Ok, I always see people saying things like "Don't matter about the ET, the terminal speed is a better reflection of the car's power" and "The car can't be making x amount of power as the terminal speed is low, he's talking crap blaming a lack of traction/rubbish launch".

How does this work? The way I understand it if the car is moving up the strip but wheelspinning then it is not accelerating as fast as it could be, hence at x metres from the start it is not going as fast as it could be as the accelerative force has been lost in a cloud of smoke. The same aplies to most 2wd Cossies making reasonable-high power not being able to get grip on full boost until 3rd/4th gear in the dry. Would this not affect the terminal speed?

And with bogging down off the start you can totally lose first gear in a laggy car, and lose 15m of strip which you could be accelerating on when you are actually doing 10mph clutching it to get back up to speed.



Also was a thread earlier comparing Skyline 500m speeds to 500bhp 2wd Cossie 500m speeds.

 

I dunno, but put it this way, i ran a 17.5sec 1/4mile as i lost the 1st 3 gears to horrendous wheelspin and got a 110mph terminal.

Later on same day got a 13.9 with far less (but still loads) of wheelspin and still got 110mph

Infact i had about 6 runs that day and were all within about 3mph of each other.

 

A terminal is deffinately effected by a bad launch, it has to be.

It's got to be used in relation to other figures. I.e if two cars ran a 14sec 1/4 but one got a higher terminal than you can safely say the one with the higher terminal is faster but has traction issues.

 

Often seen cars get bad launches then far faster terminals than when they get a better ET.

I dont understand it, but its a theory that is used by proper drag racers rather than internet speak/rumours, and what ive seen it seems to be true, so i belive it, even tho i dont understand it.

 

I can't get me head round it myself Steve.

I'm gonna drink some Bud and it will all make sense.

 

Its about time taken to cover ground @ the start of a quarter 1sec is only a short distance. 1 sec at 120mph is around 26meters.
For instance mine has run 11.5 @138 i know a VW Beetle that runs 11.3 @ 119. VW wins but a far slower car. 0-119 in 11.3 is far less formitable than 0-138 in 11.5.

 

Gearing also has a massive influence.

 

confuses me aswell ,

I got a 14.01 QTR mile at brunters with a 111mph terminal ,

other cars ha lower times than me but i had the quickest terminal ,

i sort of understand things in my head but cant put it into words ,

time over distance equals speed sort of thing

 

As it says above, if you mess up the start you lose 15m of track.

Big deal, if you were to measure your terminal 15m before the end it wouldnt really be any different.

Just seems perfectly logical to me that not accelerating as well for just 15m of the track isnt really going to make the slightest bit of real difference to the final speed, but obviously crawling around to a 3 second 60ft is going to massively effect the final time.


Cant see what confuses people about it really

 

60ft time and traction affects the e.t drastically, ie my mates tubbed sierra ran 10.8s @125mph at pod. does 1.5 to 1.6 60ft.


poor et and high terminal is usual with bigger power/poor traction.

 

Think of it like this when the green light goes you crawl forward off the line 10 meters then sit there for 30 secs.

You then launch and get the same terminal (roughly as the + 10 meters don't make much difference) but your E.T. is + 30 seconds.

A bad launch will add time to your E.T. but you still have roughly the same space to accelerate up to your terminal

 

do you also believe in father christmas, the tooth fairy and god?

i credited you with more intelligence than that steve

 

 

I guess that explains it

If you have poor traction to the extent of 3rd gear and not being able to use full boost until 3rd or 4th gear this will definitely affect the terminal speed though?

 

Yes by a massive amount, cause you are wasting so much track, but on a launch you arent.

Hence why powerful cars run so much worse terminal speeds in the wet.

 

not really it seems, i was in 4th before i gripped on them runs i mentioned earlier, way way past the 60ft mark, and i was still getting 110mph terminals