Is Jimmy D'Alessandro still around?

[EightSecV6]

Not that anyone really cares, but it is propylene oxide . Also, a 7.61 at 1900 lbs takes 850 average rwhp, while a 7.25 at 2570 lbs takes 1330 (and 8.49 at 3650 takes 1175).

Thanks Carl, I sure as heck know you'd have the breakdowns! Any more info on the stuff they call "poop"?

 

[John Wilde]

Not that anyone really cares, but it is propylene oxide . Also, a 7.61 at 1900 lbs takes 850 average rwhp, while a 7.25 at 2570 lbs takes 1330 (and 8.49 at 3650 takes 1175).

Carl,

Use the MPH to factor the HP numbers not the ET.
The ET is how the car is working, the MPH more of the HP.

 

[John Wilde]

Weight has a LOT to do with what the fastest cars run. D'Alessandro's car was extremely light - somewhere in the ballpark of 2200# - I think he was running a carbon fiber front clip, doors, and deck lid toward the end before he crashed it. I think I remember him quoting it at around 800-900hp which was more impressive at that time than now. Never heard that about the propylene. Like Bill said, it takes more than just sheer power to run the numbers or everyone would be doing it. I can guarantee it takes a lot more than a lot of people will ever know to run those kind of numbers!

Will,

A friend of mine owns Jimmy's other white car, the non tube cassis car.
They had to replace the fuel tank and all the lines because the polypropylene oxide corrodes through every thing. There were other issues with the car that don’t need to be brought up in this thread.

 

[John Wilde]

Anderson 188 MPH @ 2570lbs = 1573HP
Jimmy D 179MPH @ 1900lbs = 1004HP
Dave Bamford 146MPH @ 3550 = 1017HP "Stock Block"
Tony Gomes 164MPH @ 3650 = 1483HP

Does anyone know what BIG Al's Car weighs???
That thing went 191MPH with an auto, he might be the HP King.

 

[Otto J]

John what about my ride
9.42 @ 146.11 at 3615!!

 

[EightSecV6]

Does anyone know what BIG Al's Car weighs???
That thing went 191MPH with an auto, he might be the HP King.

Lemme beat Steve to it.......WHERE IS THE VIDEO??? Big Twin turbo car picking on all of us lil singles!

 

[John Wilde]

John what about my ride
9.42 @ 146.11 at 3615!!

1038HP Now lets turn that mother up!!!

 

[Otto J]

Not bad for a hydraulic roller motor, Although Dave with that 71 turbo damn!

 

[John Wilde]

Lemme beat Steve to it.......WHERE IS THE VIDEO??? Big Twin turbo car picking on all of us lil singles!

Bill,

I may be able to get that from Kenny.
I have a video of it some where of it going 188 ish.

I would have to lower your hp a little bit because the calculator I use assumes a automatic transmission. Your car is only losing a couple HP through the Liberty trannny if you have the clutch down.

 

[Cheeseburger]

JD, was a cool dude when i knew him!
I was using his old dfi from the white car last year........did well with it, with a bunch of tweaking.

You guys forgot, what about Buddy Ingersoll??

 

[John Wilde]

JD, was a cool dude when i knew him!
I was using his old dfi from the white car last year........did well with it, with a bunch of tweaking.

You guys forgot, what about Buddy Ingersoll??

I think Buddy was making about 1200HP.

 

[sr71gn]

why knock someone who was doing it way before anyone else--- he had alot of people fooled back then --but he was a representative of kenne belle products --hard to believe the board members now werent around then--- im sure getting old--- i remember seeing the intercooler sprayer at the time ---but he was not the only one doing it---

 

[baadgn]

Anderson 188 MPH @ 2570lbs = 1573HP
Jimmy D 179MPH @ 1900lbs = 1004HP
Dave Bamford 146MPH @ 3550 = 1017HP "Stock Block"
Tony Gomes 164MPH @ 3650 = 1483HP

Does anyone know what BIG Al's Car weighs???
That thing went 191MPH with an auto, he might be the HP King.

I need a bigger turbo

 

[John Wilde]

I need a bigger turbo

I think you will ok with Job's little creation for you!

 

[86brick]

Lemme beat Steve to it.......WHERE IS THE VIDEO??? Big Twin turbo car picking on all of us lil singles!

In the words of Jerry Meguire... "Show me the money!!!!" Or in this case the video

John is definitely the man to find that video if it is out there It's too bad Big Al doesn't post cause maybe we could get some good ol' fashioned sh!t talking between the two of you guys

 

[86brick]

I need a bigger turbo

No worries bro, you are the fastest turbo buick with A/C!!!!

 

[ijames]

Bill, not being a parent I thankfully haven't had too much experience with "poop" . I've heard propylene oxide (not polypropylene, that is a plastic, and not poly(propylene oxide) which is used as a thickener and to make surfactants) called pop, which I assume is what you meant to type . It's teratogenic, mutagenic, and I think causes tooth decay in rats - well, maybe not quite that bad but it is pretty poisonous stuff that you really don't want to get splashed on you or breath much of or get the fumes in your eyes. I've heard that it is really volatile, only lasting maybe a half an hour in a fuel cell before it evaporates (or reacts with the cell and fuel lines), and that it gives the same kind of hp boost as nitromethane. Since it goes away so fast you have to add it right before a pass, and you have a good chance of it not being detected after the pass if someone is going to be checking your fuel. I've never found detailed data on octane and hp, sorry.

John, on average the et=1356/mph and I did check each of the et/mph pairs that I calculated to make sure that they agreed to within 1 mph of that calculation. If the mph had been significantly higher I would have used it to calculate an et and then used that in the hp formula, since as you say mph is a good indicator of hp while et tends to be more an indicator of traction. The hp formula I used is average rwhp = 197 * weight / et^3, which is straightforward to derive assuming constant acceleration (I posted the derivation once in a thread about whether or not the formula was for rw or flywheel hp to prove it was for rw, and the constant acceleration assumption is why it gives average hp). I did round off to the nearest 5 hp. Since you talk about a transmission factor I have to assume that your numbers are estimated flywheel hp numbers, while mine are average rear wheel hp which are going to be lower by whatever transmission loss guess is used. Any formula you want to use is okay so long as you understand what it is giving you, so you can make apple to apple comparisons. In Bill's case I hope his clutch setup is slipping less than the typical converter that makes up part of the transmission loss in your estimate, which will lower your number for him by a good bit. That's why I really prefer the rwhp number, since to me what is important is how much you can get to the track, but that's just me .

 

[FlyinGN]

That says it all Carl. Hats off to Bill..

Not that anyone really cares, but it is propylene oxide . Also, a 7.61 at 1900 lbs takes 850 average rwhp, while a 7.25 at 2570 lbs takes 1330 (and 8.49 at 3650 takes 1175).

 

[John Wilde]

John, on average the et=1356/mph and I did check each of the et/mph pairs that I calculated to make sure that they agreed to within 1 mph of that calculation. If the mph had been significantly higher I would have used it to calculate an et and then used that in the hp formula, since as you say mph is a good indicator of hp while et tends to be more an indicator of traction. The hp formula I used is average rwhp = 197 * weight / et^3, which is straightforward to derive assuming constant acceleration (I posted the derivation once in a thread about whether or not the formula was for rw or flywheel hp to prove it was for rw, and the constant acceleration assumption is why it gives average hp). I did round off to the nearest 5 hp. Since you talk about a transmission factor I have to assume that your numbers are estimated flywheel hp numbers, while mine are average rear wheel hp which are going to be lower by whatever transmission loss guess is used. Any formula you want to use is okay so long as you understand what it is giving you, so you can make apple to apple comparisons. In Bill's case I hope his clutch setup is slipping less than the typical converter that makes up part of the transmission loss in your estimate, which will lower your number for him by a good bit. That's why I really prefer the rwhp number, since to me what is important is how much you can get to the track, but that's just me .

Carl,

Thanks for the detailed response. As a rule I thumb I like to know both numbers so that I can factor in the converter efficiency and total drive train loss. I did know that my numbers were flywheel because that is how I factored the information. =)
A good clutch set should have almost no slip on the big end.
This gives the clutch cars more MPH than the autos.
For example when Brad Brand was running 207MPH on 10.5W @ 3100lbs and most the other guys were in the high 190s

Bill’s car @ 2560lbs is making 1328RWHP and probably about 1430FWHP if you factor the drive train loss at 8%.

Big Al’s Car if you believe the hype and it weighs similar to Bill’s is making 1392RWHP and 1643FWHP. This is believable , but I would factor this down a little because Pro Torque Converters are super tight on the top end.

Bamford would make 862RWHP and 1017FWHP

Gomes 1257RWHP and 1483RWHP

Otto 878RWHP and 1036FWHP

Jimmy D 850RWHP and 1004FWHP….. This is not that great with a 91MM Thumper and “M&A Heads” that were actually custom one offs from Ruggels.
You could mail order a “standard” M&A Headed motor from Duttweiler or Dan Strezo at that time with 200 more HP.

 

[John Wilde]

PS:

Carl where is my hook up on the twin turbo trans am???
Write me when you get a chance!