64 Foot Times

[Ross9]

Never heard it described as 64ft times before, always 60ft, but I'm assuming it will be the same thing, all UK drag racing etc refers to it as 60ft at all strips so I assume your times IC will be a 60ft beam.

best I ever managed was 1.7-1.8 in my R32 GTR, fwd my best ever is 2.21 in my Rover turbo, managed a 2.4 in Jacqs T4, pretty sure she did a 2.3 on it once as well.

also pleased to see I was over 1g in the skyline coming off the line...I could well believe it.

[st5ve]

Originally Posted by Ross9

Never heard it described as 64ft times before, always 60ft, but I'm assuming it will be the same thing, all UK drag racing etc refers to it as 60ft at all strips so I assume your times IC will be a 60ft beam.

best I ever managed was 1.7-1.8 in my R32 GTR, fwd my best ever is 2.21 in my Rover turbo, managed a 2.4 in Jacqs T4, pretty sure she did a 2.3 on it once as well.

also pleased to see I was over 1g in the skyline coming off the line...I could well believe it.

I have heard about the T4 that is great figures she is doing the same time if not better than Evo's and Scoobies that both IC and myself compete against. Would that include reaction time

[t4 tony]

hello,please excuse my lack of racing knollage,but why 64ft ???

[IC]

Originally Posted by t4 tony

hello,please excuse my lack of racing knollage,but why 64ft ???

Hi, to quote a certain Dave Slater: "32ft per second per second, is acceleration due to gravity, so doing the 64ft times in two seconds means your'e pulling 1g IIRC" .

Iain

[Chris_C]

Originally Posted by IC

Hi, to quote a certain Dave Slater: "32ft per second per second, is acceleration due to gravity, so doing the 64ft times in two seconds means your'e pulling 1g IIRC" .

Iain

No idea why... and it's an epic blast from the past, but was thinking about this the other day (more thinking that the numbers didn't add up and if I was nearly hitting 1g accelerating that I should have crossed the line much quicker than 15.8 @ 86mph )

Doing 64ft in 2 seconds surely can't be 1g, as gravity is 32ish ft per second per second.

Soooo, the first second, you have to cover 32 ft. In the second (2nd) second, you have to cover 64 ft (as speed is increasing 32ft per second, add another 32ft onto the first second), so total distance is 96ft in 2 secs to acheive 1g. Extrapolating back that'd give you... something like 1.6 seconds for a 1g average 64ft?

Or have I missed something?

[SIAMBLUE]

I managed a 2.5688 at York on Sunday. but suffered from wheelspin in first and second all day.

Gary

[Claymore]

Originally Posted by SIAMBLUE

I managed a 2.5688 at York on Sunday. but suffered from wheelspin in first and second all day.

Gary

Same problem for me,

2.5923

[Michael J]

Originally Posted by Chris_C

Doing 64ft in 2 seconds surely can't be 1g, as gravity is 32ish ft per second per second.

Soooo, the first second, you have to cover 32 ft. In the second (2nd) second, you have to cover 64 ft (as speed is increasing 32ft per second, add another 32ft onto the first second), so total distance is 96ft in 2 secs to acheive 1g. Extrapolating back that'd give you... something like 1.6 seconds for a 1g average 64ft?

Or have I missed something?

It looks like you've missed school.

s = u.t + ½.a.t²
v = u + a.t

u is zero, standing start.

After 1sec you have covered 16ft, but end up travelling at 32ft/sec.
After 2sec you have covered 64ft, terminal speed is 64ft/sec.
After 3sec, distance covered 144ft, terminal speed is 96ft/sec.
After 4sec, distance covered 256ft, terminal speed is 128ft/sec.

[Chris_C]

Originally Posted by Michael J

It looks like you've missed school.

:s

Does a bit doesn't it. I agree with your post completely.

Still, extrapolating back then means my 2.2 from last year ( and the 2.15 that I got 10 days ago again at the Retro Show) means I was averaging 26.6ft/s2 and 27.7ft/s2, 0.82g and 0.86g respectively.

Not bad for a grandad's 300

[t5frankie]

my best in the v70r fwd is 2.29