Middle Atlantic New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

If you've been to quaker city, step inside

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-21-2003, 10:58 AM
  #1  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
3rw1n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 30
If you've been to quaker city, step inside

i'm just wondering, for those of you who have been to QCR, what your times are compared to other tracks? Is QCR really as slow as everyone tells me?
3rw1n is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 11:54 AM
  #2  
Registered User
 
Tom Richdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 27
I was there for the NMCA race last year. The track is slow. If you stand on the starting line you'll notice that the track is UPHILL!
Tom Richdale is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 11:59 AM
  #3  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
3rw1n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 30
Yeah, it's a mini mount everest. I'm just trying to figure out how much slower it is than any other track. How did your car run?
3rw1n is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 03:10 PM
  #4  
Registered User
 
Grease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cuyahoga Falls, OHIO
Posts: 870
both these runs were made the same week, same weather conditions and near identical 60ft times

QCR - 12.904 @ 106.64mph - 1.88 60ft
D42 - 12.616 @ 110.33mph - 1.86 60ft

If you want know what your car would have run on a flat track look at your 1/8 mile times and use the formula to calculate 1/4 mile times. QCR doesn't start to go uphill until after ther 1/8 mile.

Last edited by Grease; 04-21-2003 at 03:14 PM.
Grease is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 04:42 PM
  #5  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
3rw1n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 30
Is it 1/8 e.t. * 1.55 ?
3rw1n is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 06:33 PM
  #6  
Registered User
 
Grease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cuyahoga Falls, OHIO
Posts: 870
Multiplying 1.55 for ET and 1.29 for mph is pretty close for our cars.

My 12.90 @ 106 run would have been 12.75 @ 109mph which is what I would usually ran at D42 last year.

Keep in mind that that formula only works if you have good traction. My current best is 12.531 @ 115.44mph spinning my tires upto the 330' mark. If you go by my 1/8 mile time on that run I should have only run 12.728 @ 115.22mph

Last edited by Grease; 04-21-2003 at 06:40 PM.
Grease is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 07:05 PM
  #7  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
3rw1n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 30
Originally posted by Grease
Multiplying 1.55 for ET and 1.29 for mph is pretty close for our cars.

My 12.90 @ 106 run would have been 12.75 @ 109mph which is what I would usually ran at D42 last year.

Keep in mind that that formula only works if you have good traction. My current best is 12.531 @ 115.44mph spinning my tires upto the 330' mark. If you go by my 1/8 mile time on that run I should have only run 12.728 @ 115.22mph
Hey buddy, the e.t. is kinda sketchy b/c of lack of traction, but if your mph formula is no typo. I'm looking at a 108mph trapspeed at a flat track.
3rw1n is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
WobblySausage
LT1 Based Engine Tech
6
10-07-2015 02:44 PM
autoxr166
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
0
09-25-2015 04:21 PM
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
09-18-2015 03:46 PM
Bxlt1
Drivetrain
8
09-17-2015 08:31 AM
RubyRedIrocZ
3rd Gen / L98 Engine Tech
2
09-10-2015 01:48 PM



Quick Reply: If you've been to quaker city, step inside



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 PM.