Wow this is ugly.... bout time to stop. Give these guys some credit.

I ONLY said that 10.3 ain't a 9 because the standard of calculating ET vs. MPH is going to be down 2-3mph to get that 3400lbs car that far... That's a increase of 30-45mph to find that, or 150-250lbs LESS to get there.

Formula for this:

ET=(5.5)*(((LBS/HP)*(((MPH-100)/400)+1))^(1/3))

NOTE: ^1/3 is the Cube Route of that total.... All of this should plug into a excell file if you understand the math. This formula is correlated with most national drag racing records. THIS IS ALL CORRECTED AS WELL, with a low *** DA YOU WILL GO FASTER! From what I have seen cars in the Mid 8's to 10's follow this rule pretty dam well, when you get to record setting rails, well this goes out the door.

To make this simple:

130mph and a perfect run = 10.18 ET
133mph and a perfect run = 9.98 ET

These numbers are very close to what you see.... I could give you probably 3-4 examples from the real world with this, but if you look hard enough you will find them anyways.

It's still cool to see this BTW. I've seen guys do more with less, but with a LT1 intake on top that's still pretty cool to see.

I felt I had to explain what I wrote due to people being chastized here for acting like well, whatever the language filter is going to block out.

Bret

 

Bret,
If using the old Rule of Thumb:
100lbs=1 tenth(close)
Then it seems it would take more like 350lbs to get it done and JUST in the 9's
Keep in mind this ain't no NHRA formula but over the years it has been pretty dam close.
I have weighed cars before and after the weight was taken off, on the same scales and it was .08-1.0 tenths per hundred and it could be other factors,'cause the runs were not on the same day.

Would you sign that formula out a little better so I can read it right.

 

Bret, thanks for the cudo's & your civility...you are a gentleman as always.

Bret, I am not disputing the importance of math in this sport and I am sure you are aware of what follows. I just want to point this out to those that may believe that if the computer says its so...its got to be correct.

We are fortunate that we are located within 25mi of more than 30+ cup team's HQ plus more than a 100+ support performance business's for those teams. That's alot of talent and knowledge about what makes a engine run well on the track. In addition, we're very fortunate to know & consult with some people that have been at this level for more than 35+ years. To the man they all agree that calculations and flow/dyno data are nothing more than an indicator of how an engine should perform.

We are located within a stones throw of Lowes Motor Speedway, and every day cars are on that track testing to verify the calculations....and, guess what...many times the track results do not verify the calcualted projection of performance.

When a driver/engine builder of Rick's skill & experience tells me he is confident he will get this car to run faster than it ever has....I believe him not my excel spreadsheet.

Ron

 

GREAT job, AI. Like always, you've outdone yourselves. It's such a shame there are such jealous people in the world who can't give you guys a simple pat-on-the-back without getting all defensive about cars they spents tens of thousands of dollars on to reach the same goals that you guys attained with considerably less money.

Kudos to Phil and Ron for a great company

Mike

 

Ron,

That formula was concieved by Dr Dean Hill.... I think he's up there with the NASCAR boys in terms of real world knowledge... I mean some hick down in Florida figured out how to use Nitromethane better than him, but he knew why. Afterall he is the FATHER of Top Fuel Racing. That formula is founded in years of drag racing, it's not just something that's plugged into a computer. You can deviate on both sides of it, but it is EXTREMELY RARE that a door slammer does so to the positive side, unless it's Pro Stock. The book it's in was copywrited in 1974 for christ sake and it STILL WORKS DEAD NUTS today.

It's a rule of thumb, but every Super Stock and Stock Class racer that I have seen run in that ET range, correlates perfectly with that index.... Go out to the drag strip this weekend with that and record some ET's and MPH of cars and the ones that are doing well should get pretty close with that guess.

You could very well go 9's man, it's just going to be moving at 133-134mph to do it.

I'd like to see it run 9's, but 600hp out of LT1 castings which you guys should be just shy of right now has been done before. That's a 10.1 car right there, don't ask how I know.

Bret

 

Larry I will send you the Excell file for it.

Bret

 

Playing with numbers is always fun fun...

Anyways...

Taking weight off a car in an effort to lose ET effects the car based off the starting weight of each car.

Car A weighs 4000 lbs...it goes on a diet and it is now 3500 lbs. Simple math gets a 500 lb reduction.

Car B weighs 3000 lbs...it goes on a diet and it is now 2500 lbs. Simple math gets a 500 lb reduction.

Which car will benefit more if nothing else changes other than weight, providing the make the same rwhp...such as gearing, etc...

Car A lost 12.50% of it's total weight.

Car B lost 16.67% of it's total weight.

Which car would have a larger reduction in ET? Car B.

Then you have horsepower to put into the process.

Car A makes 1000 rwhp and weighs 3500 lbs. It loses let's say, 1000 lbs. It should reduce about .9 seconds.

Car B makes 500 rwhp and weighs 3500 lbs. It loses let's say, 1000 lbs. It. should reduce about 1.15 seconds.

As a car makes more power, the effects of weight loss start to return less.

Just thought I would share a little.....

 

Ron/Phil Great work.

Why do some of us have to be so immature about someones happiness with their work. There is no denying that the h/c setup on this particular car is awesome. The results speak for themselves. It makes no differance if 100 people have achieved low 10's on stock castings before these guys. They still did it with an intake port of less than 200 cc's. IMHO it doesn't say much for the race AFR's.

I'll give you a choice and you decide which one you want.

1. Stock LT1 casting ported by Ai with basic stock intake porting that cost you roughly $2500.00 all said and done that is capable of running low 10's

2. AFR Race casting $2600.00 + you have to buy an LT4 intake $385.00 + you have to port the LT4 intake another $300-$500. Grand total $3285.00 and I firgured on the low side of the intake porting.

Well I don't know about you guys but I'm going with number one. I'll take the money I save and buy the bmr torque arm I've been wanting.

 

I'm going to ask that people stop taking shots at anyone and passing judgements on motives and emotions, no matter how well they're hidden in the post, and deal strictly with the facts. We don't need anyone trying to pour fuel on this fire to try to get it burning again.

 

Actually, there you wont find any cars running 9's in that class, or for that matter 10's on any size tire with any head. The class no longer exists. Live in the now!

 

Man 'o man, those are some wicked times. Awesome, wicked awsome. I cant wait to get my new setup in the car and get back to the track!

Congrats to Rick for running some incredible times, and to Phil and Ron for putting out products that make great power all the way across the board!

I think the car will go 9's pretty easily, regardless of what mathematical formula you're using. I'm pretty sure lots of cars, particularly Rick's car, can pick up .3-4 tenths when you consider it's got a 52mm TB, el cheapo Hooker Long tubes, a tune thats not right and the DA is well over 2000 feet. Did I mention his 60 foots were half a tenth off?

Pretty damned fast for a real LT1.

 

130,000 mile LT1 with a stock fuel system and factory castings (Lloyd Elliot porting) and an off the shell, moderate sized cam making over 400hp to the wheels right here... and that was at 5900rpm. the cam makes power to 7,000. dont be so sure about this LT1s dont make power without good luck theory.


and seeing vendors trash talk is probably some of the most unprofessional stuff you can find on a forum. let the ETs and customer cars do the talking, and even then keep it quiet. just my $.02

 

I totally agree.

A guy down here has run 10.30"s with a 383 LT-I castings,mech roller and a Holley SR. So it CAN be done.
I went with him a few times until he wrecked it and there was more left maybe a 9.95.He had a ton in the heads with NO more to go.They had 2.0I and 1.56E and 48CC's.The cam was a special grind and could have been driven on the street.It was on a brake and went low 1.30's 60'.

So It can be done,but the dollars invested IMO should be invested in an aftermarket head with room to grow and update.And for the people that don't know better,ya ain't gonna just bolt on a set of heads and run in the low 10's.It takes a purpose built car to do it.

 

I think what Ron and Phil have mentioned several times, is that these heads are the street head that anyone can purchase. They dont cost a crapload and arent some one off special head that has been worked, reworked, and had the rework worked some more, lol. Just the street Ai head, ya'll.

And you're right, you cant just take these heads and put them on your car and go 10.3/130 mph. But you can set the car up the same way Rick has his, I'm pretty sure all he runs is BMR stuff. His car is in all there ad's.

 

Well, my buddies heads could be called street heads 'cause the were driven on the street.
Don't think that it isn't a purpose built car.It don't have every thing under the car close to stock--springs,shocks,TA,tranny,rear end,weight,etc.I'm smarter than that built one or two.