T.Smith
Nitro Member
BRADENTON'S 339 MPH RUN HAPPENED ON THE SCOREBOARD BUT NOT IN REALITY (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter T.Smith
- Start date
Just Paul
Nitro Member
We knew.
T.Smith
Nitro Member
Kenneth, I'm hoping you're kidding.
turbo ken
Nitro Member
I think Antron ran 339.60Kenneth, I'm hoping you're kidding.
Professional Fan
Nitro Member
Tasca almost got it. 339.87
Timing system still malfunctioning?
.
Nitro Member
Jack just said they found the problem.... it was a beam alignment issue at the finish line. He also said Bob Tasca's 339.87 from earlier tonight should be legit.
Last edited:
ZWeinstein
Nitro Member
They just said on Flo, that Bob Brockmeyer said it was a legitimate run. They also said Tasca was 291 mph to the 1/8. For reference, Hight's 339.87 was 292.27 to the 1/8.
BRING ON 340!!!!!!
BRING ON 340!!!!!!
mikebcurve
Nitro Member
Can we find a hacker and get this over with already! I’m kidding. I’m sure those of us that have been around forever would never have imagined a funny car had a chance to hit 340 first.
z28
Nitro Member
You can download the Bradenton (dragbmp) on your phone and get the incrementals on every run. I guess up in the booth they don't know about it. I was expecting more pit cams but at the tail end of the show they said SAturday would have more. I thought Jamie and Courtney did well reporting.
Many years ago cars (Bikes - Etc) were Speed timed with a set of beams that were 66’ before the ET trap and then 66’ after the trap. The time it took was than converted to Speed. Now I am not sure how far apart they are but if it is still the same way and a lot closer it seems that it is exponentially harder to get an accurate reading as the speed increases depending on how long it takes for the system to read. Is it Milliseconds - Nanoseconds or how many times a second. The original argument was that if the car was still accelerating, unless it was constant the result was skewed. It's very possible that with todays technology this is more accurate, but seems that unless you are on a glass smooth surface with the vehicle glued to the ground and no light or particle interference in the air and even sound to vibrate the ground it could possibly skew the number.
Last edited:
none
Nitro Member
It was 66' before and 66' after. Now it is 66' total, from 934' to 1000' for Nitro cars and 1254' to 1320' for everyone else.
The trap was shortened at least in part to discourage running the car past the finish line.
The sensors are much more accurate now, and the computer can figure well beyond what the readout sows on the screen or timeslip.
Alan
The trap was shortened at least in part to discourage running the car past the finish line.
The sensors are much more accurate now, and the computer can figure well beyond what the readout sows on the screen or timeslip.
Alan
Thank you - I did know it was 132’ and changed it before posting but had a (Presidential memory moment).
Unreal. Tied with Hight for FOAT.
Last edited:
If I understand it correctly, the 132' setup averaged the first 66 and the last 66 to determine a stripe speed. So how does the system determine the stripe speed now? Obviously, if it's still averaging then it's slow.
Bubba
Nitro Member
The time required to cover the 132 feet was converted to a speed. That's it, that's all. A car that covered the 132 foot speed trap in 0.36 seconds would show a speed of 250 mph. I hope my math is right.
