found this very intresting
COMP461 wrote:
MADDOG wrote:



Your going to have a rude awaking when I put a 4000lbs street legal truck into the high 8's.



you will be doing somthing edge coudn't do, by that time I should be a little faster. but come on in the waters fine , and line up with me on the tree, then we will see,


I don't think you get it. I am not doing anything like EDGE. I am talking about a street legal truck not a tube chassis carbon fiber lightweight wanna be truck.

Yea.. they have been wearing out the comp forum over there.. MD hasn't been saying much...
It will be interesting to see how things look after IRP... I think the GA boys are bringing some heat.. And I haven't heard a peep out of the TX guys...
Bryan

o they are talking but it is in wispers.

yeh but the forum has been closed to members only. i am bearly in the 8s on 1/8th mile with that weight. would like to keep up with what is going on but they AINT going to get my money :rolleyes:

when its all said and done,,,,ill put my money on the georgia boys.and if it got really bad,,imagine if they decided to spray;) ....................as far as comp,goes,,i hope he runs out like he says,and shuts up some of the guys that dont want to admit he is king of the hill in all out racing now...if any of the other guys were capable of running his times,,they would be bragging all over the boards.just my opinions,,but thats the way i see it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,bama

Originally posted by jughead
yeh but the forum has been closed to members only. i am bearly in the 8s on 1/8th mile with that weight. would like to keep up with what is going on but they AINT going to get my money :rolleyes:

hey my truck will runs in the 8s in the 1/8 mile with a 6 speed and ut weighs over 8k. the souther boyz will make a heck of a showing in the next few months. and i don't doubt maddog, every one thought he was crazy with the crew cab 4x4. but they got quite when it started runnin 10s. and this is not from the tdr board, the internet natzies would have frowned on that over there. i am not a member either

Hmmm

i believe its feasible.. Mike have u looked at Diesel Power # 2 lately? man there are some wicked rams in that issue...

Tx

comps rig is not the fastest, bentz's rail is. but i don't see him getting the water head and braggin about it to everyone who will listen. comps rig runs decent, but for the money spent i still fell it should be faster.

not talking rails,,,,comp is the fastest bodied truck right now.even if it is a look alike,it still has a body.

Originally posted by gunracer1
hey my truck will runs in the 8s in the 1/8 mile with a 6 speed and ut weighs over 8k. the souther boyz will make a heck of a showing in the next few months. and i don't doubt maddog, every one thought he was crazy with the crew cab 4x4. but they got quite when it started runnin 10s. and this is not from the tdr board, the internet natzies would have frowned on that over there. i am not a member either what was your trap speed seems like my 97 aint making hp. mine was 78mph

trap speed was 76 mph, but i missed 4th gear, i was having some issues with the dual disk over 3k rpm.

With all due respect, and understanding that I do not own a high HP CTD drag truck, but I do know plenty about drag racing, I will say confidently, the claims of a 4,000 Lb street driven truck in the 8's with a 5.9L CTD are more than slightly preposterous.

Understand what 8's with a 4,000 Lb vehicle that has the heavy rotating inertia of the CTD and the aerodynamics of a pickup truck really mean......

The most impressive heavy metal/street resembling cars in NHRA drag racing are the Super Stock SS/AA hemi cars. They weigh exactly 3,170 Lbs and are dyno proven to make 900 to 950 HP. These cars leave with the wheels high in the air and often carry them 100 feet down the track and then settle out with a low front end height and thus relatively decent aerodynamic drag as they pull the second half of the track. They have extremely light weight, low inertia rotating engine assemblies (for a 426 inch engine), aluminum drive shafts, brake calipers which intentionally pull the pads completely free from the rotors and all sorts of other clever goodies like that, which most people don’t even think about. And these cars run in the high 8's.

Now think about the amount of work that went into the 8 second Cummins dragster. Think also that the dragster probably weighs no more than 1,800 Lbs. with driver. Think about the aerodynamics of the dragster compared to a pickup truck.

Now try to estimate what HP it would take to put a street driven, 4,000 Lb high inertia engine driven pickup truck into the 8's. Probably no less than 1,800 HP is my guess, maybe more.

A while back I suggested that some of the killer pullers were making 1,000 HP and I got flamed on here. How is it that claims of a 8 second 4,000 Lb CTD truck go un-flamed?


KP

maybe because no one would have ever dreamed of a 4x4 4 door ford running in the 10's, but now it seems there are a couple of them to doing it.

Originally posted by 600 Megawatts

A while back I suggested that some of the killer pullers were making 1,000 HP and I got flamed on here. How is it that claims of a 8 second 4,000 Lb CTD truck go un-flamed?


KP [/B]

Thats easy, unlike the 1000 imaginary hp trucks that are too frightened to dyno , the 4000 lb truck mentioned above is actually going to run down the track. 8 Seconds is tough to believe but unlike the pullers it will be tried in the real world not the imaginary one.

Take it easy KP,

Opie

I understand, but 8 seconds is a WORLD away from 10 secs. Things quickly become exponential when you start going that fast.

Not being pessimistic, sarcastic or snide, just practical. Its just mathematics and physics thats all...and those matters are un-deniable.


KP

not to join this arguement, but in the early 50s when i was in high school number crunchers said that the 150 mph mark in a 1/4 was as fast as one could possibly go. now u know about how ancient i am. look where they are now. dont know how quick a diesel can be. this is just a quote that stuck in my head a long time ago:)

well how much hp does it take to push maddogs old 4x ford to 130 mph trap times, and no calculator will even be close with the air drag of that old ford.

Now, I never said there was any limit to ET in the 1/4M, its all about HP/Torque and traction. Top fuel record right now is at 4.44 seconds at 336 MPH, which equates to around 10,000 HP and as you said was unheard of even ten years ago.

My point is that its gonna take close to 2,000 HP to put a 4,000 Lb truck into the 8's. I dont see many people making 2,000 HP with their 5.9L CTD. And when I suggested that some guys are making 1,000 HP, I got slammed. So there is a disconnect here thats all.


I would say roughly 800HP would push a F350 to about 130 MPH in the 1/4 depending upon weight. I base this on times I know and are familiar with in NHRA stock eliminator truck class racing, and the power I know those trucks make.



KP

If you go to smokemup.com you can figure it out. If Comp had a Motor from GA- last dynoed at 777 hp he would proably be in the REAL Low 8's if not high 7's he is only making about 650 per his weight and E/T. Now Richard is making every bit of 1000 HP and everybody goes "where is the dyno graph?" I only know of a few high HP trucks that even have them.....but think about this: Darren ran a 10.61 with about 720 hp in Indy. his truk is proabaly a hair under 6k lbs. Richard ran a 10.59 at over 7k lbs...

Ok guys, now you have some poor data.

Who is Comp and what vehicle weight are you saying he is going to be able to run low 8's or high 7's in with only 777 HP? There are plently of 700 HP gas dragsters that weigh 1,800 Lbs that cant nip the 7's.


Also, I dont know who Darren is either, but let me tell you, that 720 HP will NOT push a 6,000# truck to 10.60's. Not on this planet or in this dimension, or galaxy, EVER. Again its all physics and it doesnt lie. So he is either, lighter, or is making more power. Period. I would guess he is making more power, but I dont know and cant comment on that. It probably has to do with 'dyno' 'numbers' from an inertia dyno. Its probably making way more real power than 720, but I should not really comment. I CAN and WILL say that 720 HP WONT, CANT, IT JUST DOESNT WORK, push a 6,000# truck to 10.60's.


KP

i bet darren has helium in his tires[laugh]

amen bama numbers and real life just dont match:D

Don't try to imply that I am a 'numbers estimating guy'. I am a FACTS guy and I AM talking about real life. I have well over one thousand passes down the 1/4m in four different cars over 15 years at a dozen tracks and countless REAL dyno (aka: water brake engine dyno) pulls with a wad of timeslips to go with them. Plus lots of very close friends who have the same or TONS more pulls and passes than me. I was not the one who pulled numbers and 1/4m estimates out of their sphincter or ran 'calcs' on an internet shareware drag strip estimator. My statements are based on real life facts and experience.

So much crap is put out there, by manufacturers, vendors, mail order speed shops, inexplicably brainless TV 'hot rod garage ' type shows and un-informed so called 'experts' that is difficult to weed through all the hype and get to sound FACTS. Thats why on this forum and the drag race forums I frequent, you will allways see me 'bucking the system' when I see nonsense being spewed.

Please don't anyone, take any of this personal. I just cant stand when innaccuracies are spread and people begin to believe them. I am allways trying to steer techincal conversations back to sound FACTS.


Sincerely, and with regret for anyone offended.

KP

newest rules for pro street trucks-..........5000 single(lp&h20 allowed)..5500 1 power adder(such as nos or twins).........6200 dual power adder....

I asume you are talking about weight breaks?

Mega is correct on this. The Jet powered trucks can't even hit the 8's. The coeficient of drag is exponential, meaning the faster you push a bay window down the track the HP required to maintain a certain acceleration rate increases by multiples, not a straight diagonal line. I have owned a 1968 HEMI road runner that was in the 11's through the mufflers on fat radials, and that car was a 4,000 pounder putting out in excess of 600 screaming elephants with about the same torque. As much as I love these CTD Dodges, there 'ain't no way![eyecrazy]

I agree with your hp vs. 1/4 mile times. Those calculators are really close to real track times. I also know those calulators are based on gasoline hp with simular or less torque than hp ratios. For example a 500 hp Dodge viper has roughly 500-550 ft. lbs of trq. Were a 500 hp. CTD would have what? 1000-1200 ft. lbs.
I wonder what this does to the to 1/4 mile calculator.
You can't tell me a 4 cylinder 500 hp ricer motor with 300 ft. lbs. of trq. in a 7000 lb. pick up would transilate to the same 1/4 mile times as a 500 / 1200 CTD in the same vehicle.
What these low hp , high trq. trucks really need is a race built 6 speed auto (or Lenco??) to take full advantage of there strenghts.
That's my thoughts anyway.

db

yessir,,that was weights,,,,,,,dhra record is fletchers truck this year,on a 10.13 pass...its been said hes went in the nines already but not officially.now the way i understand it is,he could be underweight for a timeslip,,but not for actual competing,but im not sure on that.and when maddogs truck gets right,youll see some deep 9`s for sure i bet,but once again,not guaranteeing weight...comps tube rail glass truck has already gone a 8.7something,and if a tdr member would ask him,im sure he would tell his weight......one things for sure though,the really fast trucks are pretty quiet on their weights..............bama

i think the big part you are missing is that most of the diesel world deals in rwhp#s, not flywheel#s. and i belive comps so called truck weighs in at 2300 or so

Well yes sir, using rear wheel HP numbers is a difference, on the order of 5% to 15% depending drastically on drivetrain components. And a 2,300 Lb 'truck' is a far cry from a 4,000 Lb street legal truck.


KP

I doubt his truck could be that lite,We have a full fiberglass bodied short bed 99 dodge drag truck,with nothing for steel but a tubing frame,and at race weight it weighs 3000 on the dot,with a 180 pound driver!!!!

Originally posted by bama
yessir,,that was weights,,,,,,,dhra record is fletchers truck this year,on a 10.13 pass...its been said hes went in the nines already but not officially.now the way i understand it is,he could be underweight for a timeslip,,but not for actual competing,but im not sure on that.and when maddogs truck gets right,youll see some deep 9`s for sure i bet,but once again,not guaranteeing weight...comps tube rail glass truck has already gone a 8.7something,and if a tdr member would ask him,im sure he would tell his weight......one things for sure though,the really fast trucks are pretty quiet on their weights..............bama

Fletchers run is NOT a DHRA Record. it is a NHRDA record.
Ive seen Darren Morrison run a 10.77 AND A 10.61 in his reg cab 4x4 12v. has a cage and a racing bucket, but it is not 5500 lbs.

If you like, you can go here to watch it. http://www.dieselperformancemotorsports.com/media/Darren.wmv
This truck had a problem with the BOV the day before and was only making 55lbs of boost- dynoed around 680 the day before.

As far as Fletcher's run goes, i dont think that truck would have fit into the DHRA pro street category.....

Originally posted by mhuppertz
Mega is correct on this. The Jet powered trucks can't even hit the 8's. The coeficient of drag is exponential, meaning the faster you push a bay window down the track the HP required to maintain a certain acceleration rate increases by multiples, not a straight diagonal line. I have owned a 1968 HEMI road runner that was in the 11's through the mufflers on fat radials, and that car was a 4,000 pounder putting out in excess of 600 screaming elephants with about the same torque. As much as I love these CTD Dodges, there 'ain't no way![eyecrazy]
then how do you explain the runs that have been going down with the 6k# trucks???

I think the big thing being overlooked with the equations is the MASSIVE difference between torque and hp on the CTD drag trucks as compared to similar hp gas motors. How else can you explain the CTD rail car running 7's on #2 only? I highly doubt the CTD in that rail was making 1000 hp......I suspect quite a bit less.....but what about the torque? It looked like a massive Lenco rear end in that car - I suspect to handle all that torque.....you certainly don't see rears like that in rail cars that only run 7's. I was just curious if the difference in torque would affect these hp equations in some way.

CTD Nut-- it wouldn't.

Power is all that matters. Tq just tells you how much force there is. Power is all that matters because you are dealing with TIME. TIME is what sets power apart from tq.

Every single one of Kev's posts in this thread I wish I could just copy, so I'll say it: DITTO, DITTO, DITTO.

Guys who think that low 8 at 8000lb are not far away have VERY little understanding of physics, money, or drag racing.

Look at a guy like Maddog. He's thrown away more money on engines then I'll make in 8 years probably. A LOT of development has gone into getting him where he is.

But as the CTD moves faster and faster, we will soon approach the point where the inherent limitations of the engine loom larger and larger.

Most of these guys have changed so many design aspects of their engines that to say that "they are putting the CTD in the Nines" is like saying a Fuel car is "putting the Hemi in the Fours".

Is it a Hemi? Well, yes. But is it a factory 426? NOT EVEN CLOSE. They are so highly modified that they bear little resemblance to their namesakes. IF by HEMI, you mean a KB Stage ten block, dual MSD magnetos and an overdriven blower burning Nitro, then maybe I'd agree.

So it's pretty misleading (and I'd say intellectually dishonest) to say that a 2300lb "truck" with a "CTD" is going to be put in the 8s. Who cares if the body is SHAPED like a truck, IT'S NOT A TRUCK. It's a drag car with a truck body. If I put on a Brad Pitt mask, does that make me rich?

These engines are so highly modified that everything aside from the block and basic head form is basically a custom piece. Pistons, pumps, injectors, cams, turbos-- all are custom pieces.


I'm FAR more impressed by a stock-chassis, full-factory bodied, full size diesel pickup running 11s than I ever will be by the big-money tube frame jobbies running 8s.

jmo

Thank You HOHN.

nhrda,,thanks for the correction timb............i thought the whole intention of this thread being started was a 4000lb`er in the eights,not a full bodied truck in the 11`s?as in all motorsports,,just seeing how far you can push the limits is what makes the sport,if not,we would all just go bracket racing...........bama

Originally posted by gunracer1
then how do you explain the runs that have been going down with the 6k# trucks???


6 k trucks running low 12's and mid to high 11's are perfectly inline with everything else we have said regarding power output.

A 4,000 lb pickup truck running 8's however is not even in the same universe.



Kevin

i would put some money on it, or say a case of beer. it may not happen this year but it will happen soon enough. the reall trick part of hittin the 8s will be a killer launch, and when some more trucks get serious about playing and getting every thing dialed in, it will happen.

Diesel engines produce a different power, IMO than other engines. The definition of HP and TQ and the relationship between the two is great for most engines though. Diesels need a new specification and definition for power measurement. As things progress on my end I intend to try and help shape a new definition for my own work/use.

The old Watts fart was able to define HP using horses/weight and time. Maybe I will use a Jackass:D Joking of course.

I dont for a minute think the world standard will change for my sake, but I am certain I can use a better way to measure the output and help myself.

I am having a company custom build me a dyno now and we are working toward a different way to calculate the output. A different standard, so to speak.

Don~

I guess I will jump in here.

Those that have never gone fast are the ones that say 8's or 9's or 10's are easy. The faster you get, the harder it becomes to improve on it. Just my opinion of course.

ET is a function of traction. MPH is a function of HP. Nail them both and you get a great pass.

Peak HP is not the end all of making good passes. The entire area under the curve is just as important, and then the driver has to drive it there to make the most out of what he has.

Darren came off my dyno at 720-730 uncorrected hp (don't really remember the exact number now) and ran 124 and change at the track in Georgia. That run calculated out to 723.7hp at 5590 lbs.

At Indy, where he scaled 5590, he ran 10.61 @ 122 in hot air which calculated out to 689hp. Given the intake air temps, I can see the loss of power, and in fact expected it. That is what makes running events like IRP fun, everyone has to make power in the same air, not talk about "best passes".

So far, every truck built and tuned on my dyno calculate out. If my dyno is not correct and we need to load to get the "real" number, then the real number does me no good because I then cannot equate that "real" number to the track. The dyno is a tool. We enjoy setting a power level at the shop, then know when we get to the track what to expect.

Anyone can build a hand grenade. Building a race vehicle that can compete and finish the race is something I think gets lost in the HP wars. Darren has never hit the track with full power. We step it up as the rest of the set-up dictates. He has not won 4 out of 6 races because he was fastest, he won them because he could finish. (or atleast 4 of them

[laugh] )

Very, VERY well said David. And I know we have had our differences on here before, but you nailed that one bigtime.


KP

go ahead david,its all in fun anyway..........what would it take in your opinion to make 8`s at 4k?...what was jeffs fastest pass at what weight with his glass truck and at what app. h/p??.................bama

Originally posted by DavidTD
I guess I will jump in here.

Those that have never gone fast are the ones that say 8's or 9's or 10's are easy. The faster you get, the harder it becomes to improve on it. Just my opinion of course.

ET is a function of traction. MPH is a function of HP. Nail them both and you get a great pass.

Peak HP is not the end all of making good passes. The entire area under the curve is just as important, and then the driver has to drive it there to make the most out of what he has.

Darren came off my dyno at 720-730 uncorrected hp (don't really remember the exact number now) and ran 124 and change at the track in Georgia. That run calculated out to 723.7hp at 5590 lbs.

At Indy, where he scaled 5590, he ran 10.61 @ 122 in hot air which calculated out to 689hp. Given the intake air temps, I can see the loss of power, and in fact expected it. That is what makes running events like IRP fun, everyone has to make power in the same air, not talk about "best passes".

So far, every truck built and tuned on my dyno calculate out. If my dyno is not correct and we need to load to get the "real" number, then the real number does me no good because I then cannot equate that "real" number to the track. The dyno is a tool. We enjoy setting a power level at the shop, then know when we get to the track what to expect.

Anyone can build a hand grenade. Building a race vehicle that can compete and finish the race is something I think gets lost in the HP wars. Darren has never hit the track with full power. We step it up as the rest of the set-up dictates. He has not won 4 out of 6 races because he was fastest, he won them because he could finish. (or atleast 4 of them

[laugh] )

Yes, yes, absolutly! Track times and HP were put to a solid calculation years ago by Patrick Hale. He spent countless days, months, years at the track logging ET and MPH. These internet, on-line, Java based calculators that so many use are all based from Patrick Hales original work. Using two constants of 5.825 and 234.

ET is calculated using 5.825 and MPH uses 234.

ET is the cube root of the weight to power ratio multiplied by the constant of 5.825.

MPH is the cube root of power to weight ratio multiplied by the constant 234.

Notice the difference for ET and MPH. You want the weight to power, i.e. the pounds per HP for ET and for MPH you want the the HP per pound.

These formulas come deadly close without considering any other factors. Wind resistance, temperature, etc. I can come within 3-4% of the HP an engine makes if I know what it weighs and can see the ET or MPH slip. I can also get a fast idea if the turbos are sized wrong, the fueling wrong, etc. Just from taking the formulas and the known ET/MPH most of the vehicles I work around are running.

The DynoJet numbers will nearly always coincide with the ET and MPH calculations of the Java scripted websites and the calculations you see above. This is because they all deal with HP, weight and speed. The DynoJet uses clocks, a known weight, and they clock time it takes to accelerate that known weight to measure HP. These calculations were constantly crossed linked/checked back to known ET/MPH and HP numbers from tens of thousands of vehicles as well. The result is a nearly perfect copy of the two types of data. ET/ MPH and DynoJet.

So, if you have a DynoJet and you also race, you can tune for a higher number of HP on the Jet and translate that higher number to the track with better ET and higher MPH. Well no kidding or Duh or whatever you like to say. Its obvious.

That being said, there are other ways to measure progress. The DynoJet tuning way is great and is the easiest for anyone. Make the power register higher on the rollers and it will translate to better performance at the track. The problem I have with using that way alone is you end up leaving a sizeable data set off the table. There are parameters that are not being analyzed and tweaked when you look at one thing like HP. The relationship between TQ and HP are not fully understood and accounted for using that method. And there is a relationship. My idea has been to use a different way to measure the output and include the low speed TQ rise, crossover, etc on the Diesel engine in the calculation. This can be missed altogether with the DynoJet from the low inertia. There are few other "things" I did not include in the whats missed columb, but you get the idea of where I am trying to head.

Its all about the short time in drag racin'.

Don~

Good move, Don on getting the custom dyno. I agree that the current "measurement" techniques for determining HP are woefully inadequate.

The problem isn't the dynos, though-- it's our definition of HP. HP is just a formula-- it CANNOT describe the QUALITY of torque delivery. So, power should be measured in quality AND quantity, imo.

Since power is just a time function of torque, we should ditch the concept of hp in favor of something that describes the quality of tq application of time.

Witness the Mustang (load) style dyno. This thing can tell you useful info about how much of a fight the engine will put up to being dragged down by increasing load. But what will it tell you about acceleration capabilities? ALMOST NOTHING!! The dyno can't "see" if you have a 600hp Caterpillar or a 600hp Corvette. Even given identically weighted vehicles, the Caterpillar would accelerate much slower, thought the Mustang dyno will never show this. It can't account for the flywheel effect.

Since we typically think of "performance" in terms of acceleration, the Dynojet has no equal as far as tuning for competitive acceleration events-- i.e. drag racing. Even if it doesn't accurately measure HP, it tells you something better-- "recovery time". In other words, the faster than an engine can accelerate a known mass from point A to point B, the better it is in competition-- period.

I've heard of NASCAR programs that got slower as the engine made more "power" on the dyno. Track testing has shown that faster lap times can be turned by engines that have less "power", as measured on the dyno.

Great racing engines have that mysterious ability to "recover" that most dynos cannot measure or show. The dynojet imo comes the closest.

The ideal, imo, would be an intertial dyno like a DJ that could vary the weight of the rollers on the fly. I guess sorta like the Superflow does with the Magnets.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a dyno that can very resistance on a run in accordance with a pre-programmed profile? So, it can account for how much more load the engine sees in 3rd gear vs 6th gear? I'd like a dyno that shows the same curves and numbers no matter what gear the run is made in.

I'd like a dyno that eliminated the variables of traction and tire rolling resistance, and instead bolted something directly to the hubs.

To make progress in tuning, you HAVE to be able to control for more variables than we can currently control for. I'd like a dyno that can give me a "reference" run directly off the wheel hubs, then let me tests the effects of inflation pressure, tire diameter, tread design, etc. on a traction roller similar to a DJ248C. Eliminating the tire variable has huge benefits, imo. For example, repeatability. As you make multiple DJ runs, the tires warm up, pressure changes, and things get imprecise. (remember, precision has to do with reproducibility, not ACCURACY, per se).

Once you ditch the tires, you could measure differences from changing axle lube viscosities/brands, engine oil differences, etc. You can tune the ENGINE, which is what you want to do-- THEN you can tune the COMBO-- tire size/pressure, gearing, launch rpm, etc.

The big weakness of existing dynos is that they only measure the SYSTEM-- you can't break it down to see the contributions of each component to the overall whole. Wouldn't it be nice to see what the engine does? Then what effect the tranny has on it? Then the T-case? Then the axles? Then the tires/wheels?

So why aren't you big-dog racers running superlightweight axles-- I mean, low rotational inertia? Think of all the stuff that you CTD is trying to move!

Why not ultralight wheels and smaller tires-- especially up front? You should only run as big a tire as you need to get traction-- anything bigger is a waste. If you launch in 4wd with all corners wearing slicks or Drag radials, then you could run a smaller tire, couldn't you?


I'm frustrated at the lack of innovation I see in certain things, just as i am positively inspired by the innovators like Smokey Yunick and Larry Widmer.

Don-- you should take a drive over to Larry Widmer's shop (Endyn) and pick his brain. If only he would ditch the Hondas in favor of diesels!!!

Justin

The DynoJet is certainly the laymans tool to tune for racing. You simply cant go wrong in most caes, but the ruler is not a solution to measure intricate parts with either.

Go to a machine shop and ask for a square inch of steel to within a tolerance of 1/16th of an inch and it will be pretty inexpensive. Now change that tolerance to .0005 and check the price and tools needed. All of the sudden your trusty ruler wont cut it. Now you need a good micrometer, a machine that will hold that tolerance, a guy that can read the tool and run the machine to make that happen.

The faster trucks/cars, etc will not be using a ruler to gage their progress.

Larry= the old one.

He is about an hour away in traffic. Smart dude. Likes the ricer stuff. Probably the Yunick of the ricers. He is toying with superchargers now. Seems strange but so did the Yunick hot gas engine back then.





:cool:

Originally posted by HOHN
[B...The problem isn't the dynos, though-- it's our definition of HP. HP is just a formula-- it CANNOT describe the QUALITY of torque delivery. So, power should be measured in quality AND quantity, imo...Justin [/B]

well said

Originally posted by Don M


Larry= the old one.

He is about an hour away in traffic. Smart dude. Likes the ricer stuff. Probably the Yunick of the ricers. He is toying with superchargers now. Seems strange but so did the Yunick hot gas engine back then.





:cool:

Ask Larry about the small block Chevy he built that used 16:1 compression and ran on pump gas with no detonation--- and the cam was smaller than 230@.050!

Oh, and it pulled like a big block will netting 28mpg:)

jlh