Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hello Guys,

My mate here at work came to me with a set of figures produced by his friend's newest toy for drag racing.

This toy is apparently a computer you plug on to your cigarrette lighter on the car and somehow (I am sure there is at least one more cable he isn't telling me about) this computer measures how long it takes for the car to reach each interval of 10 Km/h.

Then he said to me, that the car to win the drag race is not necessarily the fastest car at every point of the race, so he wanted to know what was the distance covered by the car at different time intervals rather than speed intervals.

And so, thanks to some vague memories of high school physics and the geniuses on the internet who seem to have an Excel formula for everything you want to do I produced the spreadsheet I attached.

All you need to change is the values on the coloured cells (i.e. time taken to reach each increment of 10 Km/h, what time intervals you want to find [1 second, ½ seconds, etc]); everything else is automatically calculated. I have protected the spreadsheet so you don't accidentally muck up the formulae, but you can unprotect it without the need for a password.

You can get a lot more detailed information from computers already available in the market which you can take from your car and plug into USB on your PC...shweeeeet! But if like these guys all you have is speed increments and times, then you can use this free spreadsheet that I put together with the assistance of the most awesome Excel geeks in the planet.

By the way, the figures on the spreadsheet belong to a Subaru WRX STI VIII 1997 (stock standard).

Have fun, and keep racing.

Velocity.xls

Edited by Kichy
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/310322-drag-racing-times/
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

Here are the results for my mate's car.

1995 Toyota Soarer - 2.5L V6 Twin Turbo

1 second 5.56 m

2 seconds 21.25 m

3 seconds 42.50 m

4 seconds 66.81 m

5 seconds 94.17 m

6 seconds 125.42 m

7 seconds 160.14 m

8 seconds 196.53 m

9 seconds 236.25 m

10 seconds 278.19 m

11 seconds 322.36 m

12 seconds 368.75 m

13 seconds 417.36 m

Awesome! :)

Hello everyone,

Here are the results for my mate's car.

1995 Toyota Soarer - 2.5L V6 Twin Turbo

1 second 5.56 m

2 seconds 21.25 m

3 seconds 42.50 m

4 seconds 66.81 m

5 seconds 94.17 m

6 seconds 125.42 m

7 seconds 160.14 m

8 seconds 196.53 m

9 seconds 236.25 m

10 seconds 278.19 m

11 seconds 322.36 m

12 seconds 368.75 m

13 seconds 417.36 m

Awesome! :laugh:

Where's the 402m time?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hey guys, I’m a veteran detailer with years of hands-on experience. I’ll be sharing quick, effective detailing tips to help you keep your Skyline (or any ride) looking its best. Got a question? Fire away!
    • I guess when I say it's a POS I mean.. the solution and the stuff has the capacity for maybe... 1 spot. You know, as a spot cleaner. What I really *want* is the ability to do an entire car, all upholstery, all carpet, mats, all seats, door card inserts, A pillars, roof liners, etc. In one go. I get lured by all the jank that comes out and think "I'd like to be able to clean to that degree"
    • I've got one (not the car one, the domestic spot cleaner one, which is basically the same jobbie) and have driven it hard for hours and hours at a time. Grimy sofas, 6' floor rugs, etc. I'd blame your specific example rather than the whole category. I haven't used mine in the car, because.... you know, it's my car. So there is no-one else's ball sweat in the driver's seat, there's no kid food/drink spills or hand prints inside because they've never had an opportunity to put them there. You know, basic, standard Skyline rules.
    • I normally run with I think a 10mm, and definitely use the second handle you can add to a drill. They hurt when they bins up!   For the crush tube, once all subframe is clear, I'd try some stilsons and see if I can get it to start to twist.
    • Probably because they couldn't, because the use of the variable resistor to create a "signal" in the ECU is managed by the ECU's circuitry. The only way that VDO could do it would be if they made a "smart" sensor that directly created the 0-5V signal itself. And that takes us back to the beginning. Well, in that case, you could do the crude digital (ie, binary, on or off) input that I mentioned before, to at least put a marker on the trace. If you pressed the button only at a series of known integer temperatures, say every 2°C from the start of your range of interest up to whatever you can manage, and you know what temperature the first press was at, then you'd have the voltage marked for all of those temperatures. And you can have more than one shot at it too. You can set the car up to get the oil hot (bypass oil coolers, mask off the air flow to oil coolers, and/or the radiator, to get the whole engine a bit hotter, then give it a bit of curry to get some measurements up near the top of the range.   On the subject of the formula for the data you provided, I did something different to Matt's approach, and got a slightly different linear formula, being Temp = -22.45*V + 118.32. Just a curve fit from Excel using all the points, instead of just throwing it through 2 points. A little more accurate, but not drastically different. Rsquared is only 0.9955 though, which is good but not great. If you could use higher order polynomials in the thingo, then a quadratic fit gives an excellent Rsquared of 0.9994. Temp = 2.1059*V^2 - 34.13*V + 133.27. The funny thing is, though, that I'd probably trust the linear fit more for extrapolation beyond the provided data. The quadratic might get a bit squirrely. Hang on, I'll use the formulae to extend the plots.... It's really big so you can see all the lines. I might have to say that I think I really still prefer the quadratic fit. It looks like the linear fit overstates the temperature in the middle of the input range, and would pretty solidly understate what the likely shape of the real curve would say at both ends.
×
×
  • Create New...