Drag Racing Technique Improve your track times

Rumor or Truth ?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 4, 2004 | 11:10 AM
  #1  
Vice_Squad_29's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 14
From: Newport News, Virginia
Rumor or Truth ?

My brother told me yesterday that for every 100 lbs I drop off the camaro I will gain a .10 of a second on my quarter mile. Is this true? If not, what is a more reasonable estimate?
Old Jan 4, 2004 | 11:14 AM
  #2  
mongse_1's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,450
From: Belleville, IL
More or less. It's more of a rule of thumb though. Also depends on whether it's sprung weight (above the suspension) or unsprung (below the suspension).
Old Jan 4, 2004 | 11:29 AM
  #3  
Stephen 87 IROC's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,037
From: 51°N 114°W, 3500' elevation
It's pretty accurate but anything can happen during a run to slow you down again. It depends on how consistant your car is.

But using that theory, if you shave off 1000 pounds you can gain a full second. That's why some very fast cars can go that fast with very little HP. They don't weigh very much. A dragster usually weighs 1500-1800 pounds.

Put my engine in a 1800 pound altered and it should run 8's.

The easiest way to make your car faster is to get rid of extra weight. Most F-bodies are around 3500 pounds plus the driver. Trying to get a race weight down to 3000 pounds is a lot of weight to remove.
Old Jan 4, 2004 | 07:17 PM
  #4  
Solidous_Snake's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 138
From: Bay Area
Carbon Fiber body!!!!!!!!
Old Jan 6, 2004 | 01:35 PM
  #5  
WheelmanZ28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,158
From: Chicagoland Area
Originally posted by Solidous_Snake
Carbon Fiber body!!!!!!!!
Good luck.

Some companies out there offer the majority of Camaro Body parts in Fiberglass. A pretty complete fiberglass body conversion would easily shave a couple hundred pounds. However, u gotta have A LOT of $$$$$$$$ for that.
Old Jan 6, 2004 | 03:46 PM
  #6  
rskrause's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 10,745
From: Buffalo, New York
Originally posted by Steve Y
That's where the theory falls on it's face. It is not a linear thing. It is a rule of thumb. It is an exponential thing. You would gain more than a full second on most cars by removing 1000 pounds. My car's race weight is about 3300 lbs. It runs 14.0 at 101. If I took it to 2300 lbs. it should run 12.6 at 114. Then if we stripped off another thousand pounds it should run a low 10 at 138
And just think how fast it would be at 300lbs!

Rich Krause
Old Jan 6, 2004 | 04:03 PM
  #7  
mongse_1's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,450
From: Belleville, IL
Originally posted by Steve Y
That's where the theory falls on it's face. It is not a linear thing. It is a rule of thumb. It is an exponential thing. You would gain more than a full second on most cars by removing 1000 pounds. My car's race weight is about 3300 lbs. It runs 14.0 at 101. If I took it to 2300 lbs. it should run 12.6 at 114. Then if we stripped off another thousand pounds it should run a low 10 at 138
Sounds like an episode of Monster Garage.
Old Jan 6, 2004 | 08:22 PM
  #8  
Stephen 87 IROC's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,037
From: 51°N 114°W, 3500' elevation
www.bosshoss.com

How about a 502/502 BBC in a 1300 pound motorcycle?

As for the power to weight ratio, many cars in NHRA could go much faster but NHRA has put a minimum weight limit or engine CID limit on most of them. Top fuel engines must be between 490 and 500 CID. There are many 700+ cid engines that could easily be used. 200 more CID in a top fuel is a lot more HP.

Minimum weight after a run is 2175 pounds. I'm sure if they started using a lot more carbon fiber parts, they could get the weight down far below that.

If the class was unlimited, there's no reason they couldn't get close to a 3 second run. They're in the mid 4's now.

Many classes including S/SS and Comp Eliminator have to add weight to meet the minimum weight break for the class they want to run in. At least then after you've removed as much weight as possible, you can put back weight where it's needed. Take all the weight off the front and move it to the back where it can be used better.
Old Jan 6, 2004 | 09:32 PM
  #9  
camaro_dave's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 119
From: Orem-Utah-USA
top fuel cars can't handle that many cubic inches they tried that before thats why they are limited to 500 ci hemi. no other motor can last when pumping 7000+ hp out of them besides the hemi ( design).
Old Jan 6, 2004 | 09:45 PM
  #10  
rskrause's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 10,745
From: Buffalo, New York
The limits in Top Fuel are there for safety/liability and cost reasons. I wonder how fast they could go if the cars were really unimited in terms of displacement and weight? I think traction would be the limiting factor. But if they also were to change the tire rules and/or allow "launch control" a la F1 it could really interesting. I think you would also create a huge problem with stopping the cars. But it would be cool.

Rich Krause
Old Jan 6, 2004 | 10:54 PM
  #11  
Stephen 87 IROC's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,037
From: 51°N 114°W, 3500' elevation
They've always had traction problems and produce more power than they can use anyway. When they got rid of the transmissions and started to use multi stage clutches things improved and ET's dropped. Now it's just how well you can get the clutch dialed in. It's not really a factor on how much power they can produce but how much can they get to the ground as soon as possible. Once they get moving down the track is where all the extra HP can be used.

Just like trying to launch a NOS car, it's hard to give a big shot right off the line and expect the tires to stick.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
brothaslide
2016+ Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and General Discussion
6
Jan 9, 2016 12:11 PM
FredM
Exhaust System
5
Feb 18, 2015 05:37 AM
DaxsZ28
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
127
Jun 5, 2004 11:44 PM
jrp4uc
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
36
Nov 18, 2002 04:34 PM
Chuck!
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
9
Oct 24, 2002 02:46 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:58 PM.