Drag Racing Technique Improve your track times

Footbraking vs T-brake

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 31, 2006 | 05:02 PM
  #16  
Ken95Z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 738
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

Shon, need to work on the rear suspension some more.

I'm cutting low 1.5's to high 1.4's on mine right now with no T-Brake.
Look into some Pete Z Bars, we have another F-Body out here that cuts 1.3's without the T-Brake using the Pete Z Bars as well.

I'm running a 28x9 Hoosier, 4.10's through a spooled Moser, did I say that we are still using the 4L60E tranny
Old Jun 1, 2006 | 06:28 AM
  #17  
Shon Herron's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,054
From: Six Mile, SC, USA
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

Originally Posted by Ken95Z28
Shon, need to work on the rear suspension some more.

I'm cutting low 1.5's to high 1.4's on mine right now with no T-Brake.
Look into some Pete Z Bars, we have another F-Body out here that cuts 1.3's without the T-Brake using the Pete Z Bars as well.

I'm running a 28x9 Hoosier, 4.10's through a spooled Moser, did I say that we are still using the 4L60E tranny
What should we look for in the rear suspension? Dead hooks or chirps from a 6000+RPM Dump of the clutch. The rear does not squat, it maintains the fender gap or increases it.
Should the car be pulling better 60's? IF it was to, it aint b/c of the rear suspension unless I am missing something in how it can be any better when we dead hook every pass. I would suspect the clutch slip being the only variable at this point and I am pulling that one out and going with the A3.
I am 'scared' to run the A4 even though there seems to be some good rebuilders out there....

I do not see how the PeteZ's are the magic pill IF compared to the properly set up TA/LCA set up we have BUT I am willing to listen.
Old Jun 1, 2006 | 07:15 AM
  #18  
AL SS590 M6's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 1998
Posts: 6,247
From: Charlotte,MI USA
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

Originally Posted by Ken95Z28
I'm cutting low 1.5's to high 1.4's on mine right now with no T-Brake.
I'm running a 28x9 Hoosier, 4.10's through a spooled Moser, did I say that we are still using the 4L60E tranny
That's in the normal range. I also run high 1.4s to low 1.5s with 27" Hoosiers, 4.10 spooled Strange 12, and the stock 4L60E with my 3500lb raceweight.
Old Jun 1, 2006 | 07:18 AM
  #19  
IHI's Avatar
IHI
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 230
From: Waterloo, Iowa
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

Originally Posted by Shon Herron
What should we look for in the rear suspension? Dead hooks or chirps from a 6000+RPM Dump of the clutch. The rear does not squat, it maintains the fender gap or increases it.
Should the car be pulling better 60's? IF it was to, it aint b/c of the rear suspension unless I am missing something in how it can be any better when we dead hook every pass.
What your referring to out back with car not squatting on the hit-actually staying the same heigth of even raising the rear end is anti-squat....but in your case lack there of This is a good thing because you know the tires are being driven into the pavement, but too much anti squat is also hard on tire sidewalls (wears them out quicker on bias ply type slicks) and really pushes the envelope for traction on less than ideal tracks since the tire is taking the blunt of the force instead of transfering it into the chasis. Kinda of a fine line you have to walk for ultimate chasis tuning that allows the most power to the ground without crossing the line and breaking traction.

As far as your chirp- it's no different than "squeeling your tires". Your not hooking up 100%, if you were there would be no sound at all. Dead hooking is just that-dead hooking, no tire on surface slippage that allows chirping/squeeling to take place.

Lemme ask, do you have to dump the clutch at 6K? Your obviously waaay above the curve but I dont know how much rpm you drop once the clutch fully engages. If your dumping at 6K and it actually grabs and drops rpm's down to 3000-3500 rpm then your probably doing it right, but if your dumping at 6K and rpm never drops below 5000rpm then obviously you need to lower the rpm a bit to get into the power band and use the motor instead of staying above it...even though it "feels" like it pulling, your not using the power to your potential. Think of a diesel truck-sure they pull well past 1500-2500rpm, but the maximum effort of them is in the off idle to 2500rpm range, so keeping the rpm's lower allows you to make the engine work for you. not to mention lowering staging/launch rpm's will also promote better hooking in less than ideal situations. It might not sound as cool to your buddies to say your dumping it at 6K, but faster timeslips and less wear/tear on the car are cooler than sounding like a nut to guys that really know cars.
Old Jun 1, 2006 | 07:28 AM
  #20  
Shon Herron's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,054
From: Six Mile, SC, USA
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

I pick and choose the tracks to visit based on starting line traction. If the line is NEVER there the car never goes. We tow 3+ hours to run at one particular track b/c there is never any doubt the track is going to be there.
We launch at 6k and it pulls down to 4200-4500. We did alot of testing with launching and this has turned out to be the best 60' to 330' run. We do not follow the conventional wisdom for stock motor, that's why we are running 11.80@113+ with bolt ons.
We have also found that some slip (chirp) the car runs alot better, dont know why it just does. As far as wearing out the sidewalls, that is someone else job, we dont keep stuff long enough to wear out, always changing stuff to see if it helps the car, LOL.
And who in their right minds turns the stocker to 6400-6500 on the top end!?!?!? We do b/c it works.

I will agree that I am going to have to get some adjustability in the rear suspension for when we do go to less than ideal tracks (there are some much closer that would be nice to go to). But for now, the car is working well. OR we think it is, considering most of the cammed (even LSxers) are asking how this is accomplished.....

You dont need alot of 'stuff' you need to make all your 'stuff' work the way it is supposed to work, that is what we feel is happening with this car. If we are missing something, please help.
Old Jun 1, 2006 | 12:21 PM
  #21  
Ken95Z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 738
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

Shon, I thought you had an automatic if you are running a manual you have to get the tires to actually break loose. Autos can dead hook and get really good 60's Manuals need to spin a little to get them off the line. At least that's what has been explained to me. If you try to dead hook in the manual it will bog the motor down.

On my setup I'm actually running 15 psi of pressure in the slicks. I can go as low as 13 but then the tires start to wad up, makes a heck of a sound when that happens. I think that has a lot to do with what type of springs / shocks you are running on the rear. I'm running the stock springs and running a set of 8 way adjustables on the rear. Plus I'm not running any rear sway bar at all. The Pete Z style bars actually pre-load the rear, this way the car reacts pretty quick. The other method the car goes through a weight transfer motion (non-preloaded). Not to sure if I'm explaining myself the right way or not.

In the early spring time and fall time I'm usually in the 1.4's.
Old Jun 1, 2006 | 12:25 PM
  #22  
IHI's Avatar
IHI
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 230
From: Waterloo, Iowa
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

Since it sounds like you guys are always playing/testing it's obvious you know what your doing and the pro's/con's of each change so that saves alot of questioning due to obvious reasons....you know the guys- "we dump the clutch at 8K, shift at 10K, run 100* of timing, and 300 octane...car puts out about 2800hp...then they run 14's LMAO!!!

If the car is working and obviously working well with bolt on's keep doing what your doing. I'm in the same boat running a small tire car, alot of anti-squat and trying to race on a less than ideal track...and then summer heat hits on top of it. I typically have half a plug left in my tires per month, but they get changed out due to sidewalls taking a beating and 60's starting to vary. It's get's very spendy, but IMO it's too easy to just hack a car and install big tires...but in the long run that's really the smart thing to do to save money and have better traction when track changes...just an easy way out and not as cool IMO.

Also agree with you on peoples combination being all focked up, I get to spot plenty of open headered track only pig block cars since everybody always thinks...gruff gruff bigger is better gruff. So it's always been my way of thinking if I ever run a pig block and not in the low 9's on pump gas...why even bother with the added weight and cost to build it and there are very few I've ever been impressed by locally-but we're a medium sized community that revolves around circle jerkers/mud packers so not alot of street/strip cars round here Use what you got and tweak it to the max...you'll get a better return investment.
Old Jun 1, 2006 | 12:30 PM
  #23  
Shon Herron's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,054
From: Six Mile, SC, USA
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

The 94 I had was an Auto (A4 to A3). This 97 was a M6, being pulled for the TH350/400 swap.
We typically run 15ish in the tires all the time. And I have stock shocks/springs with a Spohn Drag Bar. I think we are both accomplishing the same thing with different set ups.

I am leaning towards NO T-brake for several reasons, one less thing to 'figure out' and hope it works, less stress on parts (trans and suspension), if I could pull 1.4s foot braking I will be content. I plan on staying with the 26" tire and 4.11/spool combo and with the 2.75 1st gear I think I will be able to plus less weight!!



Originally Posted by Ken95Z28
Shon, I thought you had an automatic if you are running a manual you have to get the tires to actually break loose. Autos can dead hook and get really good 60's Manuals need to spin a little to get them off the line. At least that's what has been explained to me. If you try to dead hook in the manual it will bog the motor down.

On my setup I'm actually running 15 psi of pressure in the slicks. I can go as low as 13 but then the tires start to wad up, makes a heck of a sound when that happens. I think that has a lot to do with what type of springs / shocks you are running on the rear. I'm running the stock springs and running a set of 8 way adjustables on the rear. Plus I'm not running any rear sway bar at all. The Pete Z style bars actually pre-load the rear, this way the car reacts pretty quick. The other method the car goes through a weight transfer motion (non-preloaded). Not to sure if I'm explaining myself the right way or not.

In the early spring time and fall time I'm usually in the 1.4's.
Old Jun 1, 2006 | 01:44 PM
  #24  
rskrause's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 10,745
From: Buffalo, New York
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

The T-brake was a major advance in the evolution of the drag racing automatic. I can't think of a reason not to use one.

Rich
Old Jun 1, 2006 | 02:11 PM
  #25  
IHI's Avatar
IHI
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 230
From: Waterloo, Iowa
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

Originally Posted by rskrause
The T-brake was a major advance in the evolution of the drag racing automatic. I can't think of a reason not to use one.

Rich
Down south at braceket races the T-Brake is almost as bad as eating the forbidden fruit LOL. Footbrake rules down there. As for me, I cannot imagine going back to footbraking, just too many advantages for adjusting R/T's, leaving harder, and making the chasis work for you since it's unloaded waiting for the shock of the hit instead of tieing power up pre-loading everything. Hard to figure out??? 2 wires and a button, well to do it right at a minimum you'll want a 2 step to limit staging rpm's but they are by no means hard in any aspect of the word to "figure out" once you have one you'll wonder what took so long to get on ein the first place and how did you ever geet by without it

26" tire + 4.10 gears and wanting 1.4? 60's.....you'd better have that suspension/chasis tuned to the max....that's alot to ask out of a short tire (less roll out on that short of tire no matter how wide it is...taller is always better than wider) can only imagine what your trapping rpm is
Old Jun 1, 2006 | 02:41 PM
  #26  
Shon Herron's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,054
From: Six Mile, SC, USA
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

on 26x11.50x15 ET Streets trapping at 6200ish MAX
on 25x10.5x15 ET Drags trapping at 6400ish
This is with 4.33s and the M6.
I dont see 1.4s being hard to accomplish, less weight than now, better mathmatical 1st gear, and some other stuff.....
The best 60' so far is 1.53 and normally 1.55s.
At RW of less than 3100 I think it is not unheard of to go 1.4s, heck these other guys are pulling that in 3400-3500+ cars, yes they got the 3.0x 1st gear but are on 28" tires.....
Old Jun 1, 2006 | 03:49 PM
  #27  
Joseph Overton's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 57
From: VA
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

I will say there is a point where a t-brake is not useful on a stock suspended setup... That point is where the car leaves so violent the car slows, and or looking foolish blowing the tires off in the final round.. Ofcourse I'm talking about a car that already 60 ft's 1.2's off the footbrake.....now if we were talking about a 4 link back half car and you run a auto,better have a brake or you'll be left sitting..

Last edited by Joseph Overton; Jun 1, 2006 at 03:52 PM.
Old Jun 2, 2006 | 02:02 PM
  #28  
97SSmokem's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 432
From: San Antonio, TX
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

Define stock rear suspension? I have stock springs and shocks but BMR everything else. I loose a lot of time going up than out. My fastest times for the 1/4 have been from footbraking and launching in 2nd because first went out, launching in 2nd i still cut a 1.50 60'...
Old Jun 2, 2006 | 02:11 PM
  #29  
Shon Herron's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,054
From: Six Mile, SC, USA
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

Originally Posted by 97SSmokem
Define stock rear suspension?
I take the stock rear suspension to mean the location of the parts are mounted where they were from the factory save for the Torq Arm, usually the TA is best if moved off the trans and to it's own brace.

Relocation of the mounts is not stock suspended to me. LCA Relocation brackets qualify for stock suspension to me.

There are some guys moving the LCA mounting points inward to clear tires, this would be a grey area but I would not call that stock.
Old Jun 2, 2006 | 04:20 PM
  #30  
Joseph Overton's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 57
From: VA
Re: Footbraking vs T-brake

Relocation brackets are good for a mild street car and helps a radial car hook somewhat..But on my personal car and others I have setup .I found that relocation brackets are not really needed..and could be considered a grey area as well..

list of parts on my suspension for anybody wondering.

Rear:
hal 12 way adjustables rear
6 cylinder stock rear springs
wolfe double adjustable LCA's
wolfe anti-roll
spohn torque arm

Front:
PA k-member
stock upper a-arms
PA lower a-arms
afco double adjustable shocks/qa1 springs

nothing trick, nothing relocated, nothing nobody else cant buy...

Last edited by Joseph Overton; Jun 2, 2006 at 04:24 PM.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 AM.