Timeslip Page Oddities & Discrepancies

[Smokie]

I think the timeslip page needs some serious cleaning up, for example the quickest Marauder on earth has 470 rwhp according to the page. I know that there are many diverse factors that determine the total picture, but I still believe there is a huge amount of information that does not add up.

Just for fun I ran my numbers which by the way, every single category is accurate and correct to the timeslip I posted:

Ranking:

1/4 ET= ...45th
1/4 MPH= 46th
1/8 ET=....44th
1/8 MPH= 45th
60' =........33rd (street tires, stock wheels)
HP =.........70th

The above are my sortables results, et's and mph's are very consistent, 60' and RWHP stand out as oddities (to me)...What do you think????:D

[Bluerauder]

I think the timeslip page needs some serious cleaning up, for example the quickest Marauder on earth has 470 rwhp according to the page. I know that there are many diverse factors that determine the total picture, but I still believe there is a huge amount of information that does not add up.

Just for fun I ran my numbers which by the way, every single category is accurate and correct to the timeslip I posted:

Ranking:

1/4 ET= ...45th
1/4 MPH= 46th
1/8 ET=....44th
1/8 MPH= 45th
60' =........33rd (street tires, stock wheels)
HP =.........70th

The above are my sortables results, et's and mph's are very consistent, 60' and RWHP stand out as oddities (to me)...What do you think????:D
At first blush :o I would say that you are "hooking" better than most in your category and that is making up for the difference in RWHP. The short version is that what you are gaining on the front end of the track, you are losing closer to the line. Does this make any sense? Compare your RWTQ to those in the 40's bracket. You should be a little higher there.

[O's Fan Rich]

The CAM guy's be cheatin' Jav!

[MarauderTJA]

You are 100% right Javier. Shermanators car at 470 RWHP, yeah right:eek:.

My RWHP is based on the N2O shot and C16 race gas which is additionally based on my dyno run.

Even Jerry's car is far from the actual HP it is putting down.

[Smokie]

At first blush :o I would say that you are "hooking" better than most in your category and that is making up for the difference in RWHP. The short version is that what you are gaining on the front end of the track, you are losing closer to the line. Does this make any sense? Compare your RWTQ to those in the 40's bracket. You should be a little higher there.

My RWTQ is 375, but I don't know how to compare, torque is not listed on timeslip page. I was not really that concerned with my numbers they are I believe consistent and average (except for my 60':banana:) I ran the sortables on my car and listed them above because being my car is not going to upset anybody, but I ran the sortables on several other cars and the results were odd to say the least.:confused:

[MarauderTJA]

My RWTQ is 375, but I don't know how to compare, torque is not listed on timeslip page. I was not really that concerned with my numbers they are I believe consistent and average (except for my 60':banana:) I ran the sortables on my car and listed them above because being my car is not going to upset anybody, but I ran the sortables on several other cars and the results were odd to say the least.:confused:

Are you using a computer program to run those? I ran some numbers with my weight of the car with me in it, HP, TQ and "present 60 foot" and MPH and it (with everything going right) and a .10 better sixty foot put me in the nines. We will soon find out:D.

[Smokie]

Are you using a computer program to run those? I ran some numbers with my weight of the car with me in it, HP, TQ and "present 60 foot" and MPH and it (with everything going right) and a .10 better sixty foot put me in the nines. We will soon find out:D.

No computer Tom just my head (scary ain't it?). Tom you have the fastest Marauder and I don't know for example what your race weight in the vehicle is. Mine for example is 4410 and it includes driver, if you find a way to get your 60' in the 1.5 range I feel very confident you are in the high 9's. Javier.:D

[FordNut]

Both of my MPH numbers put me in the top 5, the ET's put me in the top 20, the 60' is more like #66. Smoked the street tires off the line! The HP sure helps make up for a bad launch. It would be nice to have a column for race weight, mine was 4970.

[Smokie]

Both of my MPH numbers put me in the top 5, the ET's put me in the top 20, the 60' is more like #66. Smoked the street tires off the line! The HP sure helps make up for a bad launch. It would be nice to have a column for race weight, mine was 4970.

Brian, race weight would be great to have, 60' can be just about any number under the sun, but trap speed is directly related to horsepower, our cars have auto trannies, same aerodynamics and should be about the same weight (but they are not;)) I think many listed RWHP are either wrong or not the cars true RWHP at the time the timeslip was achieved.

[Blown3.8]

Well I ran a few calculators online for Sherman's car. And the results were scary. A couple of them said 722 rwhp with 900 at the crank. At first I thought :bs:, then I found a calc that you put in hp, weight, gear shifts, tire height, and gear ratio. So I punched in the 722hp and it came up with et and mph numbers within .1 and 1mph of his 10.30 pass:eek:.

Here's the calcs I used.
this one's the one if you know your HP
http://www.wallaceracing.com/accel-calc.php

This one for HP
http://www.fastcoolcars.com/hp_calculator.htm

I'm more inclined to think the car is closer to 620rwhp with the juice. Thats right were 470rwhp + 125 shot would put it. And this calc put it http://www.dragtimes.com/horsepower-et-trap-speed-calculator.php . If I take the 722 engine hp it says and subtract 15% driveline loss puts it at 613rwhp.;)

We only post the numbers we've seen in print. Not estimates.:beer:

[FordNut]

I think many listed RWHP are either wrong or not the cars true RWHP at the time the timeslip was achieved.

True.

And BTW, my posted timeslip is not current because my scanner is broken. But a video of the run was posted on youtube, there is a link somewhere on here.

[Blown3.8]

Brian, did you go quicker that 11.64 after Atlanta? I'd like to see that vid.

Here's you SSHS run.
http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u216/blown38/?action=view&current=20081108122421-1.flv

[FordNut]

Brian, did you go quicker that 11.64 after Atlanta? I'd like to see that vid.

Here's you SSHS run.
http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u216/blown38/?action=view&current=20081108122421-1.flv

No, I took it home and pulled the tranny. That is the only run I have made with the new engine setup. Working on the 4R100 conversion. Thanks for the link.

[Smokie]

We only post the numbers we've seen in print. Not estimates.:beer:
I hope only that when horsepower is listed that it reflects the actual horsepower needed to achieve the run in question. It makes the timeslip page a more useful tool.

For example if a listed 470 RWHP supports a trap speed of 130 mph and 480 RWHP supports a trap speed of 114 mph, if you are looking in a timeslip page for the same identical cars and came across this it would seem odd because even it you blow the start, horsepower will give you similar trap speeds.:beer:

[Bluerauder]

I hope only that when horsepower is listed that it reflects the actual horsepower needed to achieve the run in question. It makes the timeslip page a more useful tool.

For example if a listed 470 RWHP supports a trap speed of 130 mph and 480 RWHP supports a trap speed of 114 mph, if you are looking in a timeslip page for the same identical cars and came across this it would seem odd because even it you blow the start, horsepower will give you similar trap speeds.:beer:
I understand the point that you are trying to make Javier. However, the timeslips page is actually a database that is being maintained right now by 173 different people. I seriously doubt that the kind of precision, accuracy & consistency that you are looking for is even remotely achievable under those circumstances. Use the best of the information that you have and discard the anomalies or make a note of them. It seems to me that you have made alot of progress in that regard already. As you may recall, the current timeslips page was an improvement over the past version.

[Smokie]

I understand the point that you are trying to make Javier. However, the timeslips page is actually a database that is being maintained right now by 173 different people. I seriously doubt that the kind of precision, accuracy & consistency that you are looking for is even remotely achievable under those circumstances. Use the best of the information that you have and discard the anomalies or make a note of them. It seems to me that you have made alot of progress in that regard already. As you may recall, the current timeslips page was an improvement over the past version.

Charlie you are right, is only as accurate as any one individual is willing to make it, I don't mean to make it a big deal; is not. For some reason when I see a collection of numbers my eyes seem to jump to what sticks out or don't make sense. I have a terrible habit of focusing on the anomalies.

Anyway is all good, I wish all our members here a Happy, Prosperous and Healthy New Year!!!:beer:

[Vortech347]

All the HP in the world isn't worth a damn thing if you can't put it down to the ground.

[MarauderTJA]

Both of my MPH numbers put me in the top 5, the ET's put me in the top 20, the 60' is more like #66. Smoked the street tires off the line! The HP sure helps make up for a bad launch. It would be nice to have a column for race weight, mine was 4970.

I was at 4550 lbs with just under a half of tank race fuel with me in it.

[MarauderTJA]

Charlie you are right, is only as accurate as any one individual is willing to make it, I don't mean to make it a big deal; is not. For some reason when I see a collection of numbers my eyes seem to jump to what sticks out or don't make sense. I have a terrible habit of focusing on the anomalies.

Anyway is all good, I wish all our members here a Happy, Prosperous and Healthy New Year!!!:beer:

I miss ya buddy....

[Blown3.8]

Smokie I hear what your saying. I have to look closer to see if there is somewhere that I can put 125 shot of N2O so if someone looked they could see that and get a better estimate of the horsepower used to run the time.

I just don't like putting #'s down that I can't prove.

But then again I don't like looking at dyno #'s anyhow. The dyno is only important to me to dial the tune in. Then take the car to the track and see what it runs in the real world.

[Blackened300a]

According to that calculator for me to run a 13.633 Im putting down 330 RWHP and 412 HP at the crank. On the dyno I put down 293 RWHP. The only way it was accurate was when I dropped the weight down to 3775lb's which is impossible when I ran my car at the track.

This can't be 100% accurate because it dont compensate for gears, TC, tire size, shifting, etc...

[MarauderTJA]

I just don't like putting #'s down that I can't prove.

But then again I don't like looking at dyno #'s anyhow. The dyno is only important to me to dial the tune in. Then take the car to the track and see what it runs in the real world.

I agree Chris, but the only proof of RWHP numbers are from the dyno. Granted track numbers is where it counts. Our cars and presently only two others (more to come in 09 I'm sure) are putting out the HP with the ET and MPH to back it up. You know as do I and others here it takes serious work, research, track testing, money and more to make the 10's which is a major accomplishment. 10's do not come easy with out Marauders.