Ok, so Realistic and Really must be the same two words in your vocabulary, but the last time I looked realistic left room for variance, and really was being exact...which you accused me of and I did not claim. But you fail to see that.

As for your ridiculous statement of people lol at me for me going around making a supposed fool of myself...you know nothing of me or what I would say in person and I don't go around saying I ran a 13.8 at 103, I go around and tell the truth which is that I ran a 14.0 at 100.7, but according to some track officials at my track it has been mentioned that the last 60' is averages which is good for 1-2 10ths and 1-2 Mph...which is the only reason why I ever mentioned it...

You never did address the fact that it was people at my track who said the last 60' were averaged and not something I just heard or read some place randomly. You also never explained why only the mph would be averaged and not the ET...and what advantage to the track does only averaging one have vs. both since one is being averaged and one is being recorded for all 1320???

I have mentioned that to several people over the years, and miraculously no one has ever lol...but they must not have been as cool as you.

I have been racing for over 10 years now...how long have you? I have 4 vehicles I race right now...how many do you have? I also don't ask stupid questions like why if I had a better reaction time and a better 60' time and the other guy had a whopping 1/10th better ET with less trap speed would I have won the race....but again, you are the smart guy who knows everything about racing and tracks and I am bowing to your knowledge and savvy with which you pass it on...oh, all but that stupid question with the obvious answer that I gave you...oh, and all the parts to make your car faster...you're welcome for those two, but thanks for the very courteous passing on of all your other wisdom.

Happy Easter!

 

Okay, here is what you said:

"14.00 at 100.7 03.5 5AT...did it a couple of times. Track averages the last 60' too...realistic run was 13.8 at 103 or so which I can't be more happy with."


Here was my response:

"ALL tracks average the last 60' of the run. And it only averages the speed, not the time.
So you can't and shouldn't go around telling people you ran a "realistic"
13.8 @ 103, because it just wouldn't be true."


What don't you get there?
EVERY track in America averages the SPEED in the last 60' of the run.
So REALISTICALLY you did NOT run a 13.8 @ 103
How can you NOT understand that? I never made a reference to "really"
and "realistically" as being the same thing.




So first you say you don't go around saying you ran a 13.8 @ 103 but then
you go onto the internet posting that you ran a 14.0 @ 100.7 but
"realistically" you ran a 13.8 @ 103. You see any sorta ironic statement
there? Also, if a "track official" is telling you that the last 60' speed average is good for another 1-2 tenths, they need to hire new track officials.
I'll say it again, the SPEED is averaged, NOT the DISTANCE!!!
They are NOT averaging the 1/4 mile, that remains a constant.
It is exactly 1/4 mile between the last staging light and the last timing light.




Nice to have your driving resume.
But since you asked...I've been racing for 18 years, but only drag racing for the past 1.5 years.
But apparently I'm a MUCH quicker learner than you.
10 years later and you still didn't know that EVERY drag strip averages
the SPEED of the last 60 feet? And to also think they average the
last 60' of the ET too?
It wouldn't be a 1/4 mile race if they averaged the DISTANCE would it?

I might of asked a question that appeared "stupid" to you, but with
my limited drag racing experience it's understandable that I was ASKING
for clarification.
But you, on the otherhand, made a stupid STATEMENT that a drag racing newbie had to (and was doing so in a friendly manner) clarify for you (several times) after which then you started an arguement with your aggressive and accusational response.
So with your claim of having 10 years drag racing experience and 4 current drag cars, I would say that makes you appear to be a bit slow and well...stupid!

I'm sorry you couldn't take a friendly and informative response from someone
about an incorrect statement and assumption you made about drag racing times. But rather had to turn it into an internet arguing match.
Should you feel the need to to continue to argue about this, you are free to argue amongst yourself or your friends who you've "mentioned" these
things about to in the past and who've "miraculously" never laughed at you about. Because they apparently know as much about drag racing as you
do in your 10 years experience.
This isn't worth any more of my time.

Hope you had a Happy Easter too, mine was great, thanks for the good wishes.

 

Play nice kids. I may have overlooked it but what track was this at?

 

I think the guy that told Boss that the track averages ET is sorely mistaken. I've never heard of that. There is an timer at the beginning of the track and a stop box at the end of the track. As for MPH, yes, most tracks average the last 66' are the boxes you see just short of the finish line.

Prior to 1989, there were three sets of boxes near the end of the track. 66' short of the finish was the first trap speed box, right at the finish line was the ET box, and 66' past the finish was the last trap speed box. The trap speed was calculated from the average over 132'. Drivers had a tendency to stay in the gas longer than necessary and as the years progressed and cars got faster and faster, people simply started to overshoot the runout and wreck. In 1989, in order to stop the overshoots and wrecks, the NHRA mandated that the second trap speed box be pushed back 66' to the finish line and that trap speed would only be calculated over 66'. This gave drivers the ability to know the race was truely over at the finish line plus MPH really holds no bearing in terms of a race. BTW, there is about a 1% difference in MPH between the old way and new way of calculating trap speed.

Also, if you read about some car posting freakishly high MPHs, there is the possibility the track is using the old system. Only NHRA/IHRA tracks are required to use this system.


As for shifting into 4th with a 5AT, I've never had to shift to 4th except when running my short (24") drag radials which forced a 4th gear shift 200 feet short of the finish and ultimately slowed me down. With my stock 17s, my 3rd gear is just long enough to get about 50 feet past the finish. I've seen the tach indicate about 6700-6800rpms before the limiter came into play.

 

Im just nearing 6,500rpm in 3rd when I cross the finish line (my track is at 4,200ft and my traps are only 94.XXmph stock w/o altitude correction).

My time slip IIRC (in my glove box, I'll do a break down later)

60ft 2.4
1/8 ET 9.7
1/8 trap 73mph
1/4 ET 14.8
1/4 trap 94mph

Temp 74degrees. It went down hill after the first run. I could no get it cool enough afterwards. I tried not to brake torque, this is the first day of the season and they just sprayed the asphalt, I was spinning even going 1/2throttle off the line at 24psi in my rear tires. No one was getting times they wanted. I ran up against a C6 vette that ran 13.1 with a poor 2.3 60ft time. A GTP w/3.5" pulley+catback there was only running 15.2@91mph at best. My buddies modded GTP (2.8" pulley, headers/downpipe, u-bend delete, magnaflow catback, ZZP rockers+some more) was running 14.0@99mph at best. This car should be running low 13's/high 12's. A Neon SRT-4 I ran against ran 14.4@97mph with a 2.3 60ft. A 260HP version Mustang automatic was running 15.2@91mph at best as well. Tragic really, I wasted $35 to get crappy times

btw, my best 60ft of the day was WITH VDC at 2.3...but I ran 15.1@91mph on that run

 

^^ I didn't manually shift either, I left it in MM 3 to hold 3rd gear out. I do notice that my car shifts at an indicated 6,400rpm, maybe I should have used MM because my car hits the rev limiter at an indicated 6,800rpm. (I know our tachs are off)

 

i cant believe the fastest NA g35 is 14.0

 

Dave,

Thanks for the support, but no nead...I let it go a while ago. After getting the Technosquare reflash I was able to MM shift faster than the car could in D and I could, w/16 Drag radials, cross in 3rd and never hit the rev limiter...but I also had 200 extra rpms due to the reflash.

 

I don't know what the means, but when you look back and see what 1980s and 1990s muscle cars were doing, IE, vettes, 5.0s and Camaros...a 14.00 at over 100 mph is pretty damn sick for a four dour family car. Exhuast was bone stock too so 13s were only that part of the equation away. Considering my Taurus SHO ran 14.9 after a lot more mods and it was the fastest NA auto SHO...and it was a 1994...I think almost 1 seconf improvement for the same type of car in a decade is pretty damn good too when you think about it.

 

There are several NA g's in the 13's. There's even an NA 5AT coupe in the 12's(ISMSOLUTIONS), though admittedly he's about as built NA as one can go.

 

was there ever any proof of his car running that. i dont think i ever saw even a time slip.

 

To be honest, I don't recall seeing a slip either. But why doubt him? IIRC, he had a 3.92 pumpkin, vb, tc, and even cams and heads; basically every imaginable NA mod(though can't remember if he had pullies or not).

 

Well, went to LACR last night again, this time with the G35
having just past 10K miles, so well broken in.

But the conditions were a lot worse than when I went in November
and posted the 15.43 @ 90.6 time as the best time of the night.
Again, I know sounds horribly slow, but LACR is a horribly slow track.

I'm no convinced too that the timing lights there are F-ed up.

Once again there is so apparent inexplicable results from a timing slip
of a car I raced.
This time a riced up Honda Del Sol with drag radials on the front.

Here's the results: (I was in the RT lane)

------Left Lane------- Right Lane

RT - .493 ---------- .161
60' - 1.958 --------- 2.289
I2 - 6.303 --------- 6.521
I3 - 9.800 --------- 9.964
@ 69.869 ----- @ 71.055
I4 - 12.738 -------- 12.859

1/4 - 15.396 ------- 15.440
@ 86.642 ------ @ 90.515
****************(Win)

Okay, I had the jump at the light, then he lunged forward to
about equal at the 60' point, then I started pulling and he was
NEVER in front of me. When we crossed the 1/8th mile his front bumper
was at about my rear door and again I was slowing pulling on him from
there. When we crossed the 1/4 stripe his front bumper was well behind
my rear bumper (couldn't tell by how much but there was a decent amount
of air there).

So once again, I'm like Tom Cruises character in "Days of Thunder" I can
drive at a strip or track really well, but am pretty much elementary when
it comes to most technical stuff.
I got the win light on this race, was never behind, but we were neck and neck after he launched and pulled up alongside me, but the lights showed
he had the faster E.T.???

What am I missing here. At the 1/8th mile I was doing 1.18 mph faster, so it shows I was pulling on him. By the 1/4 mile I was doing nearly 4 mph faster, again supporting that I pulled even more distance on him.
But at both the 1/8th mile and 1/4 he had faster E.T.'s yet I was ahead of him at both points.

I had a RT that was .332 faster than him.
He had a 60' time that was .331 faster than me.

As you can see, those two would basically nullify each other
making us absolutely DEAD even at the 60' mark. Which we
basically were.

So what's left other than to assume the rest of the tracks timing lights are
all F-ed up?

By the way, here's the times of a few other cars that night:

Purple 350Z 6MT: 14.5 @ 95.8
with intake, full exhaust and crank pulley

White 350Z 6MT: 14.6 @ 94.4
with intake, full exhaust

Both 350Z's also had aftermarket wheels/tires. But this shows the
crank pulley on the purple car gives power.

05 BMW M3 SMG : 14.3 @ 99
Stock with Comp. Pack

06 Mustang V6 Auto : 16.6 @ 84.4

06 Mustang GT Auto : 14.7 @ 91.5

05 Neon SRT-4 : 14.58 @ 94.9
looked stock and probably was

 

Here's one 14.00 at 100.56...Not that you said so, but I don't make this stuff up.

 

Ok First off, unless you guys are at an NHRA track running a Pro light you both would have red lighted FYI. A .500 light is perfect at most IHRA tracks and when the lights come on and just go BANG to green that's a PRO tree and a .400 is perfect...just an fyi.

Second, without my head exploding, I checked all your math and it's spot on so the only thing I can think of is that you are deep staging and the DelSol was shallow staged. This means you were only into the 2nd staging light by a hair, which while helping your trap speed and giving you slack not to red light (Which you both did) it hurts your ETs. If he shallow staged he would be that much closer to the finish line...we are talking hair splitting here, but I can't think of any other way after 60' that he would be behind you and "technically trip the beams for a quicker ET" than you while running less MPH for a trap speed too.