MATS 2011 Killer Bee's Pics and Vids

-
NHRA ALTITUDE CORRECTION FACTORS
Stock & Super Stock


Convert to Sea Level
Track Name .... Alt..........ET.. MPH ....
Las Vegas, NV 2,100ft. .9757 1.0255 ....

Example: et of 14.999 X .9757 = 14.634 seconds at sea level.
Example Speed of 90 mph X 1.0255 = 92.295 mph at sea level.

Las Vegas has really LOUSY air most of the time...

Don't base your analysis of your car's performance on Las Vegas performances...
 
805moparkid said:
i can get all the names but it will take awhile... i dont know most of them lol... probalby better off talking to bruce pine or mark (mad max /6)

were you taking pics everytime we were in the staging lanes? guy on the harley?
Click to expand...

I think Doug will be able to get me most of the info.

How about you Mark? Do you know the folks and cars pretty well?

I wasn't there. I'm all the way over here in Kentucky. I'm just trying to "get the news out". There are still a few folks out there that don't do the whole internet thing or prefer hard copies to play with. So we will still publish SSRN for those guys and keep posting on slantsix.org for the rest.
Thanks!
 
Bill Dedman said:
NHRA ALTITUDE CORRECTION FACTORS
Stock & Super Stock


Convert to Sea Level
Track Name .... Alt..........ET.. MPH ....
Las Vegas, NV 2,100ft. .9757 1.0255 ....

Example: et of 14.999 X .9757 = 14.634 seconds at sea level.
Example Speed of 90 mph X 1.0255 = 92.295 mph at sea level.

Las Vegas has really LOUSY air most of the time...

Don't base your analysis of your car's performance on Las Vegas performances...
Click to expand...


see thats the thing the car already went 14.72 @ 94mph before the new rear end! so i know at least the mph should be up...
 
Bill Dedman said:
NHRA ALTITUDE CORRECTION FACTORS
Stock & Super Stock


Convert to Sea Level
Track Name .... Alt..........ET.. MPH ....
Las Vegas, NV 2,100ft. .9757 1.0255 ....

Example: et of 14.999 X .9757 = 14.634 seconds at sea level.
Example Speed of 90 mph X 1.0255 = 92.295 mph at sea level.

Las Vegas has really LOUSY air most of the time...

Don't base your analysis of your car's performance on Las Vegas performances...
Click to expand...

The track itself is right at 2000 above sea level....my weather station was showing a correct elevation of about 3000-3100 feet most of saturday and sunday....

that is pretty good air for vegas...
 
eQUOTE=70aarcuda;1340457]The track itself is right at 2000 above sea level....my weather station was showing a correct elevation of about 3000-3100 feet most of saturday and sunday....

that is pretty good air for vegas...[/QUOTE]

The contention that the track is at 2,100 feet is NHRA's information from their (NHRA's) website, not mine. But that's moot, if the adjusted altitude was showing to be 3,000 feet on your weather station.

The rule of thumb is that for every 1,000-feet above sea level, a normally-aspirated engine will lose 3-percent of its horsepower (ball park figure) so, at 3,000 feet elevation, that's 9-percent of your horsepower gone, compared with running at a sea-level track.

If you add that 9-percent horsepower loss to the fact that the moparkid805 swapped in a much heavier 8.75" rear end (+100 pounds over a 7.25"... I dunno???) and that the 8.75 has a lot more rotational inertia (harder to turn), it's no wonder his MPH went down.

Just sayin'...

Weight extracts a MPH penalty wherever and whenever it is added, of course. That bigger, stronger rear end is probably unbreakabe in that car, but it comes at a price... :sad10:
 
Bill Dedman said:
eQUOTE=70aarcuda;1340457]The track itself is right at 2000 above sea level....my weather station was showing a correct elevation of about 3000-3100 feet most of saturday and sunday....

that is pretty good air for vegas...
Click to expand...

The contention that the track is at 2,100 feet is NHRA's information from their (NHRA's) website, not mine. But that's moot, if the adjusted altitude was showing to be 3,000 feet on your weather station.

The rule of thumb is that for every 1,000-feet above sea level, a normally-aspirated engine will lose 3-percent of its horsepower (ball park figure) so, at 3,000 feet elevation, that's 9-percent of your horsepower gone, compared with running at a sea-level track.

If you add that 9-percent horsepower loss to the fact that the moparkid805 swapped in a much heavier 8.75" rear end (+100 pounds over a 7.25"... I dunno???) and that the 8.75 has a lot more rotational inertia (harder to turn), it's no wonder his MPH went down.

Just sayin'...

Weight extracts a MPH penalty wherever and whenever it is added, of course. That bigger, stronger rear end is probably unbreakabe in that car, but it comes at a price... :sad10:[/QUOTE]

car went from 3082 with 7.25 w/ 3/4 tank gas to 3100 with 8.75 w/ 1/2 tank gas
 
I dont care about any calculations.I run .30 to .40 slower in Vegas just like most the racers.Guzzi Mark
 
Bill Dedman said:
Don't you wonder why????
Click to expand...

as you said less air...

going to the track as it was in Vegas (less slicks) and will see what it does...

next will be SS springs with slant bars, new long travel shocks

then 4.56 spool center with 28 by 9 slicks...

already found the intake flange blanks for a tuned intake manifold im gonna be making here shortly...
 
805moparkid said:
as you said less air...QUOTE]

I was asking Mark. He's the one who said, "I dont care about any calculations."

He's a smart guy; his VERY FAST normally-aspirated car proves it.

I just wondered why, as smart as I know him to be, why he would consciously deprive himself of the knowledge to be gained by doing the numbers.

That's all....

Reminds me of a guitar player I used to know, when I asked him if he read music, he responded, " A little, but not enough to hurt my playing ..." LOL!
Click to expand...
 
Bill Dedman said:
805moparkid said:
as you said less air...QUOTE]

I was asking Mark. He's the one who said, "I dont care about any calculations."

He's a smart guy; his VERY FAST normally-aspirated car proves it.

I just wondered why, as smart as I know him to be, why he would consciously deprive himself of the knowledge to be gained by doing the numbers.

That's all....

Reminds me of a guitar player I used to know, when I asked him if he read music, he responded, " A little, but not enough to hurt my playing ..." LOL!
Click to expand...

If Mark is like I think he might be...maybe he figures too many numbers take the fun out of it.
Click to expand...
 
DO,want any and all info,I was drunk and pissed off when I posted that...butt I stand by my car has allways run between .3 to .4 tenths slower in Vegas.Getting beat in the first round by .0003 hurt the worst,shouldnt have cut the titties off my front tires.Would bee curious what .0003 exuals in inches.Bet Bill can figure it out.Guzzi Mark
 
you probably should lean out the carb went you come to vegas....you might not slow down as much....

also...change in elevation tends to effect a smaller engine more then a larger engines...
 
70aarcuda said:
you probably should lean out the carb went you come to vegas....you might not slow down as much....

also...change in elevation tends to effect a smaller engine more then a larger engines...
Click to expand...

thats why i took my exhaust off and ran open headers
 
madmax/6 said:
Would bee curious what .0003 equals in inches.Bet Bill can figure it out.Guzzi Mark
Click to expand...

Well, let's see,,, I think your car goes about 112 mph at Vegas. That'a probably wrong, but will give us something close to work with.

At 112 mph, you're going 164 feet per second. (60 mph = 88 feet per second,)

In a tenth of a second, you'd go 16.4 feet.

In a hundredth, you'd go 1.64 feet. (1 foot, 7 1/2 inches.)

In a thousandth of a second, you'd go .164 feet, or 1.97 inches.

In three thousandths of a second, at 112 mph, you'd go (3 X 1.97 inches) 5.91 inches.... almost 6 inches.

Check my math; I flunked 2nd year Algebra TWICE. :(
 
Bill Dedman said:
Well, let's see,,, I think your car goes about 112 mph at Vegas. That'a probably wrong, but will give us something close to work with.

At 112 mph, you're going 164 feet per second. (60 mph = 88 feet per second,)

In a tenth of a second, you'd go 16.4 feet.

In a hundredth, you'd go 1.64 feet. (1 foot, 7 1/2 inches.)

In a thousandth of a second, you'd go .164 feet, or 1.97 inches.

In three thousandths of a second, at 112 mph, you'd go (3 X 1.97 inches) 5.91 inches.... almost 6 inches.

Check my math; I flunked 2nd year Algebra TWICE. :(
Click to expand...

he lost by .0003 which is 3 hundred thousands i believe... so in you equation break it down once more...

so like a half inch? lol
 
robsimmons said:
Great photos and videos! Thanks for posting everything!!

I'll put something together for the Slant Six Racing News if you can give me some more information:

1. Owners/Drivers of each car.
2. Who ran who with ET / MPH
3. Any personal interest type stuff / funny stories, etc.

You can get an idea of what each story typically entails by checking out the various issues of SSRN posted over at slantsix.org:

http://www.slantsix.org/ssrn

Thanks!
Click to expand...


I believe the owner of the blue Demon (last pic in post#1) is FABO's own "Limedust70"
 
70aarcuda said:
you probably should lean out the carb went you come to vegas....you might not slow down as much....

also...change in elevation tends to effect a smaller engine more then a larger engines...
Click to expand...

Thats the 1st thing you do...

I can run 71-73 here the coast...
When I go to the high desert, like ridgecrest/inyokern, I run 67-68's

The car will run flatter than a pancake untill you lean it out, then the torque comes back.
 
805moparkid said:
lol i had a hard time with geometry...
Click to expand...

Geometry is simple...Always remember this and you can never go wrong...

The angle of the dangle is proportional to the heat of the meat.......

You young ones might take a while to figure it out though......
 
70aarcuda said:
Geometry is simple...Always remember this and you can never go wrong...

The angle of the dangle is proportional to the heat of the meat.......

You young ones might take a while to figure it out though......
Click to expand...

That is so wrong...
1231_hysterically_laughing.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top