# 7.78 Project GTS-T



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 4, 2002)

:thumbsup:


----------



## bayside gtr (Dec 24, 2005)

awesome


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 4, 2002)

*More info*

Super Pro ET qualifying top five after session 2:

1. Chris Isaacs + 0.0469 8.7469/152.42
2. John Bradshaw +0.0233 7.7833/172.94
3. Martyn Jones +0.0247 7.7947/168.30
4. Nick Good +0.0270 6.8570/189.58
5. Barry Giles +0.0320 7.5320/175.46


----------



## Ludders (Feb 6, 2004)

FANTASTIC!


----------



## Daz (Aug 14, 2001)

Yep - just had a text off Mark with the 7.78 time. Absolutely fantastic result for JB and Abbey.

Well done to all of you - I bet you are extremely proud and will be having a few beers tonight.


----------



## hodgie (Oct 23, 2003)

Congratulations alround:bowdown1:


----------



## nailsgtr600 (Aug 2, 2007)

awesome, well done to all!!! any videos????


----------



## Nick MW (Aug 15, 2003)

The car ran flawlessly - such a shame we only got 2 runs in but hopefully we will get a chance to back up the 7.78 tomorrow.

Hopefully more to come


----------



## vizibledog (Jul 3, 2006)

*Well Done Guys*


----------



## Spearmint (Aug 7, 2005)

Awesome stuff! It had to happen when I couldn't be there as well! 

Fingers crossed JB, Abbey and Crew can repeat it next weekend! :thumbsup:


----------



## magoo (Nov 7, 2005)

that is good news well done:thumbsup:


----------



## ChristianR (May 31, 2005)

7.78! bloody ek


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Awesome result, with the 60fts its done, it was just a matter of time, well done to all involved, now where's the vids??

Rob


----------



## Bubble (Oct 3, 2003)

Fantastic result for Project GTST :smokin:

Well done John and your team


----------



## trackday addict (May 14, 2005)

Great day & at last that elusive 7 is out of the way & ours all ours .
To be honest we could have got there sooner but this year has been all about competition & reliability not times so all concentration was built around 60 foots, launches & understanding the car rather than banzai runs to try & get a 1 off time.

Now the nice thing is the both runs today were only at 2 bar with no gas so we have plenty of scope left going forward.

Massive thankyou to quite a few people - obviously Mark,Tony, Warner, Will, Simon, Dan, Charlie, Scott, Sarah & Samantha at Abbey - amazing work in 6 months to take the car from 8.51 to 7.78 - they are not the type to be shouting things from rooftops but deserve lots of praise.

Huge thankyou to lots of people at SOC who have been fantastic in their support, especially the pit crew guys Nick, Moff, Andy, Richie, Gareth. 
Many thanks to everyone at the GTROC who have given us their support also.

A special thankyou to Gary, Brent, Nicko & Chris at GT Art also who took the car on from a bog standard GTST to an 8.51 monster when most people wouldnt have looked twice at a GTST.

Exciting times & in all seriousnous i'm gutted it's nearly October as if we had 3 months to play with I honestly think we could see a 7.5 or less - next year 

The car has always been a 5 year plan & towards the end of year 3 we are well & truly on track for where i want it to be.

Next week will be an awesome finish to the year win or lose & we will give it 100% - need a bit of luck & either way another 0.8 reduction in our times in 6 months is incredible progress.

Huge thanks again & i always knew these GTST's were a bit special :clap:


----------



## SmigzyGTR (Mar 20, 2006)

Absolutley amazing John, many congrats.


----------



## Madden (Nov 14, 2004)

I love you and Abbey mannnnnnnnnn


----------



## SB-Performance (Jul 27, 2008)

Awesome result mate, well done!


----------



## plumwerks (Dec 15, 2006)

Excellent,excellent stuff guys,always knew it would happen,congrats to all involved.


----------



## Cliff J (Jan 8, 2008)

Outstanding John, many many congratulations on an amazing achievement  Top class


----------



## neilo (Nov 17, 2004)

Awesome result, well done!

Neil


----------



## driftboy (Jan 14, 2006)

Increadable result mate, truly awsome time....:clap:


----------



## Rick C (May 24, 2005)

Very exciting news, big,big well done!

Found a decent pic in this thread: 7 sec skyline


----------



## Ludders (Feb 6, 2004)

Rick C said:


> Very exciting news, big,big well done!
> 
> Found a decent pic in this thread: 7 sec skyline


----------



## Howsie (Feb 25, 2002)

WOW! Congratulations!


----------



## Skyline Squeak (Jun 21, 2006)

Project GTST in the 7's!!!!!!! - Page 4 - Skyline Owners Club - The Nissan Skyline Enthusiast Community

7.75 

They're calling up super pro to run again now..


----------



## max1 (Feb 24, 2002)

well done john and all involved 7,s are mental hope to see you at japshow ,keep up the good work .


----------



## Nick MW (Aug 15, 2003)

Only got the one run in today but 7.75 at 175 so backed up as well :smokin:

Much more to come and cannot wait till Japshow


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

amazing work mate, well chuffed for you


----------



## m6beg (Apr 21, 2003)

Good man John. :bowdown1::bowdown1::bowdown1:

Big well done dude.

Now we have two Champions in Dorset.


Good shit mate.



Mick


----------



## tweenierob (Aug 5, 2003)

Awesome acheivement John!!!!!!!

Well done all of the team!

Rob


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Brilliant result John. Having seen the car up close I suspect there is still more to go!


----------



## blue34 (Jul 28, 2005)

Huge well done John, and team, we heard at Shakespeare yesterday within minutes of your run - great news travels fast


----------



## Andy Barnes (Jan 28, 2002)

*7*

Nice one John, congratulations, so you are now quicker than Steves Supra is that right?

Andy


----------



## trackday addict (May 14, 2005)

Thanks Andy

Yes delighted to say that we are (just!!) HKS Drag Series - Records

The new backed up time we have stands at 7.7537 (Steve's previous record was 7.9 something).

Have no doubt Steve will be back with a vengeance at Jap Show Finale so going to be a fantastic end to the year & a real scrap 

Really looking forward to seeing yours out on the strip as well Andy as i'm sure you will love the T62 





Andy Barnes said:


> Nice one John, congratulations, so you are now quicker than Steves Supra is that right?
> 
> Andy


----------



## Andy Barnes (Jan 28, 2002)

*RWD Record*

Cool.

Hope to see you run again at Pod this weekend if we get our car ready in time, if not at Modified Live on Oct 12th..

Andy


----------



## Rick C (May 24, 2005)

Andy Barnes said:


> Cool.
> 
> Hope to see you run again at Pod this weekend if we get our car ready in time, if not at Modified Live on Oct 12th..
> 
> Andy


Go on Andy, get to work with those spanners, I know a lot of people are looking forward to seeing you run.

John, this is what you are up against - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWnskNAv9Qc

Observe the almost non-existent launch... I think he can go quicker than 7.7s...


----------



## trackday addict (May 14, 2005)

I have no doubt Steve could possibly run 7.5's next week :smokin:

We will give it our best shot that's for certain, really hope the weather is good & the track grippy as hell to give everyone the opportunity to have a real go at it to end the year on new PB's & a high.






Rick C said:


> Go on Andy, get to work with those spanners, I know a lot of people are looking forward to seeing you run.
> 
> John, this is what you are up against - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWnskNAv9Qc
> 
> Observe the almost non-existent launch... I think he can go quicker than 7.7s...


----------



## Tim (Jan 6, 2003)

Well done John, great result, that counts as well into the 7's.

Best of luck next weekend.


----------



## trackday addict (May 14, 2005)

Thanks Tim - be great to see you back out one day, remember watching at the side seeing you smashing those 8's & what an electric atmosphere that day ,

We never had a chance to take any vids so hoping a couple surface on you tube or similar over the next few days. 


Here's some piccies taken by Ian from Blackett Photography


----------



## ahapartridge (May 19, 2003)

Is that the chute I see popping out in the last shot John?


----------



## Madden (Nov 14, 2004)

Great photos mate.

Car is amazing with the front wheels in the air


----------



## Daz (Aug 14, 2001)

What a beast of a car that is.


----------



## trackday addict (May 14, 2005)

yes mate then he stopped taking any more pics  - still we can sort that on Sunday 

Thanks Madden - it does like to get it's nose up a bit to much sometimes  



ahapartridge said:


> Is that the chute I see popping out in the last shot John?


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Awesome pics again, the car is loving the wheelies now eh


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

John,

might even let you run full boost next weekend......


----------



## SmigzyGTR (Mar 20, 2006)

Whats full boost then?


----------



## Irish GTR (Apr 23, 2007)

Please tell me that there is a video clip of the run?


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

been running 2.1 bar last weekend , motor is mapped to 2.5 bar boost


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

SmigzyGTR said:


> Whats full boost then?


Judging by the mph they must still be at reasonably low boost/whp.

The 60ft are clearly sorted, so wind it up John!!! :bowdown1::bowdown1:

Best of luck with chipping away at it but be warned, once you drop below 7.5, you KNOW your going to be aiming for 6s. lol

Rob


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

It,s not about brute BP thou , the 60fts (1.13) are sorted due to the set up on the clutch.

We need to be able to wind the boost in during the run according to wheel speed,we have something in development but my not be working till next year.

We are using a Gizzmo boost controller which is the best and most affordable controller on the market we feel. Built by a Kiwi as well!!!!!!!

Roll on next week , but I think like John has said, the weather and track may be against us next week.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Chuck 150 of NOS at it from about 100 meters out and watch those wheels come back up again, you'll drop a couple of 10ths and gain about 10mph too :clap:


----------



## trackday addict (May 14, 2005)

Lol you Kiwis are nutters but i love your style:chuckle:

We will Rob but maybe not just now as we have had no development time this year to look at it properly.
I know i sound a bit like a stuck record but this year we wanted to really get the datalogging sorted, 60 foots, launches & understand the car as a total package etc as this accounts for 90% of a good run & Rome was never built in a day.

Also we have been holding back as we decided to go all out for competition experience this year & took the view you have to "be in it to win it" & so have had total reliability all year - NOT 1 engine failure in what must be over 35 runs which is really awesome & a testament to Abbey. The only failure we have had all year was a broken clutch release bearing at the last round of the HKS series at Rotorstock which was a bugger & cost us some serious points. But even with that thanks to the reliability throughout we are still in there level on points with 1 round left.

Now then i will also be controversial :chuckle:
I also dont blame Mark or Abbey for not wanting to push the engine within an inch of it's life either, there has been SO much CRAP at times on here this year about which tuner is better than another that it would have been bad PR for Abbey if we had a few engine failures. Now my view is how crap is that  for christ sakes it's a bloody drag car of course it's going to go pop at some stage & when it does for either me or Andy or Mick or Keith etc I hope people dont come out with crap like oh that will be bad build then don't go there

I really want to compete in Jap comps & main stream racing against the big bhp boys & really improve my own driving at the same time, this year has been amazing & we have had a great time & we will do the same next year again. I know by keeping a bit in reserve we potentially might be losing a few 10/ths but if that means we have better reliability then fine.

Year after though Rob we are going balls out :chuckle: & then we will blow the crap out of it with methanol potentially or nos mate & hopefuly set some stupid times as we wont be to bothered about the odd failure here or there







R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Chuck 150 of NOS at it from about 100 meters out and watch those wheels come back up again, you'll drop a couple of 10ths and gain about 10mph too :clap:


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

Nos can wait, it is fitted and been tested but not fully developed

The car stands up on its tyres the whole 1/4. Just a little more tweaking with AFR,s and ignition timing and clutch and i am sure the times will come without the gas.

We have a very good data logging system on the car that gives us so much info to look at and use to help us understand the car.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Abbey M/S said:


> The car stands up on its tyres the whole 1/4. Just a little more tweaking with AFR,s and ignition timing and clutch and i am sure the times will come without the gas.
> We have a very good data logging system on the car that gives us so much info to look at and use to help us understand the car.


Yeah, you guys have done a great job to date.
I went quicker as soon as I stopped doing 100 meter wheelstands :banned:, it was great for the public at the track but not good so for the times. 

The 240 is heading out again soon with a few changes we hope will get us closer to a 7 / 170mph in street trim on street tyres then we may retire it and do a proper lightweight drag car, the drops in times and gains in mph with a lightweight more aerodyamic car are clear to see with the GTSt so not alot of point flogging a heavy brick that has its front way up in the air all the way down the strip.

As you say, the power is not hard to get, its using it efficiently for the entire 1/4 thats the hard part.

Rob


----------



## Crail Loser (Jan 11, 2003)

Congratulations John

Lovely thing to see, thank you.


----------



## Richf (Feb 8, 2007)

Looking at the timing data from last weekend , i'm not sure it will need nos at all , there was enough power in the run on Sunday to improve on Saturdays times , just the 60ft wasnt so great .

The team are doing great good luck in the finals


----------



## trackday addict (May 14, 2005)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZkTFSnsfyw&feature=related



You'll also see Run 1 on the side menu after this one has played 
Run 3 not on here yet but

I've got much higher quality clips of the runs coming over the next couple of weeks


----------



## Madden (Nov 14, 2004)

The car is an engineered beast. Just like mine  

1.13 60ft is crazy man. The development in your cars is crazy mate and it will only get better and better.

I was going to rob your old rear tyre's that where sitting outside abbey for a laugh but i would need some major arch mods.


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

trackday addict said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZkTFSnsfyw&feature=related


Fantastic video :bowdown1:


----------



## Rick C (May 24, 2005)

trackday addict said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZkTFSnsfyw&feature=related


Cor, Spencer Tramm was out of the traps quickly wasn't he? But you had 20mph on him at the line, nice one.


----------



## trackday addict (May 14, 2005)

I knew some bugger in the know would give me grief on reaction times :chuckle:

He was Rick but as it was only a qualifier we took our time to make sure we had got boost on the start line.

In the eliminations i was better 0.2 i think but that's slow against these guys & i need more practice on the sportsman tree as it seems to take for ages & i need to work out how early we go as the lights count down. I reckon we could go as the 2nd last light goes out but need more runs & a few reds to work it out properly. Those boys dont mess about 0.0's reaction times down into the 100th's or even 1000'ths takes some doing 



Rick C said:


> Cor, Spencer Tramm was out of the traps quickly wasn't he? But you had 20mph on him at the line, nice one.


----------



## Richf (Feb 8, 2007)

trackday addict said:


> I knew some bugger in the know would give me grief on reaction times :chuckle:
> 
> He was Rick but as it was only a qualifier we took our time to make sure we had got boost on the start line.
> 
> In the eliminations i was better 0.2 i think but that's slow against these guys & i need more practice on the sportsman tree as it seems to take for ages & i need to work out how early we go as the lights count down. I reckon we could go as the 2nd last light goes out but need more runs & a few reds to work it out properly. Those boys dont mess about 0.0's reaction times down into the 100th's or even 1000'ths takes some doing


Spencer Tramm has a few years under his belt , as do most of the drivers in the class , its one of the most fiercely contested championships in UK drag racing and its almost unheard of for a rookie to debut in the class .

You are doing fantastically mate, the reaction times will come with practice


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

trackday addict said:


> I knew some bugger in the know would give me grief on reaction times :chuckle:


Great runs John.

Hard case how they run you guys on a sportsman tree, try staging 1st and shallow if you need time to build boost, then leave on the last orange, if you see the green its WAY too late.

Its all practice and its fantastic to see you mixing it with the "big boys" and winning alot of races.

Very well done mate.

Rob


----------



## Rick C (May 24, 2005)

trackday addict said:


> In the eliminations i was better 0.2 i think but that's slow against these guys & i need more practice


That's pretty good really. Spencer's car is built to win in this class, and he's been ET racing for years, and there probably isn't a tougher opponent in the world to be honest!


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

think it was Spencer that said you need a autobox to make it a lot easier to get you time spot on , so more repeatable than a manually changed box car. Up to the driver to press the shifter , we arent allowed to change gear via an ECU, if we did I am sure we could make the throttle controlled via the ECU as well, but dont tell that to john..... 

1.13 60fts arent bad thou are they


----------



## m6beg (Apr 21, 2003)

Jesus i could only imagine if i had the same 60 fts. 

**** SAKE LADS

With a terminal speed of 176 mph what would be the time?

Mick.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

1.1s are usually the teritory of pro import doorslammers that run 6s .

A 1.1 in your car Mick would probably drop at least 1/2 a second off and 176mph is good enough for a 7.8 so that works out about right.

Rob


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

We recon we should be in the 1.00 soon, but I think you need either an auto box or a slipper clutch to get into the 1.1 or lower I am afraid.

A proper set up of datalogging helps as well. we measure engine rpm clutch rpm and propshaft speed to help us set up the clutch.



> Jesus i could only imagine if i had the same 60 fts.
> 
> **** SAKE LADS
> 
> ...


7.75 but if you had a good launch your terminal speed would come down a lot. That is the general rule.

What time did you get to half track at? and what speed?


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Abbey M/S said:


> if you had a good launch your terminal speed would come down a lot. That is the general rule.


Don't get me wrong here, but how does that work??

Surely if your 60fts are quicker, your going to be quicker everywhere all other things being equal?


Rob


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

Rob, just what I have worked out looking at our times, bad 60ft normally we get a high ET speed , good launch normally a lower ET speed but a quicker time, all done at same boost level.


----------



## blue34 (Jul 28, 2005)

terminal speeds are related to the amount of time spent accelerating - a faster 60ft and a corresponding lower e.t. means less time accelerating therefore a lower terminal - you just get to the end of the quarter more quickly even though its at a lower terminal speed.

I just read that back lol! but I think it's true...


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Abbey M/S said:


> Rob, just what I have worked out looking at our times, bad 60ft normally we get a high ET speed , good launch normally a lower ET speed but a quicker time, all done at same boost level.


I have seen that phenomenon but it usually seems to be when the bad 60ft is a result of a bit too much wheelspin, overly simplified the car effectively travels further (well as far as the contact patches are concerned) and therefore has a longer trip to get to the end. On the downside it means a slower ET, as again its travelled a greater distance but also as a result of that carrying more speed once it gets to the end. Thats so long as you're not sitting on the limiter etc, of course.

The thing with Mick's times is they are a result of bogged launches, so its all bad. If anything I expect his ET and trap speed to get better when he leaves the gate faster...


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Mmmmmm, I'm pretty sure if I told a local guy here that runs 1.0 60fts, 6.7s and over 200mph to slow his 60fts right down and he'll get much more mph he'd laught at me.

If you have a faster 60ft, your also going faster as you go past the 60ft mark meaning you have an advantage in time and mph.

If your slower past the 60ft mark, you may have more time to get to the finish line but your also down on speed at that point.

As far as I can see, the best way to get to the end of the strip the quickest and the fastest is to lower your 60ft times, after all, isn't that one of the most important goals of most drag cars?

A car that 60fts much quicker than one would normally expect with a given ET would suggest a very well sorted Chassis and possibly a lack of top end power.

In most cases you'd find a 1.0 -1.1 60ft is well into 6 second/200mph teritory.

All very interesting and great to discuss it and throw ideas around.

Keep it comming.

Rob


----------



## NZRB30 (Jul 21, 2007)

Ludders said:


>


They say a picture says a 1000 words well this one says 2000 look at the guys in the background look like they Sh*t there pants hahaha.

No offence ment if any of these guys are 10 foot tall and nearly bullet proof.

Still that look is priceless

Dan


----------



## Richf (Feb 8, 2007)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Don't get me wrong here, but how does that work??
> 
> Surely if your 60fts are quicker, your going to be quicker everywhere all other things being equal?
> 
> ...


You are right it doesnt make sense but Abbey is bang on the quicker you get there the less time you have to build speed

Its not a case of tuning per se its more a case of terminal speed being an indication of horsepower you could have one car running [email protected] and another car running [email protected] the difference is down to the way the slower car gets off the line

Its clear that Micks car has a lot more power than Johns 

Good demonstration here of a couple of guys i know , a pro-stock bike making 400hp against a super street bike making 650hp 




























PSB1 0.1484 1.1243 3.0458 4.4678 4.7827 142.88 6.2217 7.5232 177.78 

SS13 0.1878 1.4206 3.5544 4.8942 5.1852 154.63 6.5250 7.7288 192.02


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Richf said:


> You are right it doesnt make sense but Abbey is bang on the quicker you get there the less time you have to build speed
> 
> Its not a case of tuning per se its more a case of terminal speed being an indication of horsepower you could have one car running [email protected] and another car running [email protected] the difference is down to the way the slower car gets off the line


I bet a marmite sandwich that if John were to put a set of standard width GTR rims with a set of normal street tyres he would not run the 60ft, trap speed or ET which he can on his drag tyres - I am adamant he will have WAY more time to build up speed yet still won't build it all up.

Its not how much power the engine has which dictates the trap speeds, its how much power it can transfer into acceleration. If you can't get the power to the ground one way or another, the trap speed will not be there.


----------



## ahapartridge (May 19, 2003)

Talk about stating the obvious! :runaway:


That was before the sneaky edit


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Richf said:


> You are right it doesnt make sense but Abbey is bang on the quicker you get there the less time you have to build speed


Why is it then that a good low 10 second car usually runs around 135mph, a good low 9 second car usually runs around 150 mph, a good low 8 second car usually runs around 175mph, a good low 7 second car usually runs around 190mph, a good low 6 second car usually runs around 230mph and so on.

You'll also find the 60ft times are usually dropping in proportion to the ET and mph.

There is no question in my mind that as a general rule the quicker you can get your 60ft times the quicker and faster you are going to run.

I'm not doughting abbey's data but I can't imagine it would be normal for a car to consistantly run faster with a slower 60ft time.

Note: In drag racing, quicker and faster are 2 totally different things.

Rob


----------



## Rick C (May 24, 2005)

I would say that you can get a high Terminal Speed DESPITE a poor 60ft, but never BECAUSE of a poor 60ft.


----------



## Richf (Feb 8, 2007)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Why is it then that a good low 10 second car usually runs around 135mph, a good low 9 second car usually runs around 150 mph, a good low 8 second car usually runs around 175mph, a good low 7 second car usually runs around 190mph, a good low 6 second car usually runs around 230mph and so on.
> 
> You'll also find the 60ft times are usually dropping in proportion to the ET and mph.
> 
> ...




Yes you are right in a perfect world but i've seen a mate run a 19 second pass at 150mph when his bike more or less stalled off the line so if you get off the line badly it will hurt your et much more than your speed and bikes that dont get off the line well run much faster trap speeds than those that do BUT need more horsepower to do that 

I've got a wad of timing tickets of 10 second runs at 160mph plus from when i was having handling problems on my bike 


I apoligise for my previous post i was in a rush and it ended up as nonsense 

lets try again 

Pro-stock bike vz superstreet bike this is like copmparing Mick and Johns car 

Timing data 

PSB1 0.1484 1.1243 3.0458 4.4678 4.7827 142.88 6.2217 7.5232 177.78

SS13 0.1878 1.4206 3.5544 4.8942 5.1852 154.63 6.5250 7.7288 192.02 

what that actually looks like 






























If the superstreet bike could hook up and launch like the pro-stock bike it would be running 6.7-6.8 instead of high sevens but the speed would still be about the same


----------



## Richf (Feb 8, 2007)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Why is it then that a good low 10 second car usually runs around 135mph, a good low 9 second car usually runs around 150 mph, a good low 8 second car usually runs around 175mph, a good low 7 second car usually runs around 190mph, a good low 6 second car usually runs around 230mph and so on.
> 
> You'll also find the 60ft times are usually dropping in proportion to the ET and mph.
> 
> ...


Rob , have a look at our timing date with regards to 190 terminal speeds for 7 second drag cars in super pro et the only one is Andy Frost on his street tyres and look at his 60fts in comparison 

You cant compare a proper purpose built drag car with a modified street car a proper drag car with drag tyres will launch far harder and run less mph vs et every time 

Timing Data


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Richf said:


> You cant compare a proper purpose built drag car with a modified street car a proper drag car with drag tyres will launch far harder and run less mph vs et every time


I agree you can't compare and I have never tried to.

I'm still maintaining that a given car "should" run a lower ET and higher mph the lower the 60ft times are.

As an example lets take a high powered street gtr that runs say 9.8 @ 160mph with a poor 1.7 60ft on street tyres.

If that same car went to slicks and ran 1.4 60fts your saying he's more likely to run around 9.3 at LESS than 160mph because he has less time after the 60ft mark to accellerate??????? I think not.

Rob


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Try this: Check the mph at the first recorded distance on your time slip (possibly 330ft mark) tell me if your 330ft mph is higher the slower your 60ft times are.

Also check the mph at 1/2 track on a slow 60ft pass, I bet it aint faster than on a good 60ft pass, or is it??.

Rob


----------



## Richf (Feb 8, 2007)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> I agree you can't compare and I have never tried to.
> 
> I'm still maintaining that a given car "should" run a lower ET and higher mph the lower the 60ft times are.
> 
> ...


You were talking about 7 second cars running 190 , the only ones that do that dont launch well , if they did launch well they would be 6 second cars running 190 which is my point 

In your example most cars that run 9.8 would run high 140's low 150's in the 1/4 if the the car in question was running 160mph then its not launching well but making mph up due to horsepower , if he launched better by adding traction and not extra power then he would better his ET but NOT HIS MPH not at least to any great extent


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Agreed, his MPH will be less effected by a slower 60ft than his ET will but how can you say that his mph will get slower the quicker his ET gets due to a quicker 60ft?

He might only pick up 2 or 3 mph with a good improvement in 60ft but he aint going to go slower mph on a quicker pass.

If he runs 9.8 @ 160 with a shit 60ft, he's probably going to run 9.3 at 162-163mph with a great 60ft, I can't see any possible way his mph can drop with a better 60ft.

Rob


----------



## Richf (Feb 8, 2007)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Agreed, his MPH will be less effected by a slower 60ft than his ET will but how can you say that his mph will get slower the quicker his ET gets due to a quicker 60ft?
> 
> 
> 
> Rob



Did i say that??? I'm sorry if it appears i did 

No his mph will not be slower but it may not be any faster either, an improvement in 60fts dont always yield a better terminal speed and you can run a cracking terminal speed on a lousy run


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

It may not have been you, sorry if it wasn't, I was being general to the others on this thread, this whole discussion started due to the tone of the conversation stating that the slower your 60ft times were the higher your mph would be and that it was very common to run higher mph on a poor 60ft run, this is what I didn't agree with.

If you get a good 60ft AND a good run I can't see anyway that your mph would be slower, it might not be much faster than a poor 60ft run but it sure shouldn't be slower.

Rob


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Rick C said:


> I would say that you can get a high Terminal Speed DESPITE a poor 60ft, but never BECAUSE of a poor 60ft.


Exactly, that sums it up perfectly.

And I also know that you "should" get a slightly higher mph on a good 60ft run and if you don't there are other factors at play.

Rob


----------



## Richf (Feb 8, 2007)

As usual forum confusion 

My point was if you have two cars running 7.4's one is doing 165mph at the line the other is doing 195mph at the line its clear the one with the higher terminal speed has a much slower 60ft but a lot more horespower


----------



## tweenierob (Aug 5, 2003)

I hope i havent come across wrong, just purely what i have found myself to happen. When i spoke to the Pro guys they explained why etc...

I found with my own car that when i was launching badly 1.7 60fts i ran 3 runs at 150mph, when i got a better launch and 1.5 60fts my terminal speeds were 146-147.
I also found the same with my grey car, 1.7 60fts i was getting 140mph... high 1.5's i was only getting 137mph. When i was in the office collecting slips one of the 6 second guys came in just as i asked the clerk if they knew why i was getting lower terminals with better ET's.

Oh well, like i said before.. i cant explain it??

Rob


----------



## MarioGTR (Jul 8, 2001)

*Quick vs. Fast*

It's a fact that a slower 60 foot time can (and normally does) yield a faster MPH at the end of the run.

The reasons for it are not simple to explain, because it goes against logic and appears to go against physics, but the simple way to consider it is to seperate time and distance in your mind.

If a given mass is accelerating from a standstill over a specific distance, in this case 60 feet, there are two factors that are pertinent to consider according to its state at the 60 foot marker:

Velocity (it's speed) and its potential energy (what its got in store to propel it down the rest of the quarter mile).

If a given mass (ie: the car) reaches the 60 foot marker in less time (ie: its quicker) then it has released much more potential energy from its available power at the time of its launch, directly into said launch. 

If the same mass took more time to reach the 60 foot marker, then it didn't use (and store in compliance) as much energy as it normally would have to get to that point, so it now has that much more energy in reserve to go towards propeling it down the rest of the track.

Now, consider the energy - this is where the magic comes from:

The potential energy, which comes from the calorific content contained in the fuel that is oxidized during the launch phase, is converted into kinetic energy (ie: motion) and that energy has to go to resisting the mass of the static vehicle.

Where does this energy go? In a well set up drag car, with properly setup suspension and tyres, it goes into the compliance of the tyres and suspension (the squat will effectively act like a battery, with the springs compliance under said squat effectively storing energy to be released later down the track, if you've got it set right) - and said energy will rebound and add to the forward motion of the vehicle, assisting it in propulsion down the rest of the quarter mile. Only after the compliance of the suspension and tyres, will the actual remaining energy be converted into forward motion, and that short delay in compliance time normally detracts from the 60 foot time.

There is also the sticktion of the tyres, which due to the elastic nature of rubber, will also provide a 'sling shot' effect, as the rubber tries to release the energy stored within. If you have bad grip, said energy is immediately wasted as heat (exhibited as wheelspin) and noise with the subsequent tyre smoke.

So considering just those two (there are many more interactions) it should be clearer that if you have a bad launch, hence slower 60 foot time, there is less potential energy that is immediately converted and stored; which means that there is more energy available to immediately propel the vehicle, instead of slowly being released over the length of the run. 

As more energy is released earlier, where the mass has less velocity, there is more acceleration available in the earlier (and slower) stages of the quarter mile. 

This is why drag racing is about time; not top speed. It's all about maximising the energy you are making and releasing it to accelerate the mass of your vehicle in the shortest time. Otherwise, it'd be called vMax or TopSpeed trials.

Drag racing is a delicate balancing act - you need to maximise the potential energy you can produce (power) but not overpower the grip you have and retain enough compliance in the suspension to allow the tyres to maximise their grip level. This is what it's all about!

Hope that helps.

Mario (who is waiting for Andy to call me this weekend and tell me he's finally managed to beat me...  )


----------



## eineerg (Sep 26, 2008)

I don't know a lot about drag racing but surely with a good launch you would be using all of first gear so at the end of the track you would be lower in the top gear, in comparison to spinning the wheels to much while launching it, meaning you would have have to change gear sooner resulting in being higher in the top gear, and consequently traveing faster at the finish?


----------



## MarioGTR (Jul 8, 2001)

eineerg said:


> I don't know a lot about drag racing but surely with a good launch you would be using all of first gear so at the end of the track you would be lower in the top gear, in comparison to spinning the wheels to much while launching it, meaning you would have have to change gear sooner resulting in being higher in the top gear, and consequently traveing faster at the finish?


In a word: No.

Anyway, what do you mean by "using all of first gear". So what, on a bad launch you don't use it all? You like, punish it for being bad and switch to another one, instead? Like reverse or 4th?

The gear you select and use is dependant entirely on the wheel speed of the vehicle. If you don't comprehend that, I'd amend the first line to add a few more things rather than simply a lack of knowledge specific to drag racing.

Mario.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

MarioGTR said:


> Mario (who is waiting for Andy to call me this weekend and tell me he's finally managed to beat me...  )


Whatever happened to your old GTR700? It was one of the more fun cars to watch the progress of and all stopped


----------



## MarioGTR (Jul 8, 2001)

Lith said:


> Whatever happened to your old GTR700? It was one of the more fun cars to watch the progress of and all stopped


It is sitting, rebuilt and waiting, for Andy to beat my time. It's only taken him 4 years (give or take) but I expect to hear this weekend that I can take it out to play again. 

:flame: < My wife liked this one, so I put it here. 

Mario.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

MarioGTR said:


> If the same mass took more time to reach the 60 foot marker, then it didn't use (and store in compliance) as much energy as it normally would have to get to that point, so it now has that much more energy in reserve to go towards propeling it down the rest of the track.


What if the reason for the slower 60ft is wheelspin, have you not just wasted the energy you would have otherwise stored in comliance so you've actually lost it anyway?

I'm not disputing that yourself and others have found you get higher mph from a slower 60ft in the same car but I'm still having trouble getting my head around why.

Could it possibly be that with a slower 60ft the car is more settled and its able to more smoothly transmit its power whereas with a quicker 60ft it may "leap" off the line but me quite unsettled at the 60ft mark and there not as smooth at putting it down.

Personally I have found that with slower 60ft times due to less boost off the line and no big wheelstands my ET is lower AND my mph is higher where as if I leave with lots of boost I get a nice big wheelstand that looks cool for the crowd and a quicker 60ft but my ET and mph suffer.

I still can't help thinking that a car that gets away smoothly with a quick 60ft still has a better chance of running a better time and higher mph, otherwise, why is it that a very well setup car gets quicker 60fts, faster times and higher mph as they put more power into it?

Very interesting indeed.

Rob


----------



## m6beg (Apr 21, 2003)

MarioGTR said:


> It is sitting, rebuilt and waiting, for Andy to beat my time. It's only taken him 4 years (give or take) but I expect to hear this weekend that I can take it out to play again.
> 
> :flame: < My wife liked this one, so I put it here.
> 
> Mario.


Well with the look at the weather Mario yours will be sitting there for a little while longer.

Met Office: Wellingborough: forecast

Mick


----------



## Andy Barnes (Jan 28, 2002)

*Mario*



MarioGTR said:


> It is sitting, rebuilt and waiting, for Andy to beat my time. It's only taken him 4 years (give or take) but I expect to hear this weekend that I can take it out to play again.
> 
> :flame: < My wife liked this one, so I put it here.
> 
> Mario.


It rained mate  

Plus we developed an intermittent electrical problem that we couldnt trace until it was too late meant we had to put it back on the trailer and retire from the day for the first time ever.

Its scheduled to p1ss down tomorrow too so we wont be going back to the track to get it together. The car is way more powerful than previously ( not sure by how much as we max'ed the dyno out  ) but I would say that we have 'in excess of 1150bhp' on the HKS T62R on full tilt - but thats a guess only 

Give you a bell tomm btw.

Andy


----------



## munro (Oct 3, 2006)

Andy Barnes said:


> It rained mate
> 
> Plus we developed an intermittent electrical problem that we couldnt trace until it was too late meant we had to put it back on the trailer and retire from the day for the first time ever.
> 
> ...


Thats not so bad if it was just a intermittent electrical problem 

I was told by someone that was at the pod today that your engine shit itself again.

If its dry and you have sorted the electrical problem will you be back tomorrow


----------



## bobstuart (Sep 30, 2006)

Well there was a lot of sad faces for just a electrical problem.
Looked a bit more serious.


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

> Well there was a lot of sad faces for just a electrical problem.
> Looked a bit more serious





> Thats not so bad if it was just a intermittent electrical problem
> 
> I was told by someone that was at the pod today that your engine shit itself again.
> 
> If its dry and you have sorted the electrical problem will you be back tomorrow



Andy was borrowing electrical stuf from us all morning , so I think it was just a electrical problem. Does make me laugh the way storys start that you have blown your motor to bits.


Mark


----------



## Madden (Nov 14, 2004)

I heard someone nicked his wheels


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

bobstuart said:


> Well there was a lot of sad faces for just a electrical problem.
> Looked a bit more serious.


I'd imagine any show stopper would bring many sad faces


----------



## max1 (Feb 24, 2002)

spoke to andy and watched the guys working on the pink was defo a electric problem changed the usual bits but still no go ,still ran a 9.3 with no real launch and shut off 2/3 down the track 118mph bad day for me too as i broke my os88 input shaft again on my 3rd run and second was a 9.4 and no nos .so i was hoping to wind her up later but no gearbox .still running a t51 kai turbo and standard crank.i too done my first run with a slow pull away from the line and went 153mph then next run nailed it from the line and 1.5 60ft but only 151mph v strange that is .


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

MarioGTR said:


> It's a fact that a slower 60 foot time can (and normally does) yield a faster MPH at the end of the run.
> 
> The reasons for it are not simple to explain, because it goes against logic and appears to go against physics, but the simple way to consider it is to seperate time and distance in your mind.
> 
> ...



Mario,

I think you may know what your 'trying' to explain here (although I still don't agree) and some of what you say sort of makes sense but alot of it is just plain wrong. Its almost as if your looking at the car as having all its energy stored in the car before the run like a flywheel car or something, not a car with an engine that makes power for the whole run.

Your use of alot of big words might sound good, but its actually tripped you up as towards the end of your post and your actually contradicting yourself and in fact almost proving that your original therory at the beginning of your post is not correct.

Lets forget how quickly you get to the 60ft mark for a moment.

Lets say you have 2 absolutly identicle cars in every way (even use a low powered auto car if you like), 1 car is lined up stationary at the 60ft mark, the other is comming from behind the start line traveling at 10mph and the stationary car is only allowed to leave at exactly the same time as the car traveling at 10mph crosses the 60ft mark beside it at which time both cars nail it, which one will cross the finish line first, which one will have the higher mph, and why?

Rob


----------



## blue34 (Jul 28, 2005)

I'll still put forward my simpler explanation (refined a bit) from the other thread...


Consider say the 1.5 second point in the 1.2s and 1.4s 60ft runs. 

Having done a 1.4s 60ft you've gone through the 60ft marker and have been travelling for a further 0.1 second. If you do a 1.2 60ft you have gone through the 60ft marker and been travelling for a further 0.3 of a second. 

Therefore in the case of the 1.2 60ft run you are further up the track at the 1.5 second point than the 1.4s run and by now going slightly quicker, than the 1.4s run. But as both runs are still say in first or early second gear the speed difference will not be large at this point. 

So, at the 1.5s point on the the 1.2s run there is now less track left on which to accelerate than on the 1.4s run at the same 1.5s time point. (at 60mph for example this would be (1760yards /60s) x 0.3s = 8.79 yards less track. 

All that needs to happen now is for both runs to accelerate at exactly the same rate from their given speeds at the 1.5s point.

And here's what then "happens" - the extra distance (say 9 yards) available for acceleration on the 1.4s 60ft run is enough to make up for the small speed difference in the two runs at the 1.5s point and to also allow for a slightly higher terminal speed to be reached than on the 1.2s run.

However the 1.4s run will lose out on the elapsed time and the "race" as the 1.2s run remains .2s ahead and therefore crosses the line first, but at a slightly lower terminal speed than that achieved on the 1.4s run.

If there had been a bigger difference in the two 60ft times this wouldnt have worked because the extra distance available at the 1.5s point wouldn't make up for the extra speed gained by the quicker car. 

So the effect only applies over a small variation in 60fts.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

blue34 said:


> In the case of the 1.2 60ft run you are further up the track at the 1.5 second point than the 1.4s run and by now going slightly quicker, than the 1.4s run.


You are not only further up the track at the 1.5 second point (meaning you are on for a quicker run) you are also traveling at considerably more speed at the 1.5 second mark meaning you have an advantage at the 1.5 second mark in time and speed.

I'm not for 1 second saying some of these guys may have found they get higher mph with lower 60fts but there has to be other reasons for it, its not just a simple matter as you have explained. 

To get your head around it all you need to do is take 2 cars with quite a big difference in performance.

A 6 second / 200 mph car would normally 60ft in around 1.0 to 1.1

A 9 second / 150 mph car would normally 60ft in around 1.3 to 1.4

At the 1.5 second mark of the 6 second cars run, he is not only much further down the strip he is going alot faster also.

But because he has less distance to travel and also in far less time, that doesn't mean his finish line mph is going to be slower than the 9 second car does it?

So if your happy with that, then all you have to do is think of the same car getting a much better 60ft as having a far smaller version of the same advantage, if the car was even 10 meters further down the strip and going only 2 mph faster, he still has the time and mph advantage, surely he can not be dissadvantaged at that point?

What do you think of the scenario I put forward in my last post?? which car would win?

Rob


----------



## blue34 (Jul 28, 2005)

"Lets say you have 2 absolutly identicle cars in every way (even use a low powered auto car if you like), 1 car is lined up stationary at the 60ft mark, the other is comming from behind the start line traveling at 10mph and the stationary car is only allowed to leave at exactly the same time as the car traveling at 10mph crosses the 60ft mark beside it at which time both cars nail it, which one will cross the finish line first, which one will have the higher mph, and why?" QUOTE

The car that is already moving as you rightly point out - that's due to the same acceleration from the same point over the same distance so the advantage is there for the car that is already moving and remains constant throughout. 

Not the same thing though... we are talking about a car accelerating at different rates at different distances and times during the run... It depends where the acceleration occurs and the advantage in mph at the 1.5s point on one run could be outweighed by the acceleration over the extra "distance" at the 1.5s point on another run in terms of terminal speed but might not effect the et... it could only apply over small variations though and generally speaking of course I can't argue with you.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

The whole discussion started when people stated that in their car they got higher mph with a slower 60 ft time, so all along I have been trying to keep this comparison of 60fts about the same car.

So if we have the same car getting to the 60ft marker quicker and faster (due to say, less wheelspin, better driver technique etc) that then is a good representation of my car driving from behind with a 10 mph head start as at the 60ft mark the quicker 60ft run will mean (at the time where both cars would have nailed it in the above scenario) that there is more mph by the 60ft mark hence the advantange, there is still the SAME distance to travel and at the very least, the mph advantage will remain for the rest of the run.

If you get to the 60ft mark quicker and faster and do eveything else the same, your still going to get a better ET and higher mph.

The only way your theory works is if for some reason the car on the faster 60ft run has less performance over the last 1260 feet, BUT, if it still runs the same as if it had done a slower 60ft then it must get a quicker ET and higher mph.

So.......the only thing for Mario and yourself etc to establish, (if your theory is correct), is what happens to the car and why does it majicly run worse over the last 1260ft when it gets a better 60ft.

If the car runs as strong as normal, and there are no other influences,(which is what you have to establish to back up your theory) it must get a better ET and mph if it does a better 60ft time, end of story.

Rob


----------



## blue34 (Jul 28, 2005)

1.635 11.325 119.38
1.703 11.346 124.36
1.812 11.307 126.31 

same day same car "other influences" at work like you say, me lol! your right in general of course my best ever 11.06 et was off my best ever 1.59 60ft at 124. But that means I "shouldn't" be getting 126 on a 1.8 but I did. I'll give up trying to explain it though - you win, Malc


----------



## MarioGTR (Jul 8, 2001)

*Try, the 2nd.*

It never seems to matter what kind of disclaimer I put in an message, someone always pops up who either didn't read or understand it.

I tried to make the first post as clear and concise as I could, and I also mentioned that there was a myriad of other complex and interrelated factors that affect it.

So I'll try once more:

It is a fact that a phenomenon exists where, in the same vehicle, a slower 60 foot time will yield a faster MPH at the end of the quarter. This phenomenon exists even in Top Fuelers, and it has been argued way back since Grog and Norg raced their pet dinosaurs from the local tree.

Speed, which we are talking about as the terminal velocity, is simply an expression of distance over time. This is why your speedometer in your car reads as Miles/Hour or Kilometers/Hour.

Therefore, it can be said that if a vehicle attains a higher given speed, it has simply crossed the specified distance in less time.

The standard quarter mile is 402.3 metres, which equates to 1,320 feet. Of that, the launch zone is designated the first 60 feet. This means that we have a remaining 1,260 feet post the launch zone.

Now, assuming the same vehicle, in two different runs:

Using basic logic, if the first instance it does a quicker 60 foot, it must have obviously reached the 60 foot marker in less time. Utilising the same logic, if the second instance it does a slower 60 foot time, it must have reached the 60 foot marker in more time.

That means that in the first instance the vehicle had to convert more of its available energy at the launch phase in order for it to be able to cover the same distance in less time. This means that it accelerated from a standstill with more power.

In the second instance, the same vehicle took longer to cover the same 60 feet of the launch zone, so it did not convert as much energy into propulsion during the launch phase, which comprises the very important transition from it being a static to a moving mass.

Now, to take this further, with both instances the vehicles are at the same point (60 feet) and the difference between them are:

A/. The first one has reached the point earlier in its run (< time).
B/. The first one must have exhibited greater velocity (> speed).

In the first instance, the vehicle is travelling at a greater velocity, so it is at an advantage with respect to time. In the second instance, the vehicle is travelling at a slower velocity, so it is at a disatvantage with respect to time.

Now, each vehicle still has to traverse the remaining 1,260 feet of the standard quarter mile. What is the difference between them at the 60 foot mark?

The vehicle in instance #1 will already have momentum and be at a specific point in its acceleration profile. As it has launched harder, it has used more of its energy potential in the time it took it to launch and reach the 60 foot mark.

Conversely, in instance #2, it will have less momentum and subsequently be at a different point in its acceleration profile. Common sense should dictate that in a properly set up vehicle, this will be lower in its power band. Thus the potential energy to accelerate (as in, the area under the curve) still has yet to be fully realised and said energy will now be released at a point after the 60 foot, instead.

So the same power that previously propelled the vehicle in its earlier stages of the launch (and were directly attributed to its quicker 60 foot time) in the first instance, is no longer available for use in acceleration post 60 foot; whereas it is still available (as potential energy) in the 2nd instance.

This means that even though the second instance appears to be at a disadvantage (due to less velocity) it has the ability to use that power now after the 60 foot mark, which will go towards propulsion and contibute toward the acceleration profile of the vehicle for the remaining 1,260 feet. 

So in the second instance, the vehicle can not regain the time it lost on the 60 foot, but it has the potential to yield a greater terminal velocity as it has more of its potential to unleash for the remainder of the run.

Mario.


----------



## MarioGTR (Jul 8, 2001)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> So.......the only thing for Mario and yourself etc to establish, (if your theory is correct), is what happens to the car and why does it majicly run worse over the last 1260ft when it gets a better 60ft.
> 
> If the car runs as strong as normal, and there are no other influences,(which is what you have to establish to back up your theory) it must get a better ET and mph if it does a better 60ft time, end of story.
> 
> Rob


So..... aren't you the same guy that claimed on here you did like a 1.3 second 0-62mph?

I'm pretty confident my physics is up to scratch, I mean, I'm no grease monkey, but my humble skills are normally used in making high velocity projectiles take out satellities and stuff, so this complex car stuff could well be way over my head... 

Mario.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

MarioGTR said:


> So the same power that previously propelled the vehicle in its earlier stages of the launch (and were directly attributed to its quicker 60 foot time) in the first instance, is no longer available for use in acceleration post 60 foot; whereas it is still available (as potential energy) in the 2nd instance.
> 
> This means that even though the second instance appears to be at a disadvantage (due to less velocity) it has the ability to use that power now after the 60 foot mark, which will go towards propulsion and contibute toward the acceleration profile of the vehicle for the remaining 1,260 feet.
> 
> So in the second instance, the vehicle can not regain the time it lost on the 60 foot, but it has the potential to yield a greater terminal velocity as it has more of its potential to unleash for the remainder of the run.


I don't think it would quite work like that. I see what you are saying there, but at the end of the day while the car hasn't unleashed all of its potential energy yet - it has less available space to do so. When car 1 reached the point car 2 is now at (lets say 10ft earlier on the strip for sake of arguement) it never lost the potential energy - it just used the stuff it has up to the current speed/revs better. 

Following this assumption car 1 will be at the 50ft mark doing the same speed, and therefore revs as car 2 is at the 60ft mark - but less time would have elapsed. As a result car 1 has all the power car 2 has, is the same point in the rev range, but has an extra 10 foot to accelerate over so in all logic should be able to reach a higher speed at both the 60ft mark (shown by having a faster average speed over the 60ft time, aka a faster 60ft time) but also having a higher speed at the end of the 1/4 mile as it will never give away any of its potential energy. Car 1 will just run a faster 1/4 mile time with a SLIGHTLY higher trap speed.


----------



## MarioGTR (Jul 8, 2001)

*Try #3.*



Lith said:


> I don't think it would quite work like that. I see what you are saying there, but at the end of the day while the car hasn't unleashed all of its potential energy yet - it has less available space to do so. When car 1 reached the point car 2 is now at (lets say 10ft earlier on
> the strip for sake of arguement) it never lost the potential energy - it just used the stuff it has up to the current speed/revs better.



What are you talking about? Both cars are at the exact same point; the 60 foot mark. 



> Following this assumption car 1 will be at the 50ft mark doing the same speed, and therefore revs as car 2 is at the 60ft mark - but less time would have elapsed. As a result car 1 has all the power car 2 has, is the same point in the rev range, but has an extra 10 foot to accelerate over so in all logic should be able to reach a higher speed at both the 60ft mark (shown by having a faster average speed over the 60ft time, aka a faster 60ft time) but also having a higher speed at the end of the 1/4 mile as it will never give away any of its potential energy. Car 1 will just run a faster 1/4 mile time with a SLIGHTLY higher trap speed.



WTF? Don't people read before they post? 

Both cars are at the exact some point. That being the exact same 60 foot mark, as this is where the timing is taken from.

Both cars have different power levels available at that specific point as one has obviously used more potential energy in order to accelerate harder and cover the same distance quicker, so it is at a different part of its power band.

Furthermore, the trap speed on the standard quarter mile is taken from the last 66 feet of track prior to the finish line, not over the entire quarter mile. All that matters with respect to trap speed is that the last 66 feet are covered at a greater velocity.

The only way the same vehicle will attain a higher velocity to cover said last 66 feet is if its potential energy (ie: power) is used to accelerate it at a later stage, rather than accelerate it at an earlier stage, where more of it would have been used to combat the transition from a static to a moving object.

It is making greater use of the available potential power at a point where said power is more effectively used to propel the vehicle, instead of using the same power to resist the motion earlier (and thus increase the acceleration instead of increasing the speed.

I seriously fail to understand how there is more than adequate empirical evidence of this phenomenon, yet some people still keep arguing the opposite! People have even posted their own examples to this thread, yet some still keep harping on and arguing about something they evidently lack the full understanding of.

Go buy some decent physics text books and read up on Newtons axioms.

Mario.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

MarioGTR said:


> What are you talking about? Both cars are at the exact same point; the 60 foot mark.
> 
> WTF? Don't people read before they post?


I read carefully and have read it again just to make sure... I wish I had you next to me with a white board to talk you through it as you clearly seem to be missing something. You know nothing about me or who I am, so don't assume I am an idiot. Physics is something I am not clueless about either, but theory in itself doesn't resolve this. You have to ensure you are using the right measurements before you even get to the point of forming theories and making a hypothesis.



MarioGTR said:


> Both cars have different power levels available at that specific point as one has obviously used more potential energy in order to accelerate harder and cover the same distance quicker, so it is at a different part of its power band.


Yes, I understood that. Think about it, if the one that has done the 60ft faster is at a different point in its powerband then it means that it is going faster. I try and meet roughly where you are at now - lets pretend we offset the theoretical reaction times for this race so that both cars have hit the 60ft mark at exactly the same time despite the different 60ft times, you will have yourself a rolling start race between two cars with the same power where one is further through its rev range and therefore at an overall advantage.

Lets say we allow this race to progress until the car with the slower 60ft time reaches the speed the faster car hit the 60ft mark at then hit pause again - whats happened in that time? We've used up a few metres of drag strip, and now the slower 60ft car is at the velocity the faster 60ft one was a few tenths of a second ago. 

This is a problem for the car with the slower 60ft, as it has taken several metres of the track just to reach that speed - so while it is now doing the exact speed etc that the first car was at the 60ft mark, and has all the same power available to it that the other car did - it has used up more drag strip. If we say that it took the slower 60fting car only 15ft to catch up to the speed the faster one was doing at the 60ft mark - it is now at the 75ft mark. As its accelerating, available track keeps disappearing.... 

The physics from this point is very very simple. At the 75foot mark the car has the same power to burn from this point as the faster 60footing car had at the 60ft mark. Just because it wasted power on the launch doesn't mean the power is going to come back and boost it after it has matched speed, that power has been wasted somewhere back there and will never come back. The car has 1245 feet to try and pick up the speed that the other car had 1260ft to do so. Yes the speed is measured over 66ft, but at the start of that 66ft mark the same advantage would have already seen.

Or have I missed you saying that the car with the slower 60ft time actually has MORE power higher in the rev range, in which case of course it will have a higher trap speed. Just because one car has used its power more efficiently at the start doesn't mean it gets tired later in the run - so long as its got fuel in the tank, its going to have plenty of energy to keep burning through out the run.


----------



## MarioGTR (Jul 8, 2001)

Lith said:


> I read carefully and have read it again just to make sure... I wish I had you next to me with a white board to talk you through it as you clearly seem to be missing something. You know nothing about me or who I am, so don't assume I am an idiot. Physics is something I am not clueless about either, but theory in itself doesn't resolve this. You have to ensure you are using the right measurements before you even get to the point of forming theories and making a hypothesis.


I, too, have a love of the whiteboard. 



> Yes, I understood that. Think about it, if the one that has done the 60ft faster is at a different point in its powerband then it means that it is going faster. I try and meet roughly where you are at now - lets pretend we offset the theoretical reaction times for this race so that both cars have hit the 60ft mark at exactly the same time despite the different 60ft times, you will have yourself a rolling start race between two cars with the same power where one is further through its rev range and therefore at an overall advantage.
> 
> Lets say we allow this race to progress until the car with the slower 60ft time reaches the speed the faster car hit the 60ft mark at then hit pause again - whats happened in that time? We've used up a few metres of drag strip, and now the slower 60ft car is at the velocity the faster 60ft one was a few tenths of a second ago.
> 
> ...


I think I now can see what the issue here is:

In the very first post, I made the statement that in order to think of this, it is necessary to seperate distance and time in your mind. This is the reason I said that.

Firstly, the distance in both examples when taken from the 60 foot marker is identical. There is no additional (or, for that matter less) distance to be covered by either vehicle; they have the same distance elapsed and remaining in both examples. This whole "has less distance left as it is quicker" is inaccuarate and adds to the confusion, which is why I said you need to compare both vehicles at the same distance (ie: the 60 foot mark).

Secondly, the power available in each car is not a set figure, each engine has a power band and the position of each engine in said power band will have a direct affect upon the ratio of acceleration available. So just because a given engine makes 1000 HP at 8krpm, you need to factor in that above and below that specific rev range, it will make less power.

Hence, the actual power being made at the specific point in time will be different, hence the acceleration at that same time will also be different.

If you have more power available at a later stage, then that will directly contribute to the acceleration of the vehicle over the same remaining distance (ie: the remaining 1,260 feet).

If the power was made earlier, during the launch, it is no longer available to maintain the acceleration profile as more of it was used in the launch.

The third item here is the way the power is utilised. It is wrong to assume that, for example, 1000 HP into a launch is the same as 1000 HP into propelling an already moving object is the same amount of power. You need to factor in losses.

Much, much more power is lost in the conversion from a static to a moving object, especially with respect to the compliance of the suspension and the elasticity of the tyres, the greater loading upon the driveline and drag on ancilliary components throughout. A lot of these factors are greatly reduced when the launch is softer, so the sapping of said power is much less and terefore contributes toward propulsion in the second case where the 60 foot was slower.

Does that make it any clearer?

Mario.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

blue34 said:


> 1.635 11.325 119.38
> 1.703 11.346 124.36
> 1.812 11.307 126.31
> 
> same day same car "other influences" at work like you say, me lol! your right in general of course my best ever 11.06 et was off my best ever 1.59 60ft at 124. But that means I "shouldn't" be getting 126 on a 1.8 but I did. I'll give up trying to explain it though - you win, Malc


I'm not trying to "win" I'm just trying to get my head around how it could be, thats all and its very interesting to discuss it and try to find out why its happening.

I can see from the examples of your times above that something appears to be happening but it goes against all logic and laws of physics to say your getting a higher mph BECAUSE you have a slower 60ft, something else has to be going on.

Rob


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

MarioGTR said:


> I, too, have a love the whiteboard.


Hahaha awesome, would probably be easier for all concerned if there was shared online whiteboard to scrawl on 



MarioGTR said:


> So just because a given engine makes 1000 HP at 8krpm, you need to factor in that above and below that specific rev range, it will make less power.


So are we not assuming that both cars have exactly the same powerband etc etc? I was, so while the car with the faster 60ft is at a different point in its powerband and the acceleration at that instant is different - the car with the slower speed at the 60ft mark will have to also work its way through the same point in the powerband so I still don't see the velocity gaining advantage for the car which used its power worse up to the 60ft mark.



> If the power was made earlier, during the launch, it is no longer available to maintain the acceleration profile as more of it was used in the launch.


So you are saying that they have different powerbands? If so, then it makes the comparison a bit impossible. If you are saying that because you used it on the launch, its not available later - why is that? I know you have passed through that part of the rev range so that stuff can't be used any more - but you have more rev range and more gears to use yet. Both cars have to work their way through the whole rev range still...




> The third item here is the way the power is utilised. It is wrong to assume that, for example, 1000 HP into a launch is the same as 1000 HP into propelling an already moving object is the same power.


Of course, but we are looking at from the 60ft mark and beyond now... so all energy used up until the 60ft mark is irrelevant now. I am assuming the weight/design/power of both cars is identical... at this stage now we have the same amount of energy available, same power bands, but are starting at different points in our power band and are carrying different amounts of momentum. The car with less momentum has less wind tance BUT it will have to pass through the rev range and end up putting up with the wind 
resistance that the car with the better 60ft is at some point before it can pass the velocity it has will reach by the 1254ft mark.



> Does that make it any clearer?


I still think I see where you are coming from, but I think we are still on different wave lengths but want to see where we end up haha.

(edited - I made a huge mess of the quotes first time)


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Mario, your theory still seems to revolve around the fact the car has a fixed amount of "power" before the car leaves the line (as in a stored engery flywheel car or something) and if you use more power sooner to get to the 60ft mark you will have less to use for the rest of the run, but obviously a combustion engine doesn't work like that at all.

Once you get to the 60ft mark, its totally errelivent what has happened previously, you get to the 60ft mark in X amount of time and with X amount of mph and no matter how you look at it, you still have 1260ft to go with an engine that is producing power as its laying it down, its not stored prior to the run at all.

So if you get to the 60ft mark quicker and you are going faster, you have an advantage at that point and it will help you for the rest of the run UNLESS for some reason you have reduced performance from your engine, tyres, clutch etc which contributes to less forward propultion during the run.

Your saying that if you "use" or "lay down" more power in the first 60ft with better traction, less wheel spin or better driver technique, that 'extra' power you have used to get to the 60ft sooner is then subtracted from what you can make from then on, I'd like to know how doing that can possibly effect what happens from that point on??

If you get alot of wheelspin or clutch slip etc resulting in a slower 60ft time, that energy is lost forever, its lost in heat and noise amongst other things, you can't get it back, its not stored somewhere for you to "use" to get you higher mph, once its gone its gone, you don't get a second chance, there's nothing running along behind your car picking it all back up and giving it to you as you cross the 60ft mark is there???

I've never said I've done 0-62mph in 1.3 seconds, I mearly said that if you do the first 60ft in 1.4 seconds, your looking at around 1.8 seconds to 60mph.

Rob


----------



## MarioGTR (Jul 8, 2001)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Mario, your theory still seems to revolve around the fact the car has a fixed amount of "power" before the car leaves the line (as in a stored engery flywheel car or something) and if you use more power sooner to get to the 60ft mark you will have less to use for the rest of the run, but obviously a combustion engine doesn't work like that at all.


In the examples I gave, it is the same car, same engine, same everything in both - just one had a slower 60 foot time.



> Once you get to the 60ft mark, its totally errelivent what has happened previously, you get to the 60ft mark in X amount of time and with X amount of mph and no matter how you look at it, you still have 1260ft to go with an engine that is producing power as its laying it down, its not stored prior to the run at all.


No, what happened before is very relevant! In fact, it's probably one of the main reasons you are thinking otherwise. If it wasn't relevant, why would the difference in 60 foot times contribute to a difference in trap speed?



> So if you get to the 60ft mark quicker and you are going faster, you have an advantage at that point and it will help you for the rest of the run UNLESS for some reason you have reduced performance from your engine, tyres, clutch etc which contributes to less forward propultion during the run.


No, it will not. I have said this countless times, the engine would be in a different position in its powerband (ie: at 7krpm instead of 8krpm) depending upon how quickly it covered the initial 60 feet. If it did it quicker, it would have utilised more power and that power would have come from the engine, which would have been required to turn at a greater rate to provide said power. 

Therefore, as it used more of its power band to effect the better launch, there is less of the power band left to use in acceleration for the remaining distince of the quarter mile. 



> Your saying that if you "use" or "lay down" more power in the first 60ft with better traction, less wheel spin or better driver technique, that 'extra' power you have used to get to the 60ft sooner is then subtracted from what you can make from then on, I'd like to know how doing that can possibly effect what happens from that point on??


Yes. That's a simplified overstatement, but it is the gist of it. Except it is not "extra power", it is more simply just power that was previously sapped due to additional losses that were due to the extra forces upon the vehicle during the transition from a static dead weight (ie: the launch).



> If you get alot of wheelspin or clutch slip etc resulting in a slower 60ft time, that energy is lost forever, its lost in heat and noise amongst other things, you can't get it back, its not stored somewhere for you to "use" to get you higher mph, once its gone its gone, you don't get a second chance, there's nothing running along behind your car picking it all back up and giving it to you as you cross the 60ft mark is there???


This is why I made the clarifying statement that this was a very complex issue at the very beginning. Obviously, there are of course going to be situations where something like a slipping clutch will cause you to have a bad 60 foot time, but that's more akin to mechanical failure, so you'd have to be foolish to use that as an example. 

I'm assuming (and its turned out dangerous to do that several times in the past on an internet forum) that people here aren't total morons and can tell the difference between mechanical failure and a bad launch where they just didn't "nail it right on" and saw the difference in trap speed vs. 60 foot time. 

So just to re-itterate this: A better launch needs more power, more power needs comes from more revs, as you are higher in the power band, you can not use that power anymore as it is dropping away.

A worse launch, you didn't use as much power, hence the engine is generally lower in its power band and still has the remaining powerband available for it to use.



> I've never said I've done 0-62mph in 1.3 seconds, I mearly said that if you do the first 60ft in 1.4 seconds, your looking at around 1.8 seconds to 60mph.
> 
> Rob


I recalled we had a discussion on here regarding this as it was in your "signature" and I had to explain to you that your 60 foot time was not akin to 0-62mph...

Anyway, who cares, it doesn't really matter now. I was simply being facetious. 

Mario.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

MarioGTR said:


> So just to re-itterate this: A better launch needs more power, more power needs comes from more revs, as you are higher in the power band, you can not use that power anymore as it is dropping away.
> 
> A worse launch, you didn't use as much power, hence the engine is generally lower in its power band and still has the remaining powerband available for it to use.


This makes complete sense, and as such I agree with the fact that the slower 60fting car WILL accelerate harder from the 60ft mark because of this fact. The point I am trying to make is that its too little too late in the example you are giving, as while the faster car has indeed used that acceleration ability - the by product of that is it also has the extra velocity. The slower car needs to do acceleration just to even up the field, but it needs to accelerate harder beyond that velocity to actually get a higher trap speed - but it isn't going to be able to do that.

To exaggerate things, what if our two identical cars were side by side - the car in lane 1 idles off the line and cruises to the 60ft mark at about 5kph then nails it with everything it has while car in lane 2 takes off with a text book launch and powers through to the finish line in a perfect run... will the car in lane 1 still end up with a higher trap speed? 

If so, how does it manage to accelerate from 5kph to more than the "faster" car within 60ft less distance. If not, why do the rules change for the examples?


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

MarioGTR said:


> I recalled we had a discussion on here regarding this as it was in your "signature" and I had to explain to you that your 60 foot time was not akin to 0-62mph...


My signature didn't say 0-62mph in 60ft, it said 0-60mph in under 2 seconds and when you 60ft in 1.4 (which at the time I was) it is almost certain that you'll be doing around 60mph within 2 seconds.

Anyway, as you say, it doesn't matter, we get the times and mph's we get no matter what anyone else thinks or believes, you seem very sure you are correct, and thats fine, although I still can't see any real evidence in your explaination that what your saying is black and white true and it its a provable fact.

Best of luck with your GTR and I look forward to seeing if you beat the UK GTR when it beats Micks current time.

Rob


----------



## japracer MK2 (Apr 20, 2002)

bobstuart said:


> Well there was a lot of sad faces for just a electrical problem.
> Looked a bit more serious.


Check here :bawling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxa5cC3sK4M


----------



## blue34 (Jul 28, 2005)

"So if you get to the 60ft mark quicker and you are going faster" QUOTE ROB

Not necesarily...

It IS perfectly possible to get to the 60ft point quicker without being faster 

It depends where the acceleration takes place - earlier or later in the launch, an incredibly quick 40ft followed by 20ft of wheelspin for example could net a quicker overall 60ft but at a lower speed because almost all of the acceleration happened earlier compared to a run where the first 40ft was less quick but there was no wheelspin for the next 20ft.

I also agree with Mario potential energy is very much in play here: Ulimately this is a finite amount available for any given vehicle over a given time and this is why some cars are more powerful quicker and faster than others ie they have greater potential energy available. At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious...The potential energy is released from:

The spinning mass initially, and then from combustion of fuel. At any given point an engine/cars ability to maximise that potential energy and convert it to forward motion varies constantly according to: revs, fuel flow, air flow, fuel/air mixture, ignition advance/retard, spark voltages, intake temperatures, effective compression ratios (boost) transmission losses, grip, and yes suspension compressing / decompressing and centre of gravity changing as a result of that too - you name it, it varies.. 

QUICKER does NOT always mean faster and FASTER does not always mean QUICKER even for the same car - even QUICKER and FASTER at one point doesn't mean QUICKER and FASTER at another point there re are NO constants... even the mass can vary over time as the fuel can be burnt earlier or later.


----------



## Moff (Sep 27, 2004)

Don't forget problems going up the strip..

I've seen 9 and 10 second runs with ET's of 50 odd mph as they have backed off due to problems.

You might get a faster ET by being careful on the loud pedal the whole way up at the risk of time... Fine balance between the 2...


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Moff said:


> You might get a faster ET by being careful on the loud pedal the whole way up at the risk of time... Fine balance between the 2...


I think you mean at the risk of mph, if you get a better ET you have a better time as they are both the same thing.

ET = elapsed time

A QUICKER car is one that gets a lower ET
A FASTER car is one that gets a higher MPH

As always, there are alot of variables that contribute to a drag pass and it is almost impossible to pin point one area and say thats the sole reason for X to happen.

I still maintain that in any given car, on a good, hard, clean launch, where you get to the 60ft mark quicker and faster, you stand a better chance of getting a lower ET and higher MPH than if you have a slower 60ft time with lower mph at that point, if the balance of the pass is also done utilising the cars maximum potential.

Very interesting stuff, I will be closely checking my 60ft time V 1/4 mile MPH from now on 

Rob


----------



## Smokey 1 (Nov 1, 2005)

japracer MK2 said:


> Check here :bawling:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxa5cC3sK4M



The Pink cars run


You must have meant this one Rob :flame:


Smokey :smokin:


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

japracer MK2 said:


> Check here :bawling:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxa5cC3sK4M


wtf?


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Smokey 1 said:


> The Pink cars run
> 
> 
> You must have meant this one Rob :flame:
> ...


Well I must say its "slightly" better than the first one. lol but you guys must be smoking some good stuff man, where's the actual vids of the cars runs or was the whole deal rained off?

Rob


----------



## Irish GTR (Apr 23, 2007)

Thread ruined thanks to a small bunch of muppets and keyboard warriors that just waffle on and on and do noting else..

Johns car and its record time speaks for itself.

Top man,top car.top result.Fastest Skyline in Europe.Simple as that and end of.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Irish GTR said:


> Top man,top car.top result.Fastest Skyline in Europe.Simple as that and end of.


I agree, no more from me...........


----------



## m6beg (Apr 21, 2003)

Irish GTR said:


> Thread ruined thanks to a small bunch of muppets and keyboard warriors that just waffle on and on and do noting else..
> 
> Johns car and its record time speaks for itself.
> 
> Top man,top car.top result.Fastest Skyline in Europe.Simple as that and end of.


Fastest rear wheel drive skyline.:thumbsup:


Mick


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Someone said it ran 7.5x recently, was that true? If so, what was the trap speed?


----------



## Ludders (Feb 6, 2004)

Lith said:


> Someone said it ran 7.5x recently, was that true? If so, what was the trap speed?


That was ATCO after sniffing race fuel, sorry to say it's not true.


.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Stink. Will have to make do with 7.7 lol


----------



## Madden (Nov 14, 2004)

Yea this thread has been crapped on in a big way. The last 5 pages have been nothing to do with Johns car?????????????

Start a new thread about 60fts vs terminals.


----------



## Smokey 1 (Nov 1, 2005)

Madden said:


> Yea this thread has been crapped on in a big way. The last 5 pages have been nothing to do with Johns car?????????????
> 
> Start a new thread about 60fts vs terminals.



Yeah your right Jamie, a new thread should have been started about terminals and 60 fts I think.

Anyway well done to John I am sure he is well happy with the results so far this year :thumbsup:



Smokey


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 4, 2002)

*Its always the same people as well Madden !*



Madden said:


> Yea this thread has been crapped on in a big way. The last 5 pages have been nothing to do with Johns car?????????????
> 
> Start a new thread about 60fts vs terminals.


...


----------



## blue34 (Jul 28, 2005)

Threads like conversations evolve, after about five pages of congratulations see post #64 where John was taling about reaction times then see post #70from Abbey Motorsport John's tuners about 60fts. RIPS chipped in TweenieRob chipped in then Mario and yes me too - There was another thread already talking about power required for a 9s quarter which talked about 60fts but this thread got on to the same topic so I naturally was quite interested and contributed... 

Madden and IrishGTR Your wrong and rude to accuse people of thread crapping, you can't have read it.

Irish GTR did make me laugh though...



Irish GTR said:


> Thread ruined thanks to a small bunch of muppets and keyboard warriors that just waffle on and on and do nothing else..


Mario has held the 4wd Skyline record for the last 4 years... lol RIPS know a thing or too as does Tweenie and Abbey...

It might have got a bit technical for some and maybe a bit boring if you weren't interested, but crapped on.... No 

I've been a supporter of John and ProjectGTST since the start, it's one of the reasons I'm a competitor in the street class in the same HKS series.

I was with John on Sunday morning and congratulated him personally already for winning the series...


----------



## trackday addict (May 14, 2005)

Come on boys no falling out - been enough of that crap over the last 12 months 

If people want to argue with each other over the scientific attributes of good v average 60 foots & ETS feel free :chuckle:

All comments at the start ie/ well dones are much appreciated & thankyou 
We will just continue to get our head down, keep our mouths shut, promise little & hopefully continue to deliver & let the car do the talking which is the best & safest way :smokin:


----------



## Madden (Nov 14, 2004)

Blue r34 not making any reference to you or anyone and not meant to be rude what so ever. Everyone that is involved in this 60 ft conversion i know and get along with so i wouldn't post anything to start any arguments as everyone of them have helped me out before including yourself.

But the title of the thread is 7.78 project gtst not 60ft vr's terminal speeds where it has ended up. 

The thread was started to congratulate the team and driver.

Not worried about it in anyway and wont lose any sleep over it just saying what I'm thinking


----------



## japracer MK2 (Apr 20, 2002)

*Nope*



Smokey 1 said:


> The Pink cars run
> 
> 
> You must have meant this one Rob :flame:
> ...


I got the first link right John:thumbsup:


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

trackday addict said:


> All comments at the start ie/ well dones are much appreciated & thankyou
> We will just continue to get our head down, keep our mouths shut, promise little & hopefully continue to deliver & let the car do the talking which is the best & safest way :smokin:


Good work, that has been working very well for you so far - you've never talked it up more than its deserved and its been great to follow and as such it makes one hungry for more as you clearly haven't finished with it, I'm looking forward to seeing what happens during the off season. 

At this rate I suspect that in terms of your talks of a trip down under to race the fastest GTRs in the world I doubt anything the guys have up their sleeves are going to be able to match the rate your thing seems to be progressing.


----------



## Nick MW (Aug 15, 2003)

m6beg said:


> Fastest rear wheel drive skyline.:thumbsup:
> 
> 
> Mick


PMSL - still the fastest Skyline then as its record is faster than any other be it 2 or 4wd


----------



## bayside gtr (Dec 24, 2005)

well said nick and my hat goes of to u and boys for getting car to run the way it has with plenty to come i no good luck for future


----------



## tweenierob (Aug 5, 2003)

I think....

I would take a trip out to aus to watch this run against the big boys out there, dont fancy sharing a container do you John? 

Rob


----------



## trackday addict (May 14, 2005)

It's a while off Rob to be honest.
Wouldn't consider it until end of 2010 at the earliest (2 more full seasons here first to develop it a lot further) & that takes me to 5 years which was always the goal before i take some time out to spend with the family as the boys need the old man standing on the sidelines watching them play footie instead of farting around with cars:chuckle: 

If the car is still on track development wise then worth the trip & expense & would love to spend a month early 2011 at some big events out there and take part in some racing - what a way to finish for a while


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Nick MW said:


> PMSL - still the fastest Skyline then as its record is faster than any other be it 2 or 4wd


Ah, No. 7.57 by a NZ skyline is the quickest to date, it is also the fastest at over 190mph.

Rob


----------



## trackday addict (May 14, 2005)

Nick was just messing Rob & meant Europe mate.

I would bet my shirt that Reece & also Godzilla Motorsports improve their times in their 32's over the next 6 months & will be amazing to see as it just spurs everyone on :clap: 



R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Ah, No. 7.57 by a NZ skyline is the quickest to date, it is also the fastest at over 190mph.
> 
> Rob


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

trackday addict said:


> I would bet my shirt that Reece & also Godzilla Motorsports improve their times in their 32's over the next 6 months & will be amazing to see as it just spurs everyone on :clap:


I really hope they do too, but honestly mate when you see one of these things running around mid 7 it starts getting hard to imagine how much quicker they will go - they basically look like they're on the verge of turning the tyres/driving themselves off the track most of the way down, RWDs look so much more stable as they don't have torque steer type things going on to deal with. 

One of the reasons I reckon HT are going to be so hard to beat is it really (from a naive non-expert point of view) pushing the limits of the platform and its not so much that I think Heat Treatments have some kind of magic although are clearly at the front of the game at the moment, is that they just happened to be the first to get to this kind of area and anyone who reaches that level is likely to struggle to go much quicker. Look at the 7.59s run with a full length set of black marks... awesome stuff but yeah. 

A big tyre RWD has a pretty large advantage at this power level methinks.


----------



## grant620 (Nov 9, 2003)

Hi there.
Just wanted to add our congratulations to John, Abbey and Andy Robinson Race Cars for breaking CONSISTENTLY into the 7's!!
Well done ALL!


----------



## trackday addict (May 14, 2005)

Cheers Grant for yours & ray's support & many thanks for your "stonking" boost controller 
Fingers crossed this Saturday will be warm enough & dry to have a real crack at things :smokin:


----------

