Search results

I mentioned respect, If you ask a genuine question I will answer. If you want to make a joke at my expense you will be challenged harshly.

Go to Stan Weiss web site, pick the calculator you need(he has free ones), and don't forget to add the drivers weight, because the car was not on remote control. Over the years his seem to be the most accurate I have seen. Ive seen some that are way off. Experience says 114 is about what you...

It like earning degree, you expect to be compensated for it.

You will never get an accurate et from your calculations. The calculator uses data from lots of good runs to get its estimation. Friction as it relates to traction is hard to quantify. Yet, mph, distance and weight is a very definable value. Et is a whole nother story. But I applaud the attempt...

You haven't shown me anything, you just quoted magazine data, tell my mathematically how a camaro can defy physics, and start with the laws of thermodynamics.

You better tell some of these guys what a staging lane is.

Let me know when you are more accurate than the 2 input calculator. That's why we race cars. I been using that website for many years, and its always been spot on.

Its fact buddy. I mod and race my cars, not a mag racer like you.

Because force over distance tells me how much power is needed. And if you are going to deviate from that, it can only be slower, not faster, unless you have less friction losses than everyone else or you have extra force applied, period. How about you bring YOUR car to the track and tell us what...

Then don't give me advice on how a car runs at the track if you have never done it. I have, thousands of passes and lots of time and money.

Can you find a better one, probably not. People been using formulas just like that for a long time. Try answering a question with something of value other than comedy. F=ma is pretty simple. Try applying it and tell my why the camaro can defy it.

Ah, the second basher that adds nothing of value who cant afford to mod his car. Let me know when you get some experience.

Yeah, it sucks that physics only works on certain cars, how did we ever land a man on the moon.

The only things that can throw off the formula are large temperature changes, windy conditions, and low or high frictional losses in the driveline. There is always a mph or 2 diffrence between autos and manuals due to friction losses, in the past being higher in autos. The geartrain of an auto...

Horsepower, weight, MPH. Trans doesn't matter. Physics don't discriminate. Slight differences in power-train losses and wind resistance, but still very close. That weigh, moving at that speed, in that distance, end of the story.

What you have to realize is, cars in this power range, if you put slicks on them, will pickup (drop) .3 to .7 et, but the mph won't change much at all, if any. Sometimes they lose a little MPH. You just don't see many stock cars running drag tires, the tune almost always comes first. MPH relates...

If you want to do it yourself, here is the link. http://users.erols.com/srweiss/calchpm.htm Try the 122 on the Cadillac to see a real hot ringer, easy to do with a turbo.

This is flywheel numbers, it is assuming a constant loss through the drive-train. See, very accurate.

MPH don't lie, and the formula is the same between all cars. This has worked since isky made the dream wheel for figuring out these things. Its not perfect, but its damn close. Even wheel-spin wont affect mph much unless its ridiculous.

Use the weight and the mph from the first post, add 200 pounds for the driver and use an online calculator, then learn.