How will you go faster?

[F-BIRD'88]

Are you going to tell your opponent. that if we ran at sea level. "I would have beat ya". ?

[skinny z]

Are you going to tell your opponent. that if we ran at sea level. "I would have beat ya". ?

You are aware that there are altitude correction factors in class racing don't you? This is no different.
When my racing opponent is in Ontario and I'm in Alberta, it makes for an easy comparison. When I made my first pass at altitude I couldn't believe the offset. So much so that I thought for sure something had let go in the car. Nope. A DA of 3000' will do that to you. Correcting for the atmospheric difference resulted in the cars performance being EXACTLY the same.
That's all there is to that.

[F-BIRD'88]

Ya. ya ok fine..

I build mine to fast in the car at the track..
To get to the stripe first.
Not internet "corrected" fast.

[skinny z]

Ya. ya ok fine..

I build mine to fast in the car at the track..
To get to the stripe first.
Not internet "corrected" fast.

I prefer the internet method.
And apparently so does the NHRA.
But I hear what you're saying. I guess it's going to take a mineshaft air day for me to reach my objectives.

[Stan Weiss]

Ya. ya ok fine..

I build mine to fast in the car at the track..
To get to the stripe first.
Not internet "corrected" fast.

So when someone asks you how much HP did your engine make on the dyno. Do tell them that or the corrected HP?

Stan

[F-BIRD'88]

Ya. ya ok fine..

I build mine to fast in the car at the track..
To get to the stripe first.
Not internet "corrected" fast.

So when someone asks you how much HP did your engine make on the dyno. Do tell them that or the corrected HP?

Stan

I tell 'em what it did at the wheel, in the car.

If they want to know the dyno tested power I'll pull the engine and dyno it for them (at their cost).
They can keep the dyno sheets...

[Stan Weiss]

Ya. ya ok fine..

I build mine to fast in the car at the track..
To get to the stripe first.
Not internet "corrected" fast.

So when someone asks you how much HP did your engine make on the dyno. Do tell them that or the corrected HP?

Stan

I tell 'em what it did at the wheel, in the car.

If they want to know the dyno tested power I'll pull the engine and dyno it for them (at their cost).
They can keep the dyno sheets...

Interesting. Just how do you get that number?

Stan

[David Redszus]

This is the torque curve I used for my sim.
Stan
3500 410.49
3600 414.33
3700 418.18
3800 422.02
3900 425.86
4000 429.69
4100 433.54
4200 434.18
4300 435.46
4400 437.25
4500 437.88
4600 436.22
4700 434.18
4800 432.25
4900 430.98
5000 430.34
5100 429.06
5200 427.78
5300 426.5
5400 422.65
5500 418.81
5600 413.05
5700 407.93
5800 403.44
5900 398.32
6000 393.84
6140 382.95
6280 372.06
6420 361.18
6560 350.28
6700 339.41]

Stan
Thank you for the torque curve.
But I have a bit of a dilemma. I can only use 25 data points so that means I have to use data
from either 4100 to 6700 rpm, or from 3500 to 5900 rpm. The peak torque and peak power values don't change but the rpm range that is applied does produce different results.

Can you possibly extend the data set at both ends to produce a broader rpm band?

3500-5900 rpm
60ft = 1.032s, 50.11mph
1320ft = 9.990s, 120.26mph

4100-6700 rpm
60 ft = 0.946s, 51.84mph
1320 ft = 9.510s, 122.35mph

Max acceleration
1. 1.123g
2. 0.955
3. 0.614
4. 0.339

The above performance results considered a 10% drive train friction loss and a 2% rolling resistance loss.
No clutch slippage or torque converter effects considered. Ambient conditions per SAE J1349.

Will furnish graphs when I learn how to post them.

[F-BIRD'88]

Ya. ya ok fine..

I build mine to fast in the car at the track..
To get to the stripe first.
Not internet "corrected" fast.

I prefer the internet method.
And apparently so does the NHRA.
But I hear what you're saying. I guess it's going to take a mineshaft air day for me to reach my objectives.

No, you just got to step on that 350 sbc so it runs high 11's @3000 elevation in Calgary.
Yup the #3600 car is going to need gearz and a converter.

The all in cost is the same .
And you can drive to the coast in it. If you want.

[Stan Weiss]

This is the torque curve I used for my sim.
Stan
3500 410.49
3600 414.33
3700 418.18
3800 422.02
3900 425.86
4000 429.69
4100 433.54
4200 434.18
4300 435.46
4400 437.25
4500 437.88
4600 436.22
4700 434.18
4800 432.25
4900 430.98
5000 430.34
5100 429.06
5200 427.78
5300 426.5
5400 422.65
5500 418.81
5600 413.05
5700 407.93
5800 403.44
5900 398.32
6000 393.84
6140 382.95
6280 372.06
6420 361.18
6560 350.28
6700 339.41]

Stan
Thank you for the torque curve.
But I have a bit of a dilemma. I can only use 25 data points so that means I have to use data
from either 4100 to 6700 rpm, or from 3500 to 5900 rpm. The peak torque and peak power values don't change but the rpm range that is applied does produce different results.

Can you possibly extend the data set at both ends to produce a broader rpm band?

3500-5900 rpm
60ft = 1.032s, 50.11mph
1320ft = 9.990s, 120.26mph

4100-6700 rpm
60 ft = 0.946s, 51.84mph
1320 ft = 9.510s, 122.35mph

Max acceleration
1. 1.123g
2. 0.955
3. 0.614
4. 0.339

The above performance results considered a 10% drive train friction loss and a 2% rolling resistance loss.
No clutch slippage or torque converter effects considered. Ambient conditions per SAE J1349.

Will furnish graphs when I learn how to post them.

David,
I am not sure what you want. How much lower and how far higher do you needed?

Stan

[David Redszus]

This is the torque curve I used for my sim.
Stan
3500 410.49
3600 414.33
3700 418.18
3800 422.02
3900 425.86
4000 429.69
4100 433.54
4200 434.18
4300 435.46
4400 437.25
4500 437.88
4600 436.22
4700 434.18
4800 432.25
4900 430.98
5000 430.34
5100 429.06
5200 427.78
5300 426.5
5400 422.65
5500 418.81
5600 413.05
5700 407.93
5800 403.44
5900 398.32
6000 393.84
6140 382.95
6280 372.06
6420 361.18
6560 350.28
6700 339.41]

Stan
Thank you for the torque curve.
But I have a bit of a dilemma. I can only use 25 data points so that means I have to use data
from either 4100 to 6700 rpm, or from 3500 to 5900 rpm. The peak torque and peak power values don't change but the rpm range that is applied does produce different results.

Can you possibly extend the data set at both ends to produce a broader rpm band?

3500-5900 rpm
60ft = 1.032s, 50.11mph
1320ft = 9.990s, 120.26mph

4100-6700 rpm
60 ft = 0.946s, 51.84mph
1320 ft = 9.510s, 122.35mph

Max acceleration
1. 1.123g
2. 0.955
3. 0.614
4. 0.339

The above performance results considered a 10% drive train friction loss and a 2% rolling resistance loss.
No clutch slippage or torque converter effects considered. Ambient conditions per SAE J1349.

Will furnish graphs when I learn how to post them.

David,
I am not sure what you want. How much lower and how far higher do you needed?

Stan

Stan
That is a very flat torque curve.
The curve starts at 3500rpm which is close to the torque peak and provides a launch speed of 27 mph.
It would be nice to see the low end of the curve down to about 1000rpm which would be about 7 mph.
The 60ft results would be more realistic.

How many and which gears are you using? Would you like to change them or leave them as is?

[ClassAct]

Ya. ya ok fine..

I build mine to fast in the car at the track..
To get to the stripe first.
Not internet "corrected" fast.

So when someone asks you how much HP did your engine make on the dyno. Do tell them that or the corrected HP?

Stan

You’re crazy if you use observed numbers for sure.

[Stan Weiss]

Stan
Thank you for the torque curve.
But I have a bit of a dilemma. I can only use 25 data points so that means I have to use data
from either 4100 to 6700 rpm, or from 3500 to 5900 rpm. The peak torque and peak power values don't change but the rpm range that is applied does produce different results.

Can you possibly extend the data set at both ends to produce a broader rpm band?

3500-5900 rpm
60ft = 1.032s, 50.11mph
1320ft = 9.990s, 120.26mph

4100-6700 rpm
60 ft = 0.946s, 51.84mph
1320 ft = 9.510s, 122.35mph

Max acceleration
1. 1.123g
2. 0.955
3. 0.614
4. 0.339

The above performance results considered a 10% drive train friction loss and a 2% rolling resistance loss.
No clutch slippage or torque converter effects considered. Ambient conditions per SAE J1349.

Will furnish graphs when I learn how to post them.

David,
I am not sure what you want. How much lower and how far higher do you needed?

Stan

Stan
That is a very flat torque curve.
The curve starts at 3500rpm which is close to the torque peak and provides a launch speed of 27 mph.
It would be nice to see the low end of the curve down to about 1000rpm which would be about 7 mph.
The 60ft results would be more realistic.

How many and which gears are you using? Would you like to change them or leave them as is?

David,
See if this helps.

Stan

1000 246.5
1100 260.5
1200 273.5
1300 285.5
1400 296.5
1500 306.5
1600 316
1700 325
1800 333.5
1900 341
2000 348
2100 354.5
2200 359
2300 363
2400 367
2500 370.9
2600 374.7
2700 378.5
2800 382.3
2900 386
3000 389.9
3100 393.7
3200 397.5
3300 401.0
3400 407.2

[Bigchief632]

Exactly my ET.
12.48 @ 109 w/ a 1.90 60'.
So I guess I was already making 450 HP.?

That said, in the spirit of this thread, 450 should be much faster. As mentioned, that was an all street car.

You should be able to run 12.11 at that mph. Obviously the 60 needs work. Seems like a slow 60 to run 12.48 in a heavy car. Sure it wasn't more in the 1.7 range?

No sir. 1.89-1.85.
That pass, with a minus 100' DA ( beautiful fall racing weather at the old track in Ontario). 60's were at their worst. Foot brake to 2200. RPMs fell to below 4000 on the shifts despite carrying to 6500 on the 1-2.
I think with that same engine, the new converter and transmission plus tires, I should see that 12 teen.
Best was 1.7 flat with a different rear gear and tire. If I get that back, it might make the difference.
11's are the goal but I'll have to go to the sea level track on the coast for a sniff of that.

If your best pass was ar -100 da, that's like running 100 feet below sea level, corrected, so running at a sea level track it would go slower,

[skinny z]

You should be able to run 12.11 at that mph. Obviously the 60 needs work. Seems like a slow 60 to run 12.48 in a heavy car. Sure it wasn't more in the 1.7 range?

No sir. 1.89-1.85.
That pass, with a minus 100' DA ( beautiful fall racing weather at the old track in Ontario). 60's were at their worst. Foot brake to 2200. RPMs fell to below 4000 on the shifts despite carrying to 6500 on the 1-2.
I think with that same engine, the new converter and transmission plus tires, I should see that 12 teen.
Best was 1.7 flat with a different rear gear and tire. If I get that back, it might make the difference.
11's are the goal but I'll have to go to the sea level track on the coast for a sniff of that.

If your best pass was ar -100 da, that's like running 100 feet below sea level, corrected, so running at a sea level track it would go slower,

And now you can see why I don't bother correcting a negative DA pass!
Seriously though, while I keep a record of all of my time slips (which by the way, after ten years or so the slips themselves sort of fade to the point of being unreadable) I also check the DA on the day and record that too. If for nothing other than being able to compare different runs on different days. Or years for that matter.
Case in point was the back to back, spread 6 months apart, 2500 miles east to west and 1500+' up runs I did when I moved. I wanted 12 second slips (yeah, not great I know) from opposite sides of the country. Well, I got that, legitimately and uncorrected, but using the DA compensation, the runs were exactly the same.