Why does my calibration have to be off?
they are the ones without real experience of speed. Why isnt it theres for driving slow cars. Thats another way to look at it. 
It's all perspective. My 95 hits low to mid 9s on a 300 shot and hits low 1.3 sixty's. Even it's starting to feel slow and I'm thinking about adding a second stage just because Im getting used to how the car runs. But mid 13 second cars aren't throwing anyone back in their seats. I don't care what their experience level is. I mean what are we talking a 1.9 sixty at best on street tires and a 1.7 on drag radials?Why does my calibration have to be off?
Now thats what im talking about. 8-9 second cars. Thats what in used too. I couldnt agree more. I just dont see 13 second cars doing it, not even 12s or high 11s. I can see mid or low 11s or faster doing it. Id say youre spot on with your 60ft predictions.
Have to go with a bigger shot to make up for the lack of cubes. 363 dart engine here.
:cheers: i think i made around 650 na with the dominator carb i used. It had an issue with wheelies but i didnt wanna correct it. It was fun. i think it would have been high 8s If not for the wheelies. Nice build you have. I went with world products man o war. I kept it manual. I take it you did as well?
Stalled C4 leaving off a trans brake. The auto is what makes the car as fast as it is. UPR suspension. Considering a wheel bar just so I don't bust an oil pan or break the coilovers. Wheelies are fun but can be expensive with one big landing.
I've driven slow trucks that have big torque. There is an instant where they throw you back....and it is always not related to speed. I've driven 5.0 Coyotes, and they may be faster than my "slow" RT, but felt less Q. My current ride probably has about 500 foot pounds of torque (at the crank). If properly launched, it will shove you good. I've driven faster imports that did not have quite the effect.
that author is on crack. net torque wins races. Ill pull an earlier post of mine when I joined explaining how it works.
I like how everyone has ignored the most obvious answer. Net torque. The peak numbers mean nothing, i see some people hung up on in this thread. . Ill give an example that i gave before on a couple other forums.
Car A has 300 WTQ, revs to only 5K, has a 3.55 final gear and a 1.28 3rd gear
Car B has 150 WTQ, revs to 10K, has a 4.88 final gear and a 1.86 3rd gear
With the gearing, both cars shift into 4th at the same mph and Car B has double the torque multiplication... they'll pull even all the way through that gear.
Another example
Car A
160 ft-lbs of torque from 2K to 8K (it just makes it simple that way
Car B
215 ft-lbs of torque from 2K to 6K (again, keeping it simple)
Car A's first gear ratio: 3.7
Car A's final drive ratio: 4.1
Car B's first gear ratio: 3.3
Car B's final drive ratio: 3.4
They both redline first gear at the same speed (Car A being at 8K, Car B being at 6K)
But due to the gear ratio's...
160 * 3.7 * 4.1 = 2427 net torque
215 * 3.3 * 3.4 = 2412 net torque
All the way through first gear, car A pulled harder than car B despite having less torque.
Also, HP wise, both cars are almost exactly the same. The car with less TQ kept up throughout the entire power band though due to gearing.
Don't get caught up in ENGINE torque so much as you do net torque due to gearing. If you don't make a lot of torque, but you maintain that torque to a high rpm and make a comparable amount of HP to another car and have aggressive gears, you shouldn't have to worry about engine torque.
If you want to determine how relevant torque is or area under the curve, first consider the redline as a car with a higher redline can use a more aggressive gear to switch into the next gear at the same mph as another car thus getting more torque multiplication
Also average acceleration doesn't make a difference.. in straight line racing the only thing that matters is DISTANCE TRAVELED. Two cars can have the same average acceleration for X seconds and one car be 15 car lengths ahead. Two cars having the same average acceleration means they're only going the same MPH after a certain amount of time, but that doesn't mean one car isn't WAY ahead of the other. Acceleration is the derivative of velocity and velocity is the derivative of distance. Average acceleration gives you the final distance, but you need the whole velocity curve mapped over time and not just what the velocity is at the end of the graph.
If you want to know how hard a car is pulling @ N MPH...
Take Torque @ current RPM.... we'll call that T
Current Gear ratio: G
Final Gear Ratio: F
Tire diameter in inches: D
Weight: W
((T x G x F) / D) / W
Take that and subtract the power required to overcome the wind resistance at the MPH which is...
If you want to know what all those symbols mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)
Now if you want a general rule for low speeds.. ignore the wind resistance as it doesn't matter much below 80 MPH
Now compare the number you get for both cars and you'll see which one is pulling faster at that speed.
Im a drag racing nut. I hail from yellowbullet forums. Dont mind me.
its actually a bit inaccurate.:lol:
pushed and thrown are two different things. Your srt is not capable of throwing. That's all bluebeast and I are saying.
Also great information -- very good. It doesn't totally disagree with the R&T article though -- yours is a more complete explanation, for sure. Reading between the lines a bit, in the R&T article I get some sense of an "all other things being equal" thing, figuring that the drag coefficient is very, very close between a Hellcat and Scat Pack -- and that's -- as you point out -- not to the letter -- how it works.
