Close

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 42 of 42
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pretty sure I am in Mexico
    Posts
    926
    Rep Points
    930.9
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    lol, so the 1M is one thing, but noone else caught on to the fact that the MPH stayed the same while the ET changed? Meaning what ive been saying this whole time, that trap speed is dependent on the back half, not the front half Click here to enlarge
    It really depends. The front half is as you say, but for the 60' which can greatly affect trap speed. Spin off the line hard and you will increase trap compared to a good launch. Which is why I don't buy into the whole "fastest vs quickest" 1/4 mile stuff.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pretty sure I am in Mexico
    Posts
    926
    Rep Points
    930.9
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    If you know so much about racing history you would have known BMW had a V8 in the E46 so moving to one in the E92 was not a shock to anyone since it had already been done. Also, you would have known E30's raced around with 4 cylinders so there was no precedent set for inline 6's only in M3's which means your statement made no sense. The precedent set was that of a naturally aspirated high revving engine so the blasphemy you are referring to is breaking from that tradition hence the cirticism of the 1M as well as the quote by InsideLine which they got completely correct.

    So what your saying is that M3s have been blasphemous in all variations following the E30? Click here to enlarge

    Sorry, couldn't help myself

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,426
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Forced Air Click here to enlarge
    It really depends. The front half is as you say, but for the 60' which can greatly affect trap speed. Spin off the line hard and you will increase trap compared to a good launch. Which is why I don't buy into the whole "fastest vs quickest" 1/4 mile stuff.
    nope, we can start a new thread on the topic, but your 60' has less than .5 mph variance to do with your end trap speed Click here to enlarge

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,327
    Rep Points
    32,755.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Forced Air Click here to enlarge
    So what your saying is that M3s have been blasphemous in all variations following the E30? Click here to enlarge

    Sorry, couldn't help myself
    Nope, although the E30 should always be on a pedestal.

    No M3 has broken tradition yet until the F30 when it hits with the new turbo motor whatever that may be (likely tweaked N55).

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,327
    Rep Points
    32,755.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    nope, we can start a new thread on the topic, but your 60' has less than .5 mph variance to do with your end trap speed Click here to enlarge
    I don't know about .5, as some guys who spin can get a couple mph.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,426
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I don't know about .5, as some guys who spin can get a couple mph.
    lol, the 60' time in itself, will only affect mph about .5

    traction issues after the 60 will affect the mph more, but maybe another .5
    so in total, we are talking MAYBE 1 mph variance

    traction issues past the 1/8 will GREATLY affect it. but tht requires horrible conditions or way more power than most of us make

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,327
    Rep Points
    32,755.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    lol, the 60' time in itself, will only affect mph about .5

    traction issues after the 60 will affect the mph more, but maybe another .5
    so in total, we are talking MAYBE 1 mph variance

    traction issues past the 1/8 will GREATLY affect it. but tht requires horrible conditions or way more power than most of us make
    How will the 60 foot time itself only affect .5? A 1.8 vs. 2.4 can have the 2.4 trapping a few mph higher. Don't know what you are basing .5 on.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,426
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    we should take this somewhere else, but 2.4 has nothing to do with the mph. id like to see proof of this

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,327
    Rep Points
    32,755.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    we should take this somewhere else, but 2.4 has nothing to do with the mph. id like to see proof of this
    I'd like to see proof of .5.

    Make a new thread if you wish, I just threw those numbers out there as an example as if a car runs 1.8 and then 2.4 it's obvious which 60 foot is the one it is spinning.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,426
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I'd like to see proof of .5.

    Make a new thread if you wish, I just threw those numbers out there as an example as if a car runs 1.8 and then 2.4 it's obvious which 60 foot is the one it is spinning.

    ive already made a thread, and i believe its even sticky'd. im not exact on the .5, thats just a SWAG, as is the other .5, but it sure does sound good. my point being that claims of higher traps with more wheelspin are overused and always over exagerated

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,327
    Rep Points
    32,755.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    ive already made a thread, and i believe its even sticky'd. im not exact on the .5, thats just a SWAG, as is the other .5, but it sure does sound good. my point being that claims of higher traps with more wheelspin are overused and always over exagerated
    I do agree with that completely as it never worked in my case with the E92 (better 60 better trap) but with the E46 when I spun I would get a higher trap vs. lower 60.

    I hate to use the hotrod example but you will notice his higher traps come with higher 60 foots. There really is no formula that will work but you will often see inflated traps ranging more than .5 mph with higher 60 foots.

    I also have seen higher traps with better 60 foots and totally agree it is overused.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,426
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I do agree with that completely as it never worked in my case with the E92 (better 60 better trap) but with the E46 when I spun I would get a higher trap vs. lower 60.

    I hate to use the hotrod example but you will notice his higher traps come with higher 60 foots. There really is no formula that will work but you will often see inflated traps ranging more than .5 mph with higher 60 foots.

    I also have seen higher traps with better 60 foots and totally agree it is overused.
    the thing is most people equate the higher trap/mph and 60' as a fluke, when in actuallity the highest trap is usuall what the car is capable of, and somehting else went wrong to get a lower trap with the lower 60. now of course, there is always a variance, but thats usually about 1 mph. id use my car, but im never consistant with boost used and once logs look good, i up it, obvioulsy giving me a better trap.

    but if you scavenge over every other consistant car, that can't change its power at the push of a button, and doesnt drop weight between runs, you will see what i mean, regardless of 60' trap is within 1 mph of eachother if clean runs up to and past the 1/8 mile. NA cars are a good example, and so are s/c cars, but usually need a cool down or meth to showcase that as heatsoak sets in.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,327
    Rep Points
    32,755.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    the thing is most people equate the higher trap/mph and 60' as a fluke, when in actuallity the highest trap is usuall what the car is capable of, and somehting else went wrong to get a lower trap with the lower 60. now of course, there is always a variance, but thats usually about 1 mph. id use my car, but im never consistant with boost used and once logs look good, i up it, obvioulsy giving me a better trap.
    Actually, I do consider the higher trap spinning a fluke because the car sort of gets a head start spinning place with the tires going up to higher speeds and then moving. Usually people who do that can't recreate the trap when they hook, they trap less consistently.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,426
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    but if your spinning your not going anywhere, and you still have the exact same total distance to move, so you really cant build "more" speed

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,327
    Rep Points
    32,755.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    but if your spinning your not going anywhere, and you still have the exact same total distance to move, so you really cant build "more" speed
    Your tires are at say 25 mph when you get going.

    It's similar to when a guy burns out in second gear to his tires to a higher speed.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,426
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    I think i understand what your trying to say, but, the tires are rotating faster but the car is not moving at that speed,

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,327
    Rep Points
    32,755.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    I think i understand what your trying to say, but, the tires are rotating faster but the car is not moving at that speed,
    Exactly, it isn't moving so by the time it does move and crosses the beams it has a jump start.

    This costs time, but gains MPH.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •