally posted by momau3
So are you really a physicist because Mr Cosby is really a meteorologist with the US Navy.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as being sarcastic.

Yes, I really am a physicist. A medical physicist, to be exact. Work with radiation and such.

I think I'd rather be a race car driver sometimes, though.

murph

 

[turbosam6]

I like how people are arguing that it takes x hp to run a certain ET. BS. It takes x hp to run a certain mph, but not ET. I have a good 150-200 more rwhp than my buddies freakishly fast t type, but we ET 3 or 4 tenths apart in the 1/8. but my mph is waaay higher, due to me having more hp. ET is more of a function of traction and acceleration, not peak hp. I saw a guy go 11.20 at 96 mph 2 weeks ago, no doubt he lifted, but see what I'm saying?