Today's Standing Mile Results for My SRTC

OP
OP
Bobpantax

Bobpantax

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Posts
6,957
Reaction score
3
Location
Miami
Hi Viperless. The "shorter" BFG drag radials may be the solution to the mystery. Read this excerpt from a Car Craft article. Since the drag radials don't have any traction problem, you got the best of both worlds by using the shorter tire - better acceleration and increased traction. Very, very interesting. What was the size of the BFG drag radial you used?

Why Does Tire Height Affect Cruise RPM?

Sometimes you'll hear people talk about "effective gear ratio" to explain the drop in cruise rpm after installing taller tires or the increase in rpm with shorter tires. Here's their theory: If a car starts with 3.50:1 gears and 26-inch-tall tires, but the tires are then swapped to 30-inchers, then the effective gear ratio is 3.08:1. In other words, the cruise rpm with 3.50:1 gears and 30-inch tires is the same as it would be if the 26-inch tires were retained and 3.08:1 gears were installed.

We don't like this concept because it's complicated and irrelevant. You can't walk up to a car at cruise night and calculate it's "effective gear ratio" unless you know its original tire size. Many people will say, "It's got 3.73:1 gears, but they act like 3.50s because the tires are taller." Taller than what? There is no standard from which to compare. Besides, "effective gear ratio" implies that a ratio has been changed, but tire size has no effect on axle ratio at all. Here's proof: If you have 4.10:1 gears, then the driveshaft will turn 4.1 times for each revolution of the tires regardless of their size.

However, changes in tire diameter do affect the car's cruise rpm, and perhaps its acceleration, because you've altered the number of tire revolutions per mile. For example, a tire with a true diameter of 26 inches has a circumference of 81.68 inches; a tire 30 inches tall has a circumference of 94.25 inches. That means each time the 30-inch tire completes one revolution it will move the car about 12-1/2 inches farther than the one revolution of the 26-inch tires. Therefore, the taller tire requires less input rpm (engine speed) to travel the same distance. Conversely, shorter tires require more engine speed per mph. That's why shorter tires seem to act like lower axle gears, and taller tires seem to act like higher gears.

There are two other reasons taller tires can tend to reduce acceleration. First, taller usually means bigger, which means heavier. Secondly, taller tires have a greater static loaded radius, or the distance from the center of the axleshaft to the ground when the tire is installed at operating pressure and loaded with the weight of the vehicle. The greater the static loaded radius, the greater the length of the lever between the axle and the ground, the greater the tire's ability to resist the acceleration of the car. However, taller tires also have a larger contact patch than shorter tires, so the dragstrip tractive advantages usually outweigh any disadvantages of taller tires, especially when the proper axle gears are chosen to compensate for the tire size.
 

Viperless

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
1,367
Reaction score
2
Location
MN
Hi Viperless. The "shorter" BFG drag radials may be the solution to the mystery. Read this excerpt from a Car Craft article. Since the drag radials don't have any traction problem, you got the best of both worlds by using the shorter tire - better acceleration and increased traction. Very, very interesting. What was the size of the BFG drag radial you used?

345/30-18. Which comes out to ~26" diameter. However, there is some variance between manufacturers and these tires don't have any tread. Calculating tire diameter using the data from my logs and gearing results in a tire diameter of 25.6". I think that's close enough.
 
OP
OP
Bobpantax

Bobpantax

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Posts
6,957
Reaction score
3
Location
Miami
A couple more questions for Viperless.

1. Did you have the same wheels on the car for the standing mile run that you used at the drag strip? They appear to be SSR's.

2. I noticed that the front tires for the drag strip were Toyos. Did you also use them for the standing mile run?

3. Your car sits lower than mine and mine is lowered 3/4 inch in the front and 1/2 in the rear. How much is your car lowered?

Lowering the car more reduces the air under the vehicle and improves the aerodynamics. Using the lighter weight SSRs would reduce the rotating mass of the wheels. I do not know what using Toyos on the front might have accomplished. Do they weigh less? Are they shorter? Lastly, using the shorter BFG drag radials, as mentioned above, has a positive effect. So, when you add all of this to your somewhat increased power level, your result makes sense.
 
OP
OP
Bobpantax

Bobpantax

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Posts
6,957
Reaction score
3
Location
Miami
345/30-18. Which comes out to ~26" diameter. However, there is some variance between manufacturers and these tires don't have any tread. Calculating tire diameter using the data from my logs and gearing results in a tire diameter of 25.6". I think that's close enough.

I think the diameter of the 345/30-19 tire is 27.4 inches. So we are talking about a pretty significant difference.
 

Viperless

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
1,367
Reaction score
2
Location
MN
A couple more questions for Viperless.

1. Did you have the same wheels on the car for the standing mile run that you used at the drag strip? They appear to be SSR's.

2. I noticed that the front tires for the drag strip were Toyos. Did you also use them for the standing mile run?

3. Your car sits lower than mine and mine is lowered 3/4 inch in the front and 1/2 in the rear. How much is your car lowered?

Lowering the car more reduces the air under the vehicle and improves the aerodynamics. Using the lighter weight SSRs would reduce the rotating mass of the wheels. I do not know what using Toyos on the front might have accomplished. Do they weigh less? Are they shorter? Lastly, using the shorter BFG drag radials, as mentioned above, has a positive effect. So, when you add all of this to your somewhat increased power level, your result makes sense.

1. Yes and they are indeed SSR's.

2. Yes. The previous weekend was TX2K10 in Houston. I ran the road course first so the Toyos were on the car front and rear for that event. I then swapped the rear Toyos with the BFG's to run the 1/4 mile. They performed well so I decided to use them at the mile event the next weekend. However, they didn't hook up nearly as well on the runway as they did on the dragstrip. Nevertheless, I think they worked better than the PS2's. I intended to run my factory wheels/tires at least once at the mile but I never got around to it.

3. Not sure. I had Russ at Archer Racing set the ride height. This is what he wrote down: 4 3/8" front and rear. I don't know where on the frame he measured from. I'm guessing it's about 1" lower than stock front and rear.
 
OP
OP
Bobpantax

Bobpantax

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Posts
6,957
Reaction score
3
Location
Miami
Thanks for posting all the data. I think that we have pinned down what made the 15 MPH difference between your car and Ritchie's car in addition to the fact that you are running more power than Ritchie. If you get a chance, it would be interesting if you ran the same course with the stock rims and the PS2s to see what happens - assuming the weather conditions are roughly the same. The bottom line is that you may have stumbled upon the perfect combo of wheels, tires, and ride height for a Gen IV coupe running stock pre 2010 gears for a standing mile run. Bravo to you.

Best,

Bob
 
Last edited:

Viperless

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
1,367
Reaction score
2
Location
MN
Thanks!

Found more detailed info. on the weather that day.

At 2:05pm, which was 5 minutes after my 190 run, the conditions were:

72 degrees
30% humidity
30.13" barometric pressure
NNW wind at 18.4 mph gusting to 23 mph

Elevation is 324 ft.

Pretty good air for making power I would say. Far from a full on tailwind but probably helped a little. Certainly didn't hurt.
 
Last edited:

Zentenk

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Posts
686
Reaction score
0
Don't know if anyone posted this but what is your horsepower at around the bottom of 5th if you look at your dyno sheet? Torque? Maybe it is the power under the curve. I see other posts about your 700rwhp vs the 550rwhp but that is PEAK... unless somehow you stay at 700rwhp at bottom of 5th (not likely haha) if I remember correctly Paxton has more peaky power? RPM
 
OP
OP
Bobpantax

Bobpantax

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Posts
6,957
Reaction score
3
Location
Miami
Don't know if anyone posted this but what is your horsepower at around the bottom of 5th if you look at your dyno sheet? Torque? Maybe it is the power under the curve. I see other posts about your 700rwhp vs the 550rwhp but that is PEAK... unless somehow you stay at 700rwhp at bottom of 5th (not likely haha) if I remember correctly Paxton has more peaky power? RPM

Read all of the posts above yours. The problem has been identified. Thanks for posting.
 

shooter_t1

Has Left the Room!
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Posts
1,945
Reaction score
1
Location
Texas
You guys are unbelievable. My car has the stock 3.07 factory installed rear end. That goes for the rest of the drive line as well. It has NOT been touched. I was running BFG drag radials which are nearly 1.5" shorter than the 345/30-19's.

I just love how other people think they know more about my car than I do.

Wasn't calling BS or attacking you Viperless. I apologize if it came off that way. The 148-149 mph topped in 4th was what caught my attention. After reading today about the tire size you are running, it makes sense.
 
Last edited:

Kala

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Posts
1,383
Reaction score
0
Location
Ojai, CA
Hi Viperless. The "shorter" BFG drag radials may be the solution to the mystery. Read this excerpt from a Car Craft article. Since the drag radials don't have any traction problem, you got the best of both worlds by using the shorter tire - better acceleration and increased traction. Very, very interesting. What was the size of the BFG drag radial you used?

Why Does Tire Height Affect Cruise RPM?

Sometimes you'll hear people talk about "effective gear ratio" to explain the drop in cruise rpm after installing taller tires or the increase in rpm with shorter tires. Here's their theory: If a car starts with 3.50:1 gears and 26-inch-tall tires, but the tires are then swapped to 30-inchers, then the effective gear ratio is 3.08:1. In other words, the cruise rpm with 3.50:1 gears and 30-inch tires is the same as it would be if the 26-inch tires were retained and 3.08:1 gears were installed.

We don't like this concept because it's complicated and irrelevant. You can't walk up to a car at cruise night and calculate it's "effective gear ratio" unless you know its original tire size. Many people will say, "It's got 3.73:1 gears, but they act like 3.50s because the tires are taller." Taller than what? There is no standard from which to compare. Besides, "effective gear ratio" implies that a ratio has been changed, but tire size has no effect on axle ratio at all. Here's proof: If you have 4.10:1 gears, then the driveshaft will turn 4.1 times for each revolution of the tires regardless of their size.

However, changes in tire diameter do affect the car's cruise rpm, and perhaps its acceleration, because you've altered the number of tire revolutions per mile. For example, a tire with a true diameter of 26 inches has a circumference of 81.68 inches; a tire 30 inches tall has a circumference of 94.25 inches. That means each time the 30-inch tire completes one revolution it will move the car about 12-1/2 inches farther than the one revolution of the 26-inch tires. Therefore, the taller tire requires less input rpm (engine speed) to travel the same distance. Conversely, shorter tires require more engine speed per mph. That's why shorter tires seem to act like lower axle gears, and taller tires seem to act like higher gears.

There are two other reasons taller tires can tend to reduce acceleration. First, taller usually means bigger, which means heavier. Secondly, taller tires have a greater static loaded radius, or the distance from the center of the axleshaft to the ground when the tire is installed at operating pressure and loaded with the weight of the vehicle. The greater the static loaded radius, the greater the length of the lever between the axle and the ground, the greater the tire's ability to resist the acceleration of the car. However, taller tires also have a larger contact patch than shorter tires, so the dragstrip tractive advantages usually outweigh any disadvantages of taller tires, especially when the proper axle gears are chosen to compensate for the tire size.

Thanks for posting that Bob! That article taught me something new :2tu:
 

Viperless

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
1,367
Reaction score
2
Location
MN
Wasn't calling BS or attacking you Viperless. I apologize if it came off that way. The 148-149 mph topped in 4th was what caught my attention. After reading today about the tire size you are running, it makes sense.

No worries Shooter.
 

Nine Ball

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Posts
3,411
Reaction score
10
Location
Houston, TX
I ran my '06 coupe (Paxton) the same weekend that Keith (Viperless) did at the TX Mile. I only got in two passes, 179 followed by a 180 mph pass. My car makes 675 rwhp, just a Paxton and a catback.

Bob, your description of the run is dead on. 5th gear ***** in this car. The RPM drop is so bad, it feels like throwing a parachute out the window. I didn't see any boost in 5th gear, until near the finish line. That means our Paxton cars are running essentially all-motor in 5th gear until maybe 190 mph. Probably closer to 400 hp at such low rpm, without boost.

The all-motor '08+ cars weigh less since they don't have the Paxton kit or crossover exhaust. They also have 600 hp engines stock, so even at lower rpm in 5th gear, they are still making more power than our non-boost Paxton pre-08 cars do. Area under the HP curve is probably substantial between the two, regardless of dynojet figures at max rpm range.

I feel a trans gear swap alone would easily add 10+ mph to the car. I felt like I was on cruise control once I hit 5th, barely any acceleration since I had no boost.

ZR1 has a roots style blower, full boost at 2K RPM. I sure wish we had a roots system for the SRT-10. I can't stand this Paxton, it pales severely in fun factor compared to my other two cars with roots blowers on them.

Tony
 

Nader

Enthusiast
Joined
May 20, 2005
Posts
3,386
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Also keep in mind that the paxton is robbing some power since the engine needs to drive the blower, so at the lower RPMs you might be making a bit less power.


I ran my '06 coupe (Paxton) the same weekend that Keith (Viperless) did at the TX Mile. I only got in two passes, 179 followed by a 180 mph pass. My car makes 675 rwhp, just a Paxton and a catback.

Bob, your description of the run is dead on. 5th gear ***** in this car. The RPM drop is so bad, it feels like throwing a parachute out the window. I didn't see any boost in 5th gear, until near the finish line. That means our Paxton cars are running essentially all-motor in 5th gear until maybe 190 mph. Probably closer to 400 hp at such low rpm, without boost.

The all-motor '08+ cars weigh less since they don't have the Paxton kit or crossover exhaust. They also have 600 hp engines stock, so even at lower rpm in 5th gear, they are still making more power than our non-boost Paxton pre-08 cars do. Area under the HP curve is probably substantial between the two, regardless of dynojet figures at max rpm range.

I feel a trans gear swap alone would easily add 10+ mph to the car. I felt like I was on cruise control once I hit 5th, barely any acceleration since I had no boost.

ZR1 has a roots style blower, full boost at 2K RPM. I sure wish we had a roots system for the SRT-10. I can't stand this Paxton, it pales severely in fun factor compared to my other two cars with roots blowers on them.

Tony
 
OP
OP
Bobpantax

Bobpantax

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Posts
6,957
Reaction score
3
Location
Miami
Thanks!

Found more detailed info. on the weather that day.

At 2:05pm, which was 5 minutes after my 190 run, the conditions were:

72 degrees
30% humidity
30.13" barometric pressure
NNW wind at 18.4 mph gusting to 23 mph

Elevation is 324 ft.

Pretty good air for making power I would say. Far from a full on tailwind but probably helped a little. Certainly didn't hurt.


The tailwind, especially if it was what is referred to in the article below as a "quartering tailwind" may have had a very significant effect. The Viper has a large rear aspect. Let me know what you think after reading the article.

POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF CROSSWINDS ON DERBY RACERS

Derby Tech - March, 1987

by Bruce Finwall​
Have you ever wondered how the wind affects the performance of a Derby racer? You may have seen some interesting results on a gusty race day, when a big ''sled'' somehow beat the ''sure winner''. Let's examine mathematically how this works.
Once a Derby racer gets up to speed it's estimated that aerodynamic drag accounts for over 80% of the total drag an the car. So, as cars approach the finish line, it is common to see the more aerodynamic cars seem to pull away. Since air drag is a highly nonlinear function of apparent wind velocity, and since a Derby has a larger lateral area than frontal area, it appears that there are aerodynamic effects that work to increase the drag forces of crosswinds and even "quartering'' tailwinds. This article describes calculations for the, effects.
The results are interesting:
You must be registered for see images

  • The most beneficial wind is not a direct tailwind but a ''quartering'' tailwind of about 30 degrees from the rear.
  • The most detrimental wind is not a direct headwind, but rather a ''quartering'' headwind blowing at about 45 degrees to the racer's path.
  • Crosswinds are not harmless. A pure crosswind (at 90 degrees to the direction of travel) actually slows a racer down almost as much as a direct headwind.
  • ''Marginal'' tailwinds (i.e. winds Making an angle of about 100 degrees to 140 degrees to the direction of the racer) can be either beneficial or detrimental depending on there speed, the speed of the racer, and the design of the racer.
All of these effects are due to the fact that the lateral area of a Derby racer is about 4 to 7 times the size of the direct frontal area of the racer. The racer is simply a bigger ''Sail'' I then viewed from the side. It should be noted that energy consumed by wind drag is a nonlinear function of both apparent wind speed and actual racer speed.
So, a new area that you may want to consider when designing your next Derby racer is the wind pattern of your local track (or maybe Akron or Ft. Wayne). It is probable that the best design in a wind tunnel is not the best when it comes to a Derby track where there are wind conditions. So get out to your favorite track with a wind sock to start working on your new design. (Note: see related stories on "quartering" tailwind racer and "quartering" head-wind racer.) see below - Online ED
You must be registered for see images

MATHEMATICS
  • A = angle of actual wind vector (v) relative to the direction of travel of Derby racer (u)
  • B = angle of apparent wind vector (w) relative to direction of travel of Derby racer
  • r = density of air
  • Cd = drag coefficient of Derby racer
  • u = velocity vector of Derby racer (relative to ground)
  • v = velocity vector of wind (relative to ground)
  • w = apparent wind vector (windspeed relative to Derby racer) (w = u + v, in vector analysis)
  • Al = lateral area of Derby racer
  • Af = frontal area of Derby racer
  • At = total area of Derby racer
  • Fw = total aerodynamic force on Derby racer
  • Dw = aerodynamic drag force under windy conditions
  • Do = aerodynamic drag force under windless conditions
The basic approach is to do a vector addition of the wind speed and the Derby speed to obtain an apparent wind speed and direction (see figure 1, and then calculate the drag force produced by this apparent wind acting on the projected area of the car exposed to the apparent wind. The results are shown in figure 2 as a ratio of drag forces on the Derby in windy conditions to the drag under windless conditions. These ratios are given as a function of wind angle (A) and the ratio of the wind speed to the racer speed (v/u). Drag ratios less than 1.0 mean that the wind is helping to speed up the racer; drag ratios greater than 1.0 indicate an increase in drag.
The apparent velocity of the wind relative to the Derby (w) is the vector sum of the actual wind velocity (v) and the velocity of the ground relative to the racer under windless conditions (u):
w = u + v (in vector addition)
This vector addition is shown in figure 1. By the Pythagorean theorem:
You must be registered for see images

which can be rearranged to:
You must be registered for see images

The total aerodynamic drag force exerted on the racer is given by the following expression:
You must be registered for see images

This total drag force has components in both parallel and perpendicular to the direction of travel. But only the parallel component has any influence on the racer's speed, because the perpendicular component is absorbed in tire-pavement skid resistance. (supposedly, in sufficiently windy and slick conditions the perpendicular component of aerodynamic drag could push the racer off of the road. That possibility is ignored in this analysis.) The component of drag parallel to the direction of Derby, travel is:
You must be registered for see images

Substituting Equation 2 into Equation 3 gives:
You must be registered for see images

By contrast, the drag force under windless conditions is given b3, the sir.simpler expression:
You must be registered for see images

Dividing Equation 4 by Equation 5 gives the ratio of the drag under windy conditions to that under windless conditions:
You must be registered for see images

This constitutes the primary expression for the drag-related effects of crosswinds. The task is to evaluate the right-hand side of Equation 6 in terms of quantities we already know, such as racer speed (u), wind speed (v), the angle between them (A), and the area terms and the drag coefficients.
But immediately there is a problem we have no data on the effective area and the drag coefficient of the racer in crosswinds. To my knowledge no one has ever actually measured the drag coefficient of a Derby racer except in conditions where the apparent wind is head on. This could be a topic for future research.
To proceed with the analysis, I will assume that the race car behave aerodynamically like a box having frontal area Af and lateral area Al. Inclusion of lateral area is of surprising importance. As the apparent wind vector shifts from directly head-on, the large lateral area becomes exposed to the apparent wind, like a sail, thereby increasing the drag force. The projected area exposed to the apparent wind is given by the expression:
[7] At = Af * [cosB] + Al*|sinB]
It turns out that only the ratio of lateral area to frontal area is im- portant in evaluating Equation 6.
The drag coefficient also drops out of Equation 6; that is, the important point about the drag coefficient is not its actual value, but rather its variation with apparent wind direction. For this analysis, and for simplification, drag coefficient is assumed to be ''invariant'' with apparent wind direction. To calculate the angle B, the following trig identities were used:
[8] cosB = (u + v.cosA) /w
[9] sinB = (v * sinA) /w
Substituting Equations 7, 8, and 9 into Equation 6, and simplifying, gives the following expression for drag force as a function of wind speed/ racer speed ratio (v/u), wind angle (A), and lateral to frontal area ratio:
You must be registered for see images

A plot for this expression is shown in figure 2, with wind angle along the horizontal axis, and the wind speed/derby speed ratio treated as a parameter. 5
THEORY
THE ''QUARTERING'' TAILWIND RACER by Bruce Finwall
In designing a car to run primarily in ''quartering tailwind conditions, there are several ideas that a designer may want to consider.
- The ideal design would probably have a ''cusped'' tail (looking from a top view) which would work a more effective ''sail'' :
You must be registered for see images
- The side view would probably have a LONG, FLAT rear:
You must be registered for see images

- The frontal area might be TALL and THIN:
- The tail sections might be concaved:
You must be registered for see images
Note: unfortunately many of these ideas don't allow much room for the driver.
THEORY
THE ''QUARTERING'' HEADWIND RACER by Bruce Finwall
The ''pencil nosed'' designs that ran well in 1986 are good examples of a car designed to perform in ''quartering'' headwind conditions.
- Reducing the lateral area is the key. Using a SMALL, LOW, LONG nose is one way to achieve a smaller lateral area; this could be a ''pencil nose'' or "wedge'' type lateral section.
You must be registered for see images

- A side profile based off of a standard aerofoil section would have a lateral area of about 1030 square inches. It would be possible to get the lateral area down to the 700 square inch range using one of the above mentioned techniques.
- Also, a ROUND nose design could help to reduce the Cd (see Equation 4). (Also, see BIG AND ROUND VS. SMALL AND FLAT, DT JAN/FEB 87)
You must be registered for see images

Note: I hope that you readers enjoyed this ''Food for Thought''. Ed
You must be registered for see images
Return to the Derby Tech Page
 

V10TT

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 15, 2001
Posts
452
Reaction score
0
Location
Miami Fl
Get John Donato to do the .80/.63 gear ratio swap for 5th and 6th. Perfet for the mile!
only 1200 rpms drop from 5th gear to 4th gear, and if you have the power to go over 200mph, the drop between 5th and 6th is also 1200 rpms. This is based on a 6,000 rpm shift point.
 
OP
OP
Bobpantax

Bobpantax

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Posts
6,957
Reaction score
3
Location
Miami
Can someone answer this question?

What is the actual drop in RPM when you shift from fourth to fifth at 6000 RPM? I was not looking at the tach.
 
OP
OP
Bobpantax

Bobpantax

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Posts
6,957
Reaction score
3
Location
Miami
About 1700 rpm drop with stock gear.


Thanks Mark. So if it cuts the drop from 1700 RPM to 1200 RPM, it should reduce the power loss I felt - yes? Or is a 1200 RPM dop still too much for the Paxton? Your thoughts?
 

Nine Ball

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Posts
3,411
Reaction score
10
Location
Houston, TX
Without doing the math, I'd like no less than 5K rpm after an upshift from 6K redline. I glanced down and my tach read 4300-ish going into 5th. That mirrors what Mr Jorgensen stated about the 1700 rpm drop. Yuck! My car isn't even any fun until 5000 rpm.

Tony
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
153,643
Posts
1,685,204
Members
18,220
Latest member
ROIII
Top