What makes your sled Quick??!!

[SuperStroker!]

SuperStroker!: I've seen the Mach in action and it's not just fast it's quick. If you can make a stock RX-1 Beat a Mack in 500 and 660 I want your clutching package!!!!

What makes you think that mach you raced was stock?

All of my sleds are always stock...yah right!

 

[jtssrx]

I know that guys that set it up. I'm sure it was been tweeked. The same thing applies to this sled as this conversation. He'd getting it to the ground!!!

 

[LazyBastard]

The only statement I disagree with is the very first line. The rest of my comments are simply clarifications;

Torque is et, HP is top MPH.

Actually, torque is irrelevant without speed (you can generate thousands of ft lbs by hand with a long lever, but you'll never win a race, even against a chainsaw motor 50 cc powered sled). Torque combined with speed is power.

The more torque you can put to the ground and the faster you go (mph in 60', which is translated as 60' time...the faster the mph @ 60', the lower the et. Just 2 ways to look at it) in the 1st 60', the track gets longer and the mph has a new opportunity to increase.

Torque to the ground is precisely equal to this; [(crank hp) - (transmission power loss)] * 5252 / [driveshaft rpm]

-- in other words... at whatever rpm you can get the most POWER through to the driveshaft (at any particular driveshaft speed), you will get the greatest TORQUE on the driveshaft. This, of course, is not necessarily a constant, since the driveshaft speed is constantly changing - requiring the clutches to shift. The clutches are not necessarily equally efficient at all speeds - if you loose more power in the clutches by spinning the motor at its peak power than you would loose by spinning the motor slower, it may actually benefit to make less power.

This is confusing, I know but look at it this way. If I can turn 60 mph in 60' as opposed to 45 mph in 60', I now have 1260 feet to reach top speed.

If I only run 45mph in 60', now I have to go another 30' lets say, in order to pick up that extra 15mph I ran in the previous example. Now my track is shorter by 30'. I have 1230' left to reach top possible speed for the HP I have to generate top speed.

This makes perfect sense, but difficult to read. You are referring to the fact that with the same balance of the track to use, the faster you get to speed (due to greater driveshaft torque), the less you need to accelerate before you reach top speed, OR, the more you will be ABLE to accelerate given the same time and distance.

Give me sled response (lighter crank and valve train) and more torque (fuel injected 4-stroke power band) and if I'm on my game and I know how to extract this advantage and put it to the ground, the Mach is coming hard on the top, but I win!

If speed run mph is all you care about, then you want as much HP and RPM from your motor as you can get, within reasonable efficiency boundaries and now the Mach wins, maybe?

The second thing you said there is the key to everything. With 100% efficiency, power rules *everything*, unfortunately, 100% efficiency is impossible, so we have to make compromises and can NEVER get the full potential of our engines.

The reason I say maybe, is because the Mach is a low RPM engine, makes HP yes but the RX has a gearing advantage and potentially longer legs because its engines revs to a higher rpm, without power loss.

Spinning faster won't make it faster. The ability to take the horsepower and convert it into driveshaft torque does. This is all about transmission efficiency. If the mach has very low transmission efficiency, then it will loose its horsepower advantage. This efficiency can be tied directly into the clutches and the clutch speed.

In a race where you had too really well set up sleds, the Mach and the RTX, I wouldn't be surprized if the top speed was really close????

If everything on that mach is as well thought out as the engine, I also wouldn't be surprised. If the transmission efficiency was the same, then RTX shouldn't even come close.

Time will tell...

I will tell ya next fall because I'm putting my RTX on the asphalt and from my calculations, I expect to run 130 plus in 1320 with my stock RTX.

I ran 126 in 1320 with a stock SRX and as far as I know, we still hold the NSSR record for a stock and tech'd 700cc sled.

 

[jtssrx]

Actually, torque is irrelevant without speed (you can generate thousands of ft lbs by hand with a long lever, but you'll never win a race, even against a chainsaw motor 50 cc powered sled). Torque combined with speed is power.

Torque is what moves you. Hp is what pulls you on the other end. The more torque you have and the more you put to the ground the quicker you'll come out of the whole. I think that's what Superstroker is saying.

Speed is a given so your argument is Irrelevant.

 

[LazyBastard]

Speed is NOT a given. Speed is a variable. If the resistance is not equal to the torque, then speed changes. As speed increases, torque drops.

 

[jtssrx]

When you say speed do you mean MPH?

 

[LazyBastard]

Speed on the track in MPH or on the driveshaft in RPM.

 

[jtssrx]

torque is irrelevant without speed

Speed isn't constant it is always changeing yes but without one you don't have another. The more torque you make and are able to put to the ground the better your 60 times will be. To call torque irrelevant is just silly. without one of your XYZ factors you can't determine the other 2


Go back and look at the shootout number over the years. For the most part when ET's go down MPH does as well. This usally happesns with a quicker 60 foot time. It also happens after clutch and chassis modifcations have been made to sled that makes the identical HP it made the run prior. What has happend in most cases is you've either increased the torque/HP at the track or you've adjusted the chassis to better put the upped or same Torque/Hp to the track itslef.

 

[LazyBastard]

torque is irrelevant without speed

Speed isn't constant it is always changeing yes but without one you don't have another.

Really. So you torque your clutch on to 88 ft lbs by hand with a torque wrench, thats approximately the same as the torque that the motor generates at.... 8800 rpm. Are you saying that you can win a drag race by.. yabba-dabba-doo? Maybe you should throw the motor out completely, its just adding weight.

The more torque you make and are able to put to the ground the better your 60 times will be. To call torque irrelevant is just silly.

I never said torque was irrelevant. I said that it was irrelevant WITHOUT SPEED.

without one of your XYZ factors you can't determine the other 2

Actually, you need TWO to determine the other ONE.




Speed and torque are TOTALLY independent.
Speed is how fast - throw a dart, it goes fast, but the best damage you could do with it is break a window or jab someone in the as*.
Torque is how much FORCE - clamp a vise on a nut and it will crack. With enough force, you can crush anything, but if its really slow and you just push into something, you will probably just push it out of the way.
POWER is the SPEED at which FORCE is applied. Put a volkswagen in front of a speeding locomotive... THATS power. POWER is the number that tells you how much WORK can be done in a given time.

WORK is the movement of a mass over a distance. Work = force * distance.
Power = work / time <-- that is our goal.
Power = force (that it takes to move 750-ish pounds - aka torque) * distance (of the track) / time (it takes to cross the distance)

note: if you decrease time, you necessarily must increase power. To increase power without changing torque implies that you increase the speed.


YES, torque IS important, but speed is JUST as important.

Go back and look at the shootout number over the years. For the most part when ET's go down MPH does as well. This usally happesns with a quicker 60 foot time. It also happens after clutch and chassis modifcations have been made to sled that makes the identical HP it made the run prior. What has happend in most cases is you've either increased the torque/HP at the track or you've adjusted the chassis to better put the upped or same Torque/Hp to the track itslef.

 

[zrnewf]

I have a 99 zr700...the good ole freddy kruger motor, I have beat a Mxz 800 and ran neck and neck with my friends D&D 720 pro mod sno pro...to the point where he was three sled lengths ahead but got those at the beginning beacuase no one started us.....so no hp don't win all races...getting to the ground does. good luck and keep tuing. It will be him who is catching up next year as I will have a turbo RX warrior....no dice with passin me then!

 

[LazyBastard]

Just to add to that a little bit, that power = force * distance / time equation doesn't account for acceleration. It accounts for a rolling start and a constant speed. To solve it for a race involving acceleration requires calculus (for theoretical perfect conditions), or a track dyno, slippage analysis, and a helovalot of patience (for real-world).

 

[LazyBastard]

I have a 99 zr700...the good ole freddy kruger motor, I have beat a Mxz 800 and ran neck and neck with my friends D&D 720 pro mod sno pro...to the point where he was three sled lengths ahead but got those at the beginning beacuase no one started us.....so no hp don't win all races...getting to the ground does. good luck and keep tuing. It will be him who is catching up next year as I will have a turbo RX warrior....no dice with passin me then!

Of course there is a LOT more to racing than hp... or even torque.

Power to weight ratio,
driveline efficiency,
traction.

 

[jtssrx]

LazyBastard: One day you will learn to listen to other people instead of having to hear your own voice or in this case read the words you type. You take 10 percent of what someone posts and then put your super smart spin on that 10 percent.


You need to grow up KID. That's what you are a little kid!!!!!


I'm done talking to you it always becomes an argument!!!!

 

[LazyBastard]

Translation;

Aha, I understand now.

 

[jtssrx]

Translation: No your a DI CK HEAD!!!!