Truth about 60ft short time

[epkmvuoq]

Is the reduction of your short time doubled to better your et or not. I have heard this is only a myth
I would love to know the absolute truth

[SSDan]

You can't handle the truth!

Are you asking "Does a .1 reduction in the 60 ft. get you a .2 reduction in ET?"

If so I only know that many believe it to be true and as I've studied time slips I don't doubt it.

[dekan513]

its a good rule of thumb. i know my car if i do a 2.0 60' run a 12.5 or so 1.9 are in the 12.3- to 12.4 and 1.8 are 12.1 to 12.2 all at 115 to 116. on a street tire.

[Bad70supreme]

YES, sometimes more! Its no myth..

[epkmvuoq]

Originally Posted by Bad70supreme

YES, sometimes more! Its no myth..

I just read tonight on a very recent thread that it is entirely myth. I would like to have a definitive answer. It seems fairly obvious so for it is a fact.
I just called my Son and asked him to put a pencil on it, so maybe he can find the facts. He has a Phd in mathematics however I think this may be a physics problem and the knowledge of drag racing. Thank y'all for your comments.

[dekan513]

i believe it, i mean its probably got more to do with a auto vs manual and how they work. also the weight of the car . just thinking off the top of my head.

[epkmvuoq]

Originally Posted by dekan513

i believe it, i mean its probably got more to do with a auto vs manual and how they work. also the weight of the car . just thinking off the top of my head.

I also believe it guys. However I'm one of those crazy guys who has to know something for a fact before I can repeat it

[Rhino79]

No myth, I've seen it hundreds of times.

[Jason@JacFab]

It may be entirely plausible, but a poor driver could certainly loose whatever had been gained in the 60' over the course of 1/4 mi... It goes both ways :P

[AngelSpeedFreak]

I cut my 60 by a tenth last weekend and sure enough was 2 tenths faster than my previous best.... I'd say pretty good chance the old saying can be correct.

[potwasher]

its true

[2SSCAMARO]

There are varying differences vehicle to vehicle due to weight and horsepower differences but the effects of lowering the total elapsed time by a greater amount than the improvement in the 60' time is real. It's all got to do with what portion of your total elapsed time you spend going slow and what portion you are going fast. The less time the vehicle spends at slow speed (first 60 feet) lowers the ET exponentially by allowing it to travel the remaining distance at higher speed. An example of this is a top fuel dragster that typically has a 60' time of .8 to.9 seconds and accelerates to about 100 mph in that time frame. I've many times seen them break into wheel spin at that point, get off the throttle, and coast the rest of the way achieving an et of 6 or 7 seconds and a trap speed of less than 100 mph. The reason.....they travelled basically the whole 1000' at about 100 mph except for the first few feet.

[JEFF75645]

So there is hope for 11s. My last run was 12.4 @114 with a 2.079 60ft.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by epkmvuoq

I just called my Son and asked him to put a pencil on it, so maybe he can find the facts. He has a Phd in mathematics however I think this may be a physics problem and the knowledge of drag racing. Thank y'all for your comments.

What you're hoping he'll be able to do specifically involves accurately modeling the toughest part of a mathematical simulation of acceleration. If he's going to derive something starting from the basic F = ma equation, I hope that he'll have better luck at it than I've had.

If he does manage to come up with a reliable approach that isn't simply a curve fit of existing measured time slip data, I'd appreciate it if you could pass along at least a few hints. I've been at this little problem for . . . let's just say "a while" and leave it at that.


Norm