How important is 60ft time? - Page 2

Sox · 25-07-2005, 10:02 PM

jonbays -
His best time on the day was actually 14.9 @ 92mph.
Oh, it's also a XG, my DEV5 was a XH, which is now his anyway... Clear as mud?!

:

Rick.

jonbays · 25-07-2005, 10:11 PM

Sox how can anyone keep up to speed with you guys swapping cars all the time?

Ok its the XG which at the time was dev3Hl wasn't it?

And yes that was the average of our top 5 runs not his best or my best.

To be fair here are all the top 5 runs. It still shows the 60' is where its at.
Name 60' 330' 660' MPH 1000' ET MPH
Danny 2.134 6.093 9.511 72.13 12.435 14.937 85.20
Danny 2.153 6.199 9.647 71.33 12.592 15.136 85.63
Danny 2.168 6.217 9.690 70.89 12.653 15.142 89.20
Danny 2.169 6.225 9.697 70.65 12.680 15.199 88.13
Danny 2.242 6.343 9.810 71.12 12.760 15.219 91.76
Top 5 2.173 6.215 9.671 71.22 12.624 15.127 87.98
jonbays 2.361 6.649 10.112 71.49 13.088 15.609 90.14
jonbays 2.369 6.654 10.136 71.10 13.125 15.679 87.35
jonbays 2.429 6.743 10.209 71.56 13.182 15.701 90.15
jonbays 2.357 6.648 10.154 70.89 13.161 15.708 89.30
jonbays 2.397 6.695 10.174 71.25 13.159 15.708 88.98
Top 5 2.383 6.678 10.157 71.26 13.143 15.681 89.18

jonbays · 25-07-2005, 10:14 PM

I agree with the 14.9 and 92mph but never saw one run with both?

I am pretty sure I have all the results but might have missed a late one.

Sox · 25-07-2005, 10:30 PM

jonbays -
Yeh you're right, it was 2 seperate runs actually, I just had a look at the timeslips.

Rick.

jonbays · 26-07-2005, 10:28 PM

Its funny strange how the launch 60' and Et and TS all work together.

Danny's best TS 91.76mph was at the expense of a lousy (for him) 60' of 2.24 and only gave an ET of 15.2.

His best ET 14.9 was with a nice 2.13 for the 60" only gave an 85mph TS.

But it proves its all in the 60' again

SpoolMan · 26-07-2005, 10:59 PM

Last time Rod out had a thrash in my brothers AU6, 60 foot was 2.18 and it got a PB of 96 mph.. shows there is more to be gained on the 60 foot ....even in an auto a different driver can make difference.

**Stav** · 27-07-2005, 12:27 AM

Well thanks for the posts guys.It has come down to this...

A 3.9 or 3.7 diff ratio should see an AU six gain some down the quarter.
A hi stall converter will allow me to get a good 60ft time and .5 off a 1/4 mile

The cons wil be a diff will rev harder and need a speedo correction device...cost $1400 for lsd diff and extra for speedo calibration.

A high stall converter Jmm has yet to show any cons apart from extra heat in the tranny.A cost of 650 and 180 for cooler and 200 for a tranny place to fit it..total $980.
The only fear in my mind with stallie is how it will really behave with reverse parking and will it sit their spinning if I floor it to get away from a dangerous situaion.

Cost wise the stallie and with the effects of a much better 6o ft time and 1/4 mile seems to be the best mod of the two. Also the car will be allowed to still rev out to top end power without being pulled back by a stiffer diff ratio...so top end power will not be affected.the street acceleration should be what the doctor ordered to anihilate most gung ho muscle cars out there.

Unfortnately ..though ..the bills are coming in thick and fast....It will have to wait for a while longer.

**Chris** · 27-07-2005, 10:08 AM

I dont look at my 60 anymore, the last meeting my 60's were the slowest they have been for a while, but ran 4 12 sec passes one after the other.

I'll give u guys a tip.

If you have a heavy car and little power, like anything we are driving, the run is decided after the first gearshift.

Get a killer 60, and shift past your powerband, or too early? run is dead.

If im in my XD or the BA, I look at the 330, or if the track doesn't record it, the half track et.

Dave got a killer 60 the other night, a 1.94, but ruined it by shifting at 5500 rather than the 6000 that i use. so the car had all the increments BAR the 330, the 330 was a tenth down, meaning his 12.96 could have been a 12.86.

The 330 is it. start looking at your timeslips and you will see that whilst important, if you hookup, the 330 is the figure to watch. Run a good 60 and have a crapola ET?

its a sure bet something happend in the 330 that shouldn't have, tyreslip, hit limiter, shortshift, etc.

**Stav** · 27-07-2005, 05:22 PM

Actually you are right.....and what gives it away more is the 660 ft..times. I am seeing strong consistency with 660ft times and the 1/4 mile.

**Chris** · 27-07-2005, 07:35 PM

There you go man.........

:

stockstandard · 27-07-2005, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

If you have a heavy car and little power, like anything we are driving, the run is decided after the first gearshift.

ok, but assuming you are driving an auto or are shifting consistantly with a manual, there isn't much that is going to happen after the 60' that is going to change the time you get (unless you change the power of the enigne or the weight of the car). On the other hand, the difference between getting to the 60' line with a good launch and a bad launch is a couple of tenths tenths or more.

stockstandard · 27-07-2005, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by useless

Actually you are right.....and what gives it away more is the 660 ft..times. I am seeing strong consistency with 660ft times and the 1/4 mile.

The reason why you get more consistancy between 660 and 1/4 mile times is because the time gain/lossed during the launch has been averaged out over a longer distance. In a way I suppose it is king of like an average between the launch and the run.

So I guess it comes down to if your asking "how important is the 60' compared to the final ET", or "How important is the 60' to improving or making the most of your run"

**Stav** · 28-07-2005, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stockstandard

The reason why you get more consistancy between 660 and 1/4 mile times is because the time gain/lossed during the launch has been averaged out over a longer distance. In a way I suppose it is king of like an average between the launch and the run.

So I guess it comes down to if your asking "how important is the 60' compared to the final ET", or "How important is the 60' to improving or making the most of your run"

Well as i can see the other times are important but yes it does appear that a good 60ft time helps a crapload..

A 660ft time of around 9.2-9.5 seems to be pretty consistent with 14 second 1/4 miles.

Kev_BLNXR8_Ute · 29-07-2005, 08:14 PM

Well I just came across this thread. I guess Im one of the ones that break the rules. I think I still have the best 60 foot times for a BA around but I definatly dont have the quickest time......

Hey Chris what ever happened to the tramp rod you said you made for me????
I may have to come out befor the kids arrive and try for a new 60 foot time.
I wouldnt mind going to the PFM Nats....

Cheers all

**Chris** · 30-07-2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kev_xr8_ute

Well I just came across this thread. I guess Im one of the ones that break the rules. I think I still have the best 60 foot times for a BA around but I definatly dont have the quickest time......

Hey Chris what ever happened to the tramp rod you said you made for me????
I may have to come out befor the kids arrive and try for a new 60 foot time.
I wouldnt mind going to the PFM Nats....

Cheers all

G'day mate, hope things are well with the missus etc

I ditched the tramp rod idea, because I reckon after i made more grunt it hurt me rather than helped me - I have seen your car, although it still launches hard, I have seen it skip through the 60 - you are welcome to use them mate.