Looks like you are missing the most important one

 

Ha ha, no I just found his off the RWYB site so it's added now... I await the flamage on that one, but without trying to make too many excuses for him his car was not right on the day, so I'm looking forward to seeing what it'll run at the next meet. But before everyone jumps in, at least we share, good or bad, just wish you guys would do the same and send some performance stats of your own our way!

 

Isn't this where we break out the bbq grill and put our fattest crow on the barbie?

 

 

So can you elaborate on the flamage and what it ran in the past?

 

BBQ away but I'd wait till the car is free of gremlins before actually tucking in. BTW, what's the fastest RMW car in the US done on the 1/4?

I'll ellaborate more when you produce a 30-70 of your car using Churches vBox

 

Thats the answer I thought I'd get. When it suits you to post data you do at your discretion, but you want to hound everyone else unabatedly? That's the way to share with the community. More hypocrisy. Keep it coming.

By the way, I don't live around the corner from Church's.

 

Hey 1/4 mile guys, you should also post your Density Altitudes. If you don't have them, at least the track elevation, baro pressure, temp and humidity or dew point. Gotta apply that correction factor Can't compare Englishtown to Pomona (or Santa Pod) without a Density Altitude.

 

How does that make me a hypocrite? Data was asked for and I supplied it... I ask you for data and get nothing... who's the real hypocrite here?

 

No idea, all I know is that Santa Pod is 315ft above sea level, but then until we get some 1/4 times from Englishtown or Pomona its pointless anyway

 

I guess the slow guy needs to spell it out again;

1) I post a dyno graph and you guys call BS and say back it up with track times.

2) I don't care about drag times and you can have your 1/4mi title. I never offered to supply all data for the good of the community, Paul did.

3) 1320 claims, "We always share all our data for the good of the community", "We back up our dyno times with drag times" etc., etc, etc.

So, you guys go to the dyno and track, and Paul's car suddenly has a case of the sicks and doesn't perform up to par compared to him running the stock head. Unless explained otherwise it seems the only change we know of is the Thumper head install. So unless you can clarify, and I'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation, only two things can be deduced. Either the Thumper head isn't any better than a stock head, or Paul has been cooking the books spraying juice when he says he's not.

So since we know neither of those two things can be true, in the interest of the community the reigning king of the drag strip could give us an explanation. I've NEVER known Paul not to toot his own horn about anything, so his silence is deafening.

 

Is it in Wellingborough? If so, the temp and humidity for this last weekend put the DA at about -1200 to -1500 ft depending on time, etc. So you would have to multiply your ETs by 1.012-1.02 to get an equivalent time on a normal day (and multiply trap speeds by .98 to .988 to get equivalent traps.

Sounds like you guys get some decent atmospherics, even if the temps are too cold for good traction. Kind of like Englishtown which will see DAs as low -2000 ft or more during the right time of year. By comparison, our west coast tracks are lucky to see DAs of less than +1000 ft and will often go over +2000 ft (Palmdale used to see +5000 ft in the summer).

I use this calculator for Density Altitude and then just look up NHRA Density Altitude correction and you'll find tables all over the net.

http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_da_rh.htm

Long story short, a day like you guys had last week would be about 3% faster than a solid day at a track like Pomona (800 ft, 59F, 0% humidity - and Pomona rarely gets that cool).

p.s. - turbo cars need not apply since they can make up for atmospheric changes with more boost - to a point

 

Nice job Howe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Wow... great post!

Totally makes sense as on a 'normal' day Jove runs 13.2@106 which is what his figures come back to using your formula above.

Does that kind of thinking work out the same on the dyno? I know SAE etc but what about when inlet temps are brought to the same as ambient before a run because that would never ever happen on the road unless you run a front mount.

 

and here once again the "real" truth comes about.... so these "pod" numbers are just like Englishtown.....

Big numbers on a fast track

and now for our guys over the pond...........

copied yesterday from their board

vBox Data from today:

Paul:

0-60: 5.6
0-100: 13.8
30-70: 5.1

Jove:

0-60: 5.0
0-100: 11.3
30-70: 3.8

Ruskins:

0-60: 6.0
0-100: 14.2
30-70: 4.9

The GP Racer

0-60: 6.7
0-100: 14.6
30-70: 5.1

Luca

0-60: 6.9
0-100: 13.3
30-70: 4.4

so after looking at this data..... how can you go 102@ 13.6 when you can only go 13.8 @ 100? British MATH?

talk about cooking the books................ so who's lying now?

 

Yes, that is how SAE works, and it works off ambient changes. Theoretically any car not running an artificial cooling source (say an icewater chilled air-to-water setup) will respond consistently to changing ambient temps. IOW, your temp gain should remain relatively constant over the ambient, whatever it is. Of course, with a poor intercooler, excessive boost for the chosen intercooler, or poor air intake temp control things can go a little wonky at times. Also, outside of normal operating ranges (say 40F-90F), most modern cars will add or subtract ignition timing that can substantially change power levels beyond the atmospheric changes.

 

Wow you are one angry little boy! Mummy, mummy the bigger boys have been saying my dyno figures don't add up and now I'm going to stamp my feet.

Why are you so bothered about Sundays drag strip times then if as you've stated above you don't care? On the drag strip on Sunday the times/trap speed are within 0.1% on Joves car on two seperate runs... how many times have you had your dyno figures within 0.1%??? So you call your way of measuring performance accurate on its own...?? Well its commonly known that accuracy is closely related to reproducibility or repeatability. So have you got 2 graphs within 0.1% on the same day? How many differnet whp numbers have you got for your car with the same mods??

So you call me slow but you STILL haven't worked out why we put so much importance on more than just dyno figures...!

With regards to Pauls car, I have no friggin idea why it wouldn't run right and as I said I'm sure he'll come on to explain when he's got to the bottom of it. It made what it made on the dynapack but then didn't back it up at the Pod and that has nothing to do with NOS either way.

 

Again, just what I expected, personal attacks and NO answer to the question. What was changed besides the head? What could possibly be so wrong with Paul's car that he couldn't figure it out between the dyno the and the strip? Maybe he should put the stock head back on and run it.

By the way, your car has been missing from the stats, is it still running?

 

Please tell me you didn't just post that Jan, I thought you were brighter than that.... the vBox wasnt in Pauls car for every run, just like it wasn't for everyone elses for every run, I've only got one of them, that was the best data it collected when it was strapped in each car!

 

so are you saying there are massive differences in runs?

You just stated you could run them within .1%........ and so quickly you can't??????????

wow.... does it really get much better than this?

 

Wow who needs soap operas? This is way better

 

Oh Jan please... clutching at straws now!!!... If you run a dyno session on 1 car for 5 runs and you get 242, 246, 244, 247, 244... does that mean that the car makes 247 whp??? what is most likely to be the MOST accurate figure there?

As I said... if you can get within 0.1% on the drag strip of your best time you've proved repeatability and therefore accuracy.

This is basic math Jan!

 

Basic math?

You guys have failed basic math repeatedly..... we are the only ones that use logic and physics

btw.... the only one that was repeatable was the RMW head.....

 

What is really amazing is the comparisons from the same day.

Ruskins car looks basically stock and full weight except for a cam, header and tune. He has a stock head and 11% pulley.

Ruskins runs two tenths slower and 1mph less than Paul's car. Paul's car has a head, 17% and everything else you can imagine and it is gutted down to nothing.

Either Ruskins driving defies the laws of physics, or Paul has a serious issue. Paul's car was faster with the stock head. How can that be?

 

LOL...the only what that was repeatable? 1/4 mile time? Dyno graph? vBox figure?

Physics - which bit, classical mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, relativity, quantum mechanics???

You seem to think I'm junking your head here... I'm not, remember when your only goal was to beat GTT in the horsepower race in the UK, well how did we do that??? Your head mixed with a shed load of other quality parts and then we backed it up on th drag strip so Roland couldn't counter... drag racing times were good enough for you then so whats changed.