1/4 estimate

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Racecraft

my car has similiar mph, mid 92mph and looking at about 5 or so slips in front of me, my average 60 footer of 2.2? is 15.0? .. AS soon as I fluff the launch and hit a 2.3-2.4 60 footer the mph stays but the time falls off to 15.3+

That is the fact, I am quoting figures from when my AU was running the 3.45 and 5 speed.. The only difference was this lad is running the XR cam and it is winter not Qld summer :(

with a 2.4 60' time what was the 660' time and mph Tibbo? Just for comparison.

[Racecraft]

Originally Posted by xr62nv

wat ever more trouble this causes im just going to conclude this

the only wrong number here is the end mph. I believe they may have been alot better possibly around the 95mph mark.

If this was the case then the slowish take off was made up for after half track and with a decent take off the car is in the 14's as the approximated 95mph (which i believe should of been) will suggest

Yours will be the first and only stocko 6 banger to push 95mph then.. Even the BA brges can't crack a 95mph

[Racecraft]

Originally Posted by Casper

with a 2.4 60' time what was the 660' time and mph Tibbo? Just for comparison.

Quickly
one here says:-
2.254 60 footer = 660' of 9.787 @ 72.41mph
then it falls off to
2.499 60 ft = 660' of 10.366 @ 71.00mph <--hehehe alittle to many rpm me thinks :P

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Racecraft

Quickly
one here says:-
2.254 60 footer = 660' of 9.787 @ 72.41mph
then it falls off to
2.499 60 ft = 660' of 10.366 @ 71.00mph <--hehehe alittle to many rpm me thinks :P

lol, that second one must have been a Fire Brigade call out.. that much smoke. To get a 2.5 60' and have a 10.3 660' you must have smoked it for a long time.. a looooong time :
Strangely though you were only 0.2 seconds slower to the 660' and I'm betting a mid to high 15 ET.

No matter which way I look at it a 2.6 60' and a 10.1 660' doesnt make a 15.09 ET.. ever. The car isnt doing 95mph, thats just fairy land stuff.


xr62nv please tell me you are not subtracting your reaction time from the ET?

[AU2PWR]

or just scan the time slip !

[Stav]

Originally Posted by AU2PWR

or just scan the time slip !

This will end all speculation.

[trick_xd]

LoL .. this thread is useless without a slip

[FS5]

Originally Posted by Fast VRX

Like I said I smell bullshit. I had a run against FS5 who I met at the 7till11 night at willowbank this thursday gone. Here's the info

Me FS5
60ft 2.121 2.127
330ft 6.050 6.148
660ft 9.317 9.550
M.P.H 74.78 73.10
1000ft 12.113 12.415
E.T. 14.478 14.830
MPH 95.72 93.79

I really doubt he ran those time's in his car, unless he provided some proof ie put a pic up of the time sheet, take a pic on his phone and send it to a memeber who can then put it up on here to prove it.

That's my say

this is true ,i had my last run with vrx.i got the jump on him off the line but he ran me down like i was standing still and took the win by .032 was real good fun .
xr62nv ,from what i have read on this thread it may well just be a timing anomally ,i don't doubt the 15.0 ET .but we realy nead to see your time slip.

[AUTickford]

Its not uncommon for people to think reaction time affects the overal time or terminal speed,because most inexperienced racers think it does, reaction time doesnt mean **** unless you bracket racer or if you get a 000 you win cash at the plex.Next wednesday isnt that far away so we will all see what happens next time.By the sounds of it a 14 is a sure thing :

[tquarrell]

that's a very good time I have to say, well done mate.

And to all the above who are worried about the 60ft time, the magna time shown by casper shows that it's possible to run that speed and time. I think you guys are forgetting that the car will be no where near 100 km/h at the 60' mark, more like 50-60 kay's at best. The auto's are natoriously slow under 60km/h and given he said he stalled it to only 800rpm it makes total sense to me.

BTW my xr6t used to do 0-100 in about 5 seconds flat, and did a 13.4 with a 2.2 60ft, ie 0-100 times are more closely correlated to 1/4 mile times than 60' times, as Stav suggested.

[The Monty]

Im pretty sure he has a manual.

[StealthAu]

Yet again we have someone who has claimed something that just dosn't sound right and then dissapears. Anyone remember the "TS40" owner who was going to post up his tickford certificate?

[XR8-260]

Wasn't this guy supposed to post up a timeslip? Hmmm...

[Casper]

Originally Posted by 3

Wasn't this guy supposed to post up a timeslip? Hmmm...

I guess its too hard to scan a fairytale.

End result is it didnt happen. I'm betting he subtracted the RT from the ET to get this time. That would make more sense.