E92 M3 runs 11s with just bolt ons...

[Fish]

No, but I understand basic physics and how speed over distance affects time.

You got proof such as slips or anything stating this?

 

[Vogz]

You got proof such as slips or anything stating this?

Neal already explained it....
http://www.thechicagogarage.org/forum/showpost.php?p=647719&postcount=50

I've got around 300 timeslips sitting in my desk drawer upstairs...do you really expect me to go through all of them, and plot them on a spreadsheet to show you when you probably won't change your mind anyway?

 

[Fish]

Not really.

Just a quick search. Here is a guy. Slower 60. Faster trap.

http://www.3800pro.com/forum/quarter-mile-times/22346-new-trap-speed-pb.html

 

[Vogz]

That's one pass, and they said they were spinning mid track...plus it's a 9/8 second car.


Here's four days worth of clean runs

Day 1
1. [email protected] 1.85 60' worst 60', lowest trap
2. [email protected] 1.84 60'
3. [email protected] 1.70 60' highest trap, best 60'

Day 2
1. [email protected] 1.98 60' worst 60', lowest trap
2. [email protected] 1.67 60'
3. [email protected] 1.73 60' highest trap, second best 60'

Day 3
1. [email protected] 1.93 60' worst 60', lowest trap
2. [email protected] 1.68 60' highest trap, best 60'
3. [email protected] 1.89 60'

Day 4.
1. [email protected] 1.70 60' best trap, second best 60'
2. [email protected] 1.78 60'
3. [email protected] 1.83 60' worst 60', nowhere near best trap
4. [email protected] 1.74 60'
5. [email protected] 1.75 60'
6. [email protected] 1.67 60'
7. [email protected] 1.76 60'
8. [email protected] 1.72 60'
last 3 runs in quick succession car was heat soaked

 

[Fish]

That's one pass, and they said they were spinning mid track...plus it's a 9/8 second car.


Here's four days worth of clean runs

Day 1
1. [email protected] 1.85 60' worst 60', lowest trap
2. [email protected] 1.84 60'
3. [email protected] 1.70 60' highest trap, best 60'

Day 2
1. [email protected] 1.98 60' worst 60', lowest trap
2. [email protected] 1.67 60'
3. [email protected] 1.73 60' highest trap, second best 60'

Day 3
1. [email protected] 1.93 60' worst 60', lowest trap
2. [email protected] 1.68 60' highest trap, best 60'
3. [email protected] 1.89 60'

Day 4.
1. [email protected] 1.70 60' best trap, second best 60'
2. [email protected] 1.78 60'
3. [email protected] 1.83 60' worst 60', nowhere near best trap
4. [email protected] 1.74 60'
5. [email protected] 1.75 60'
6. [email protected] 1.67 60'
7. [email protected] 1.76 60'
8. [email protected] 1.72 60'
last 3 runs in quick succession car was heat soaked

Wouldnt a 9 second car be a better test bed and show a difference better then an 11 second car?

Another thing that I didnt think of, my experience is with low end powered cars, and yours is all top end. Think that might make a difference in your opinion?

 

[Vogz]

Wouldnt a 9 second car be a better test bed and show a difference better then an 11 second car?

Not typically, since a lot more can go wrong on a 9 second pass that makes them much less consistent. If I hook on the launch, I stay hooked all the way down the track. A 9 second car....not so much, spinning at half track will screw up any correlation between 60' and 1/4 trap.

Another thing that I didnt think of, my experience is with low end powered cars, and yours is all top end. Think that might make a difference in your opinion?

My car is anything but top end. I actually have VERY strong 1/8 mile traps and only pick up 25-26mph in the second half, which is pretty average for a car trapping mid-high 120s....

 

[Nealoc187]

Low end power or high end power, it makes no difference, BTW brians car made way more low end than high end power until this fall and 3 of the 4 days he listed are back when he had shit for top end and great low end/mid range so that asinine theory is debunked right here and now.

Think for half a second about what you are saying. You are saying that accelerating at a WORSE rate for part of your run will cause you to be going FASTER at the end of the 1/4 mile? Are you out of your mind? Can you not comprehend how illogical your theory is? Acclerate slower = go faster? Wat? If you cannot understand this it's no use discussing this with you because you aren't able to comprehend a simple concept such as what is being laid out before you. Let alone the numerical data you are being shown.

BTW when did I ever make fun of you for drag racing? What the heck are you talking about?

 

[Vogz]

I think I figured out where this worse 60' = higher trap theory came from.

We need to remember that the only runs that should be compared with each other are those run in the same conditions (same day).

I think people see that on hot days, they 60 better since the track is warmer and their tires are warmer and stickier, but since higher temps rob HP, they also trap lower. Conversely, when it's cold out, most cars 60 worse and trap higher.

So they incorrectly correlate the poor 60ft with a better trap. When in fact the better trap is due to more power.

 

[Nealoc187]

I think it came from the fact that bogging really bad can result in an even worse trap than spinning will. Not spinning because you bogged is not the same type of launch as not spinning because you got out great.

 

[Fish]

I think we are all reading the wrong fucking book rather then not being on the same page.

Also FWIW, I usually only raced in March/April or October/November. So the whole air temp and track surface temp could be feasable as well.

Even more hurting in my situation is 350* of compressed air and no intercooler.

 

[Turk]

LOL, wtf happened to this thread? So did you guys hear about the m3 running 11s with just bolt ons?

 

[Mook]

no way! thats pretty impressive

 

[Fish]

LOL, wtf happened to this thread? So did you guys hear about the m3 running 11s with just bolt ons?

GTFoutta here. You think you can do that?

 

[Nealoc187]

LOL, wtf happened to this thread? So did you guys hear about the m3 running 11s with just bolt ons?

stfu noob. your thread has been jacked and we will not give it back.

 

[jason05gt]

So what does that prove? That running on a wet track is slower than running on a dry track?

Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLEyEF6pjh0

I cannot find the article, but it was Chris's comments on the times were that it would be hard to match Nissan times.

I actually believe Nissan's original 7:38 time and I think it's consistent when you compare it to the Z06 time at the Ring and how they compete at other tracks. The 7:26 is what I call BS on.

 

[Yaj Yak]

 

[Vogz]

Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLEyEF6pjh0

I cannot find the article, but it was Chris's comments on the times were that it would be hard to match Nissan times.

I actually believe Nissan's original 7:38 time and I think it's consistent when you compare it to the Z06 time at the Ring and how they compete at other tracks. The 7:26 is what I call BS on.

:gives:

 

[RebelGTP]