 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / August 2007Drag Racing Ponderings
I admit I haven't followed this sport for years, but last I heard they're only allowed to run 75% nitro and have some restrictions on superchargers (no idea about the details). I hear the current ET record is 4.428 @ 327.98 MPH for Top Fuel. No idea about the speed record but I know it must be over 340MPH. I remember when the 300MPH barrier was broken as well as the sub-5- second barrier (on 100% nitro). Everyone at the time said that would be the last of the "major barriers" ever to be broken. Do you reckon if there were no restrictions at all that we could launch a man/vehicle over a quarter in less than 4 seconds? That's some serious shovel-in-the-face acceleration though. Meh, just bored tonight I s'pose. > I admit I haven't followed this sport for years, but last I heard > they're only allowed to run 75% nitro and have some restrictions on [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Meh, just bored tonight I s'pose. I was unaware the nitro% was still in effect , going faster may well mean a major leap regarding the physics of traction as atm tyres appear to be a limiting factor . On Aug 28, 10:04 pm, a t e c 7 7 <"atec 77 at hotmail dot com"> wrote: > > I admit I haven't followed this sport for years, but last I heard > > they're only allowed to run 75% nitro and have some restrictions on [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I was unaware the nitro% was still in effect , My dad told me this in 2006, so I'm just assuming it's still around. > going faster may well mean a major leap regarding the > physics of traction as atm tyres appear to be a limiting factor . Yeah that's a biggie for sure. At least for the first half of the journey (which is most important). > On Aug 28, 10:04 pm, a t e c 7 7 <"atec 77 at hotmail dot com"> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Yeah that's a biggie for sure. At least for the first half of the > journey (which is most important). considering the smoke I can make with good tyres in a 6 pot foulcan with good wide rubber I often wonder how those drag tyres handle it , I guess the goop and track play a huge part . On Aug 28, 10:15 pm, a t e c 7 7 <"atec 77 at hotmail dot com"> wrote: > > On Aug 28, 10:04 pm, a t e c 7 7 <"atec 77 at hotmail dot com"> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > good wide rubber I often wonder how those drag tyres handle it , I guess > the goop and track play a huge part . Here's someone in a GT Falc who got it all hooked up, but ended up with a handful :-) 145KB <http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/8344/gtrahwp4.jpg> 130KB <http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4107/gtrahlater1gv8.jpg> 143KB <http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/6329/gtrahlater2is8.jpg> > On Aug 28, 10:15 pm, a t e c 7 7 <"atec 77 at hotmail dot com"> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > 143KB > <http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/6329/gtrahlater2is8.jpg> Nice. Only a handful? I'd suggest a pant-ful as well! :-D Andy. > > Here's someone in a GT Falc who got it all hooked up, but ended up > > with a handful :-) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Andy. You can imagine the commentary inside the car: "f.ck... f.ck f.ck f.ck f.ck f.ck f.ck FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK!!!" >> I admit I haven't followed this sport for years, but last I heard >> they're only allowed to run 75% nitro and have some restrictions on [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > mean a major leap regarding the physics of traction as atm tyres appear > to be a limiting factor . I recall that the prezact same 'problem' was trotted out when the 10 Second barrier was knocked over a very long time ago:-) It wss replete with time-lapse new-fangled pictures of distorted tyres, etc etc. __ Toby >>> I admit I haven't followed this sport for years, but last I heard >>> they're only allowed to run 75% nitro and have some restrictions on [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Toby you must be really old as when I was a youngun the 6 second barrier was trashed . >>>> I admit I haven't followed this sport for years, but last I heard >>>> they're only allowed to run 75% nitro and have some restrictions on [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > you must be really old as when I was a youngun the 6 second barrier was > trashed . Well, yes, but two factors come into play. Books/magazines are 'history' right from their publishing date. I'd read shitloads of stuff before most my age stopped pissing their beds:-) __ Toby >>>>> I admit I haven't followed this sport for years, but last I heard >>>>> they're only allowed to run 75% nitro and have some restrictions on [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Toby MM 1972 the 6 second barrier was run with a 5.97.. I was older than I though . I remeber the first time I broke into the teens in the little fiat . ( hemi powered) >I admit I haven't followed this sport for years, but last I heard > they're only allowed to run 75% nitro and have some restrictions on > superchargers (no idea about the details). It's been a very long time since I had anything to do with it, but even back then 96% doses of "pop" were commonplace amongst the "fuel" racing brigade. The other 4% was methanol, and it existed basically to make the mixture ignite as 100% nitromethane is incredibly hard to light even with big magneto systems. Hydrazine was also a commonly used fuel additive that no one openly spoke about as it was highly illegal, and pretty much gauranteed you'd send a set of pistons into the scap bin after every pass at the minimim :) The other restrictions were engines of 500 cubic inches and boost limited to 40psi. > I hear the current ET record is 4.428 @ 327.98 MPH for Top Fuel. No > idea about the speed record but I know it must be over 340MPH. No idea, but they'd be close to that now if not already beyond those marks. > I remember when the 300MPH barrier was broken as well as the sub-5- > second barrier (on 100% nitro). Everyone at the time said that would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > launch a man/vehicle over a quarter in less than 4 seconds? That's > some serious shovel-in-the-face acceleration though. It sure as sh.t is :) If they can get the traction they need to allow the vehicle to accellerate with 100% throttle then a sub 4 second pass would be easily possible, as the engines certainly make enough ponies. The problem is that as good as the current crop of tyres may be, you can't get 6000hp down all at once and they need to leave the start line with a certain percentage of clutch slip to bleed off power and prevent breaking traction. The better the traction is the quicker you can pull in more of the clutch as the car goes down the track, but if you could get it *all* in off the line and gear the car a little higher you'd see a sub 4 second quarter mile and 400 miles per hour trap speeds. -- Regards, Noddy. > >I admit I haven't followed this sport for years, but last I heard > > they're only allowed to run 75% nitro and have some restrictions on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > about as it was highly illegal, and pretty much gauranteed you'd send a set > of pistons into the scap bin after every pass at the minimim :) LOL. Very interesting because I recall some drivers marvelling at how the engines could barely stand up to a run because seemingly almost everything was replaced after a single run :-) > The other restrictions were engines of 500 cubic inches and boost limited to > 40psi. Ah yes. I remember the 500 cubes rule but didn't know what exactly the supercharger restrictions were. > > I hear the current ET record is 4.428 @ 327.98 MPH for Top Fuel. No > > idea about the speed record but I know it must be over 340MPH. > > No idea, but they'd be close to that now if not already beyond those marks. Dunno about ETs, but I know John Force got over 330MPH in a funny car in early 2006 IIRC. > > I remember when the 300MPH barrier was broken as well as the sub-5- > > second barrier (on 100% nitro). Everyone at the time said that would [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and gear the car a little higher you'd see a sub 4 second quarter mile and > 400 miles per hour trap speeds. I think getting 6000HP onto the track from the word go is alien technology type stuff, but yeah, definitely rubber will need to come to the party in a big way. I guess there's only so much you can do at half-track. I'd just like to see what they could do right now with restrictions lifted. Obviously engines will be exploding left right and centre with blower restrictions lifted (what's new really?). >> I admit I haven't followed this sport for years, but last I heard >> they're only allowed to run 75% nitro and have some restrictions on [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Regards, > Noddy. There is also the areas of weight reduction and aerodynamics, both have some room left to exploit and would help the second half of the track especially. Not saying that a lot of work hasn't gone into them, just that they aren't hard up against any theoretical barriers. > There is also the areas of weight reduction and aerodynamics, both have > some room left to exploit and would help the second half of the track > especially. > > Not saying that a lot of work hasn't gone into them, just that they aren't > hard up against any theoretical barriers. It's a trade off like anything else. They need incredible amounts of downforce in order to maintain traction as they go down the track and pull in all their clutch, and the penalty of that is increased drag. The two different styles of fuel burning cars, being funny cars and dragsters, are different approaches to getting around the same problem. Funny cars tend to have better traction than top fuelers as they have a shitload more downforce, but they're slower as they offer more in the way of resistance, and they're also a hell of a lot more difficult to keep in a straight line. Dragsters have less downforce and rely on the length of the body to combat both the problems of going straight and keeping a load on the rear tyres. That makes them quicker, but they also unload the rear tyres easier. There's gains to be made in aerodynamics, that's for sure, but that's only part of it. Improvements in traction would certainly help, as would freeing up some of the power required to *make* the power they currently have. The last estimate I heard was that it takes 1200hp to drive the blower on a fuel burning engine at full noise. If they could come up with a mans of cutting that 1200hp down and adding some of it to the 6000 they already make after driving the blower, they'd pick up some *real* speed & ET increases. -- Regards, Noddy. [...] >Hydrazine was also a commonly used fuel additive that no one openly spoke >about as it was highly illegal, and pretty much gauranteed you'd send a set >of pistons into the scap bin after every pass at the minimim :) Plus it's even *more* dangerous than nitro - rocket fuel, quite literally. Not just carcinogenic (like nitro) but actually quite toxic. IIRC, if you get caught even having it at the track (used or not), you're looking at a ban. I can't recall exactly what it is, but there is a highly volatile (hydrocarbon) additive that the "street" cars use at the track - by the time the run is finished and you get back to scrutineering, it's pretty much all evaporated and hence undetectable, but it ups the octane considerably, which is no doubt good for those running 50+ pounds of boost. [...] >If they can get the traction they need to allow the vehicle to accellerate >with 100% throttle then a sub 4 second pass would be easily possible, as the >engines certainly make enough ponies. The problem is that as good as the >current crop of tyres may be, you can't get 6000hp down all at once and they >need to leave the start line with a certain percentage of clutch slip to >bleed off power and prevent breaking traction. ISTR that one of those "Wow!" things on top fuelers suggested that they were only getting 0 slip at 1/2 track or later. >The better the traction is the quicker you can pull in more of the clutch as >the car goes down the track, but if you could get it *all* in off the line >and gear the car a little higher you'd see a sub 4 second quarter mile and >400 miles per hour trap speeds. Since it's all controlled by pnuematics and other mechanical means, I'd venture to guess that adding AWD and traction control would get you there easily (relatively folks, relatively!). Of course, it'd be as boring as batshit if they let those in - the only skills left (for the driver [pilot?]) would be reaction time and punching the 'chute. Neil --- Neil Fisher / Bob Young Thundercords personal opinion unless otherwise noted. Looking for spark plug leads? Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au > Plus it's even *more* dangerous than nitro - rocket fuel, quite > literally. Not just carcinogenic (like nitro) but actually quite > toxic. IIRC, if you get caught even having it at the track (used or > not), you're looking at a ban. Yep. I used to know a couple of fuel racers who tried it. I won't name any names, but they were both guys who were "middle of the pack" runners who immediately went to top qualifier status in an instant, and more than a few eyebrows were raised. I actually "cheated" once when I ran a 10% dose of cacklejuice in superstock when I was running BB/G at Calder many years ago. I wasn't cheating in order to better my chances in competition really, as I'd already top qualified and it was a pretty sh.t field with soft records, but mainly just because I wanted to see how it'd effect the engine. The engine sounded as strong as all f.ck on the burnout, but when I launched the car it blew a red hot chunck of cylinder head the size of a golf ball out of one of the pipes, and sent it screaming off into orbit like a glowing comet. Looked pretty spectacular in the dark, but f.cked a perfectly good cylinder head :) > I can't recall exactly what it is, but there is a highly volatile > (hydrocarbon) additive that the "street" cars use at the track - by > the time the run is finished and you get back to scrutineering, it's > pretty much all evaporated and hence undetectable, but it ups the > octane considerably, which is no doubt good for those running 50+ > pounds of boost. You got me. They're doing all kinds of sh.t these days, and if I went to a meeting today I'd be totally lost. > ISTR that one of those "Wow!" things on top fuelers suggested that > they were only getting 0 slip at 1/2 track or later. Pretty much. > Since it's all controlled by pnuematics and other mechanical means, > I'd venture to guess that adding AWD and traction control would get > you there easily (relatively folks, relatively!). Of course, it'd be > as boring as batshit if they let those in - the only skills left (for > the driver [pilot?]) would be reaction time and punching the 'chute. They're pretty much at the point where they don't need drivers now, but as you say that'd take a lot of the fun out of it. Of course, some already think there is no skill at all in driving a dragster in a straight line for 5 seconds, and while I can tell you that I've never run that quick I've certainly done a 6.21 @ 220 pass in a top alcohol dragster and there's a f.cking *shitload* of stuff to do in that brief period. Especially when you're hand shifting a 3 speed lenco *and* crapping your pants at the same time :) -- Regards, Noddy. > It's been a very long time since I had anything to do with it, but even > back then 96% doses of "pop" were commonplace amongst the "fuel" racing [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > line and gear the car a little higher you'd see a sub 4 second quarter > mile and 400 miles per hour trap speeds. Here's a dumb question, would they be able to do it with a traction control system, ie, no wheelspin / burnout. Which would take a lot of the fun out of it I guess but perhaps be easier on the driveline allowing many components to be lighter or do less RPM. Need more traction? Are there rubber catipillar tracks good for high speed? > Here's a dumb question, would they be able to do it with a traction > control system, ie, no wheelspin / burnout. Which would take a lot of the > fun out of it I guess but perhaps be easier on the driveline allowing many > components to be lighter or do less RPM. Need more traction? They generally need as much traction as is possible, and then some. The clutch systems they use today are a traction control system of sorts, in that they're a variable stage device designed specifically to allow a certain percentage of slip, while pulling in more power as the car gets moving and picks up speed. Basically, the driver nails the throttle when launching the car and keeps his foot flat on it for the whole of the run. The clutch is set up to slip like crazy at the start so only enough power to get the car moving without spinning the wheels is transferred to the diff, and then more and more power is gradually put into the driveline as the run progresses by increasing the pressure on the clutch's plates to stop the slip happening. If all goes well and the traction is good, the car should have all of it's clutch in well before half track and be motoring along at full noise picking up speed as it goes. Prior to this the fuel burning cars used a centrifical clutch with a two speed manual trans that was a planetary type box that was shifted under full throttle, and usually by means of an air powered ram activated by a button on the steering wheel. > Are there rubber catipillar tracks good for high speed? No idea. Tyres are a necessary part of the gearing as far as drag racing is concerned, and it can get somewhat complex. They generally all run the same sized rear tyre in terms of width & diameter, but the width of the rim is free, and it's often changed depending on the level of traction the track has. The tyres themselves run very low pressure, in the area of 4-5 PSI or so, and have very soft sidewalls, and by varying the rim width you change the overall diameter of the tyre at speed, and effectively alter your gearing. For example, the tyres themselves have a normal "footprint" of 15 inches wide, and when traction isn't particularly great you run the widest rim you can which would be the full 15 inches. That limits the amount of tyre growth and keeps the contact patch as wide as possible on the track. If the traction is very good, you'd drop down to a ten inch wide rim which would allow the tyre to centrifuge out in the centre, reducing the contact patch but increasing the overall height of the tyre by as much as 12 inches. The car ends up going down the track with the tyre changing height and getting taller all the time, which in effect is changing the rear axle ratio on the fly making more speed possible for a given rpm. If you ever look at video of a dragster going down a track (or doing a burnout) you can see the back of the car "stand up" as the tyres grow. -- Regards, Noddy. > I admit I haven't followed this sport for years, but last I heard > they're only allowed to run 75% nitro and have some restrictions on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > launch a man/vehicle over a quarter in less than 4 seconds? That's > some serious shovel-in-the-face acceleration though. theoretically yes, but consequentially no. The drama is they are having trouble keeping the rear tyres together - even changing them every single run - by the end of the strip they are coming apart. A fatality brough it to a head (dragracingonline.com or .org has some good info btw - look at burke's blast archives - btw he also commented about the aussie driver who did the demo burnout and came to his defence, though they did cut the tv interview to a few sound bites, it was still clear he was a decent bloke) They've already moved to put rpm limiters on there that theoretically (given they are direct drive and a set diff ratio) limiting terminal mph, but people have already developed (and did within a week if I recall) workarounds for the devices. I can only suspect that it'll continue to be more heavily legislated - the rules as they stand are all there to slow them down more or less. I don't know what nhra or ihra are thinking on the topic, but my personal view is f.cking simple - drop the engine capacity - from the current 500 (last I looked) down to 426 (which might be a capacity that rev-heads will re-embrace, being as they are still hemi 'based' powerplants. That should drop over 800bhp (maybe more, they make well over 6000 from 500ci) and drop terminal speeds. OF COURSE, I'd love to see 3 second and 400mph barriers broken in my lifetime, but I'm wondering how much of those not being broken (potentially) will be due to rule changes to slow them down. You'll get a visit from aus.cars elder statesment to beat you with a pick handle for starting such an on topic post !  SignatureJohn McKenzie tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au If you didn't know it was wrong,why did you cover it up? abuse@msn.com $USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@cia.gov $USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au $LOGIN@localhost |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.