Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Guys could one of the drag racers/competitors here please help me out with understanding what the times mean.

What is the difference between a car that runs 12.1 @ 98mph and one that runs 12.1 @ 131mph?

If the ET is the same, does the car with the lower top speed find more traction from the line so that it can accelerate faster/sooner?

It seems to be a 1.6 60' is a guy that can drive and a car with plenty of go, and a 2.5 60' is someone who probably drives like me. Are there any other figures that give you an indication of what is going on?

Thanks in advance,

Mark

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/86369-understanding-drag-stats/
Share on other sites

Guys could one of the drag racers/competitors here please help me out with understanding what the times mean.

What is the difference between a car that runs 12.1 @ 98mph and one that runs 12.1 @ 131mph?

If the ET is the same, does the car with the lower top speed find more traction from the line so that it can accelerate faster/sooner?

It seems to be a 1.6 60' is a guy that can drive and a car with plenty of go, and a 2.5 60' is someone who probably drives like me. Are there any other figures that give you an indication of what is going on?

Thanks in advance,

Mark

Mark, it isn't that simple! There are many factors at play which make straight line projections worthless.

Nevertheless there are some general rules of thumb which can help you analyse a full timeslip.

For a well sorted car the following ETs and trap speeds are well accepted:

13.0 @ 100 mph

12.0 @ 110 mph

11.0 @ 120 mph

10.0 @ 130 mph

9.0 @ 145 mph

8.5 @ 155 mph

8.0@ 165 mph

7.5 @ 175 mph

Note that late model, IRS cars tend to run slower ETs and faster trap speeds. That is indicative that the IRS, lack of space for rubber and less efficient weigh transfer work against these types of cars.

Regarding your questions, a stovehot driver with a slow car may still only be able to manage a 2.0 short time. A poor driver with a monster car might manage a lousy 1.5 short time, if you follow my drift.

Thanks for your replies guys. Your comments have cleared things up some, but I'm not sure if you're implying that quoting an ET isn't *too* helpful when comparing cars, but they will generally follow the scale MrBlonde mentioned?

Still wondering. It'd be nice to know when some guy is spinning you a line about his latest effort at WSID. Sounds like I need to get my butt down to the drag strip and watch a few races to understand things better! :D

The figures MrBlonde gave are indicative of ideal runs and are a very good guide as to what a well sorted car can achieve on a good run. Not all runs are ideal and therefore other factors (such as wheelspin, pedalling, slow gear changes, backing off, car out of shape etc) will see variations on those guides. There are other figures that will give further indication as to how the run went, such as 330', 660' and 1000' times and speeds.

Sounds like I need to get my butt down to the drag strip and watch a few races to understand things better! ;)
That's the best way to learn. I've been to easily 80-90% of all events held at WSID and seen a zillions runs and i'm still amazed at how quick some drivers/cars go with minimal power/mods.

You would be quite suprised how many drivers I meet in the staging lanes out in the pits whom are totally stoked at their ET's only to tell them that they could easily do another 0.3-0.5sec quicker just with a few adjustments and/or more experience without any modifications.

Note that late model, IRS cars tend to run slower ETs and faster trap speeds. That is indicative that the IRS, lack of space for rubber and less efficient weigh transfer work against these types of cars.

Modern IRS cars, especially "sports" ones, tend to have geometry that increases camber as the suspension compresses.

If you're powering out of a corner that's great, but if you're trying to launch then its not ideal.

  • 4 weeks later...

can anyone tell me what an ET of 14.5 with a TS of 100mph would indicate.

I am a crap drag racer and have never broken 14.3 but my TS is always up around the 100mph mark, and my 60' is always around 2.2+

Does this indicate that my car could run faster with a decent driver at the wheel? and can someone tell me what sort of times it should be capable of running with those figures?

can anyone tell me what an ET of 14.5 with a TS of 100mph would indicate.

I am a crap drag racer and have never broken 14.3 but my TS is always up around the 100mph mark, and my 60' is always around 2.2+

Does this indicate that my car could run faster with a decent driver at the wheel? and can someone tell me what sort of times it should be capable of running with those figures?

Car could definately run faster with a decent 60' time.

My mph (104mph) isn't much higher than yours, yet I've run a best ET of 12.9...the big difference is 60', mine was ~1.8.

If you could get your 60' down to around a 2.0, then I believe that you should easily net a mid to high 13 :(

Car could definately run faster with a decent 60' time.

My mph (104mph) isn't much higher than yours, yet I've run a best ET of 12.9...the big difference is 60', mine was ~1.8.

If you could get your 60' down to around a 2.0, then I believe that you should easily net a mid to high 13 :)

Thanks for the reply......looks like I need to practice my launches. I don't like being too brutal on my car though, hence the slow 60' times.

Maybe I should give up on drag racing. I think you need a certain amount of mechanical disregard to be a good drag racer :(

Thanks for the reply......looks like I need to practice my launches.  I don't like being too brutal on my car though, hence the slow 60' times.

Maybe I should give up on drag racing.  I think you need a certain amount of mechanical disregard to be a good drag racer :P

Everything that breaks is just an opportunity to make your car stronger ;-)

can anyone tell me what an ET of 14.5 with a TS of 100mph would indicate.

Just as an indication I did 14.0 @ 100mph with a 2.0sec 60ft time and i've seen many others do 13.7-14.0's with 100mph.

So seems like you need to work on the first 330ft section of the drag strip.

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...