|
|
12-25-2013, 10:51 PM
|
#11 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 575
Likes: 298
Liked 747 Times in 136 Posts
|
Re: 60' times
In this case the 60' time is actually the time to go 60'+the car's wheelbase. You car then back cipher what it would have been in the front wheels tripped the 60' beams.
|
|
|
|
12-25-2013, 11:08 PM
|
#12 |
|
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 8
Liked 33 Times in 16 Posts
|
Re: 60' times
Let's say the car 60' on the back wheels @ 1.40...would it mean the car's actual 60' would have been around 1.29 if the front wheels had tripped the beam? Hard to figure a formula to arrive at it.
__________________
Rich Taylor I/SA - 321 |
|
|
|
|
12-25-2013, 11:36 PM
|
#13 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado Springs Colorado/Thousand Oaks Ca
Posts: 656
Likes: 82
Liked 372 Times in 129 Posts
|
Re: 60' times
Quote:
1.403 3.74 5.86 115.7 9.29 142.3 This was the fastest 60 foot ever by the same car with the lights tripped by the front tires 1.28 I feel this is pretty accurate, a 67 Chevelle that trips on the rear tires runs about 12 hundreths quicker than the 60 foot clocks indicate. My 68 Chevelle very consistently goes 1.395 on the rear tires, 3.73 330 although a shorter wheel base than the 67. http://www.trracecars.com/2foot.jpg http://www.trracecars.com/3foot.jpg http://www.trracecars.com/4foot.jpg Last edited by HP HUNTER; 12-25-2013 at 11:51 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-25-2013, 11:59 PM
|
#14 |
|
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 8
Liked 33 Times in 16 Posts
|
Re: 60' times
I'll be damned...my guesswork/math was pretty darn close lol.
__________________
Rich Taylor I/SA - 321 |
|
|
|
|
12-26-2013, 09:18 AM
|
#15 |
|
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somerset,Ky
Posts: 1,371
Likes: 352
Liked 304 Times in 102 Posts
|
Re: 60' times
Could stage w/ back tires once LOL
Mike Taylor 3601 |
|
|
|
|
12-26-2013, 02:54 PM
|
#16 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Donaldsonville, LA
Posts: 980
Likes: 17
Liked 228 Times in 70 Posts
|
Re: 60' times
Our stockers running mid 10s typically had a 1.48 60ft with rear tires and it was 1.33-4 with the front tires. However, the faster a car is the less et difference will be seen. So, if it's a low 9 second car it's probably around .12. A mid low to high 10 second would probably be .14-.16. However, if it is tripping the beams with the middle of the car, you can have inconsistent numbers. I have seen runs .05-.06 slower in 60ft with same 330 on my high 9 second Firebird.
__________________
Jimmy "Cooter" Hidalgo, Jr. 4865 E/SA '04 GTO 4865 SS/GA '99 Firebird |
|
|
|
|
12-26-2013, 04:57 PM
|
#17 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: mapleton, IL
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: 60' times
Subtract .10 - .145 depending on weight from the back wheel 60 foot and you will be close.
__________________
Don Higgins - Super Comp #360H |
|
|
|
|
12-26-2013, 05:34 PM
|
#18 |
|
VIP Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Houma, LA
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 2
Liked 325 Times in 50 Posts
|
Re: 60' times
Country puppy has it about right. It's a calculated guess, look at 330 also.
__________________
Jeff Teuton 4022 STK |
|
|
|
|
12-26-2013, 08:13 PM
|
#19 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sand Springs, OK
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 896
Liked 390 Times in 170 Posts
|
Re: 60' times
The 60' beams are 8" off the ground, right? You would have to be almost straight up at 60' to catch it with the rear tires, and not the rocker panel. How high the front determines where along the rocker panel the beam catch it. Normally I'm 1.27X to 1.28X, straight up I'm 1.4X.
__________________
Ed Wright 4156 SS/JA |
|
|
|
|
12-26-2013, 08:36 PM
|
#20 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado Springs Colorado/Thousand Oaks Ca
Posts: 656
Likes: 82
Liked 372 Times in 129 Posts
|
Re: 60' times
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
