Had fun tonight for my first time WSID 16/05/07

[ginganggooly]

sydteg21 is right on Any time you get more traction and decreasing your 60 foot times you are putting more of the usable power to the ground giving more performance and that equals more speed not less. And this is in general trap speeds go up and down for many reasons.

What i'm about to post is a gross oversimplification: V = U + AT
Provided the initial velocity is the same, in this can 0, a reduction in time spent at a constant rate of acceleration will result in a lower terminal velocity...

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here you go:

[bennjamin]

All well and good but your graph is constant and doesn't allow for TIRE SLIPPAGE and a moving car is NOT AT A CONSTANT RATE OF SPEED. It is accelerating in a non-linear manner. Nice try though

dont forget gear ratios / wind resistance / weight blah blah.
Anyway im going with jeremy again in 2 weeks , anyone want to come with ?

[grumpy rooster]

Generally, better 60ft times will result in lower mph for the same vehicle. You will hardly ever see a car run its highest trap speed and its quickest ET on the same run.

That has been demonstrated many times.

[sydteg21]

Generally, better 60ft times will result in lower mph for the same vehicle. You will hardly ever see a car run its highest trap speed and its quickest ET on the same run.

That has been demonstrated many times.

oh ok, maybe you are right , but from what ben has run, 14.8@92mph 60ft 2.6, 14.6@ 97mph 60ft 2.4 , 14.1* @99.* 60ft 2.2*, i don;t know why the trend goes that then

[ginganggooly]

All well and good but your graph is constant and doesn't allow for TIRE SLIPPAGE and a moving car is NOT AT A CONSTANT RATE OF ACCELERATION. It is accelerating in a non-linear manner. Nice try though

Nice try?

I never said, nor implied that acceleration was constant, however given scenario at hand, the rule does hold true, and accounts for the (normally) inverse relationship between trap speed and 60' times, all else being equal.

As was stated, it's a gross oversimplification.

I've seen it in my car, i've witnessed it in other cars, and I'm sure that others here have noticed the same thing. There is even a physics formula that backs the theory up...

dont forget gear ratios / wind resistance / weight blah blah.
Anyway im going with jeremy again in 2 weeks , anyone want to come with ?

These are constants, cars generally don't alter drag coefficients or gear ratios between runs, so for this discussion, they're irrelevent...

[bennjamin]

These are constants, cars generally don't alter drag coefficients or gear ratios between runs, so for this discussion, they're irrelevent...

The "etc etc" refers to varibles , which there is.That much we know , and its all up to the driver to squeeze the best possible time out of their car for that 1/4 run
Lets not get hooked up on EXACT figures and theories fellas - is it a simple answer of " its the driver not the car" ?!?

As EG5 said Practice makes perfect !