[slowbird]

Originally Posted by GTOGEORGE

The car your talking about ran a 7.4 last year at Norwalk at about 3,450 lbs


GTO George

So it'll be 2.5sec faster now?

[GTOGEORGE]

Originally Posted by slowbird

So it'll be 2.5sec faster now?

4.9's............i doubt it! LOL!


GTO George

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

He's calling for 1.5 secs faster than 7.4

Probably around 1 second faster just in the car switch
then whatever voodoo magic is under that hat now .

[Stan Weiss]

Did no want to take the time and make up a couple of simulation since I really do not know a whole lot about either car. So I just went quick and dirty knowing that would be quicker. Well here you go.

3450# cd .4 frontal area 22 sq ft
60 Foot ET = 1.2022
330 Foot ET = 3.1697
1/8 Mile ET = 4.8083
1/8 Mile MPH = 150.3887
1000 Foot ET = 6.2154
1/4 Mile ET = 7.4063
1/4 Mile MPH = 189.2569

2350# .3 cd frontal area 19 sq ft - improved traction
60 Foot ET = 1.0485
330 Foot ET = 2.7530
1/8 Mile ET = 4.1756
1/8 Mile MPH = 172.7142
1000 Foot ET = 5.4018
1/4 Mile ET = 6.4400
1/4 Mile MPH = 217.1396

I guess we will know in a few week how far over this is.
Stan

[GTOGEORGE]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Did no want to take the time and make up a couple of simulation since I really do not know a whole lot about either car. So I just went quick and dirty knowing that would be quicker. Well here you go.

3450# cd .4 frontal area 22 sq ft
60 Foot ET = 1.2022
330 Foot ET = 3.1697
1/8 Mile ET = 4.8083
1/8 Mile MPH = 150.3887
1000 Foot ET = 6.2154
1/4 Mile ET = 7.4063
1/4 Mile MPH = 189.2569

2350# .3 cd frontal area 19 sq ft - improved traction
60 Foot ET = 1.0485
330 Foot ET = 2.7530
1/8 Mile ET = 4.1756
1/8 Mile MPH = 172.7142
1000 Foot ET = 5.4018
1/4 Mile ET = 6.4400
1/4 Mile MPH = 217.1396

I guess we will know in a few week how far over this is.
Stan

1.20 60’ time for a 7.40 ET...... he doesn’t have a turbo car! LOL! I’m running 1.14-17 in my car!


GTO Geirge

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by GTOGEORGE

1.20 60’ time for a 7.40 ET...... he doesn’t have a turbo car! LOL! I’m running 1.14-17 in my car!


GTO Geirge

GTOGeorge,
You do understand the better the 60 foot time on the 7.4 run the less HP it shows / takes for that run. So when I reduce the weight the 6.44 run will be slower because I will be using less HP for that simulation.

Stan

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Another gizmo shows -

3450 lbs @ 7.40 = 1683 horses
2350 lbs @ 6.51 = 1683 horses

2350 lbs @ 5.98 = 2172 horses

= 489 more horses needed in the stable

thats just RawData - no account for better aero , traction/downforce , etc...
but still gonna need a lil more boost under the magic hat to break into 5.9's

[Slick]

Really neat looking new car! Great idea using a proven engine combination in a new chassis.

Best of luck to you, we need all the fast Pontiacs we can get! There just aren't enough of us.

Stuart

[GTOGEORGE]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

GTOGeorge,
You do understand the better the 60 foot time on the 7.4 run the less HP it shows / takes for that run. So when I reduce the weight the 6.44 run will be slower because I will be using less HP for that simulation.

Stan

Actually he only ran a high 7.47 I think with an under 1.20 60' time.
So what would one of your simulations be with my car?


GTO George

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by GTOGEORGE

Actually he only ran a high 7.47 I think with an under 1.20 60' time.
So what would one of your simulations be with my car?


GTO George

GTOGeorge,
I had an old sim I had done about 3 years ago. I had to make a few changes to it as some data like the weight based on your signature I had was wrong.

60 Foot ET = 1.1556
330 Foot ET = 3.2795
1/8 Mile ET = 5.0854
1/8 Mile MPH = 136.8021
1000 Foot ET = 6.6549
1/4 Mile ET = 7.9935
1/4 Mile MPH = 169.0700

Stan

[Stan Weiss]

One reason I keep posting my simulations is to see how close they come to actual track data.

When I ran these simulations I tried a few different PG ratios and then tries a few 3 speed ratios. From the limited number of tries the best simulation was the one I posted and that used a 1.82 1.37 1.00.

Stan

[Elarson]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

One reason I keep posting my simulations is to see how close they come to actual track data.

When I ran these simulations I tried a few different PG ratios and then tries a few 3 speed ratios. From the limited number of tries the best simulation was the one I posted and that used a 1.82 1.37 1.00.

Stan

Our experience is that the nitro loves being loaded. We use a 2-speed Lenco and the shift to high gear makes more power. Our 1/8th mile at Bowling Green was a bit soft (compared to running in the October air last year) but in high gear, it came alive and ran the big mph.

Hopefully the air is better at Norwalk and we're going to put a little more counterweight on the clutch to load it harder in low gear.

Eric

[Scott Roberts]

Originally Posted by Elarson

Our experience is that the nitro loves being loaded. We use a 2-speed Lenco and the shift to high gear makes more power. Our 1/8th mile at Bowling Green was a bit soft (compared to running in the October air last year) but in high gear, it came alive and ran the big mph.

Hopefully the air is better at Norwalk and we're going to put a little more counterweight on the clutch to load it harder in low gear.

Eric

What first gear are you running Eric? Are you running sub 1.0 60's?