BRADENTON'S 339 MPH RUN HAPPENED ON THE SCOREBOARD BUT NOT IN REALITY (1 Viewer)

[Butch]

Alan, by todays standards, Back Door Bob. Would have to find a new name. Lol

 

[Gone Dead Train]

Alan, by todays standards, Back Door Bob. Would have to find a new name. Lol

Harry, you need to be more specific, the kids on here probably don't know what you are talking
about. I believe the first time I saw Bob was the 1976 NHRA Fallnationals at Seattle. Bob and is
wife Joy super nice people, they took time out to talk to a 17 year old kid. Bob was known for
driving it out the back door. Man, I love derailing thread's.

AA/FD. It's 1976 "Back Door" Bob Strucksness pulling into the water
box at National Trail and Bob's wife Joy having a shirt malfunction.

 

[none]

Carl,

You are correct. The theory was if you are accelerating at a linear rate then by starting the speed trap 66' before and ending it 66' after you would get the exact speed at the moment the car crossed the finish line. But as we all know, acceleration is not linear, so that was a flawed concept.

The speed now is the last 66', but it would be interesting to know for fact (and I don't) how often the car is still accelerating and how often it is slowing during that part of the run. Because with all the drag/downforce a cylinder out will have the car slowing at the stripe. On a perfect run, a TF car picks up about 42 MPH down the last 340', it is not accelerating very hard even hitting cleanly on all eight. Maximum acceleration is well before three seconds according to the G-meter, the car is still picking up some speed but at a much diminished rate past the 660' mark

I would be willing to bet that the old style (132') trap would show slower speeds on average than what we have today.

Alan

 

[twostep]

Carl,

You are correct. The theory was if you are accelerating at a linear rate then by starting the speed trap 66' before and ending it 66' after you would get the exact speed at the moment the car crossed the finish line. But as we all know, acceleration is not linear, so that was a flawed concept.

The speed now is the last 66', but it would be interesting to know for fact (and I don't) how often the car is still accelerating and how often it is slowing during that part of the run. Because with all the drag/downforce a cylinder out will have the car slowing at the stripe. On a perfect run, a TF car picks up about 42 MPH down the last 340', it is not accelerating very hard even hitting cleanly on all eight. Maximum acceleration is well before three seconds according to the G-meter, the car is still picking up some speed but at a much diminished rate past the 660' mark

I would be willing to bet that the old style (132') trap would show slower speeds on average than what we have today.

Alan

Thanks, Alan....

What I wonder is, let's say, a TF car trips the 934' beam at 330mph and by 1000 feet its speed is 335 - what speed is recorded and how is it ascertained? I don't see any way other than like you guys explained to me was the method used for the 132' setup - distance X time to determine a FPS rate which is converted into MPH. But if that's the way its done with the 66' method and the cars are still accelerating from 934 feet to 1000, then the displayed speed at the stripe is going to be a bit slow.

Being as the Compulink timing system is accurate (ET) out to seven places, it seems to me that the 'speed trap' could be shortened considerably, even by a factor of 10, which would theoretically display a more accurate speed at the stripe. On the other hand, perhaps it's accurate enough as it is. I don't see anyone calling for changes.

I'll betcha Tasca really did hit 340 at the stripe - we'll just never know for sure.

 

[none]

I get your point, but you would never pick up 5 MPH in that last 66', even on a perfect run, the G-meter at that point is at it's lowest reading of the run. You are much more likely to lose 5. Have you ever seen a wheel speed graph? There's almost no acceleration taking place down there.

Think of how often a car will run a great E.T. at "Only" 310 MPH nosing over or losing cylinders just before the stripe will slow the car immensely the last few feet, without hurting the E.T. all that much.

As I said, I think that many are in reality traveling slower at the 1000' than at the 934. in which case the trap gives them a faster speed than what they actually had at the stripe.

Alan

 

[Professional Fan]

Timing system problem now. Blake/JR just ran 1 second runs!

 

[T.Smith]

Timing system problem now. Blake/JR just ran 1 second runs!

And the scoreboard says...3/5 of a mile in 10 seconds.

 

[twostep]

I get your point, but you would never pick up 5 MPH in that last 66', even on a perfect run, the G-meter at that point is at it's lowest reading of the run. You are much more likely to lose 5. Have you ever seen a wheel speed graph? There's almost no acceleration taking place down there.

Think of how often a car will run a great E.T. at "Only" 310 MPH nosing over or losing cylinders just before the stripe will slow the car immensely the last few feet, without hurting the E.T. all that much.

As I said, I think that many are in reality traveling slower at the 1000' than at the 934. in which case the trap gives them a faster speed than what they actually had at the stripe.

Alan

An older NHRA Drag Racing game I have included the computer program most pro drag racers were using at the time; I don't recall the name. It included a wheel speed graph; I used to fool around with it a little but not being a racer that utilized the program, a lot of it was pretty foreign.

I know acceleration is weak from the 660 on; 1G or less. But I never gave thought to a nitro car actually losing speed right before the traps other than the result of dropping a hole or otherwise nosing over. Pretty good argument for staying at 1000 feet, no?

 

[z28]

An older NHRA Drag Racing game I have included the computer program most pro drag racers were using at the time; I don't recall the name. It included a wheel speed graph; I used to fool around with it a little but not being a racer that utilized the program, a lot of it was pretty foreign.

I know acceleration is weak from the 660 on; 1G or less. But I never gave thought to a nitro car actually losing speed right before the traps other than the result of dropping a hole or otherwise nosing over. Pretty good argument for staying at 1000 feet, no?

if they dropped the rear end ratio a little you'd see where the car would still be pulling at 1000' That won't happen anytime soon

 

[Slowpoke96z28]

Wish they did this at an outlaw track with enough shutdown...

 

[.]

Tasca 341.680 mph

 

[yoda]

Tasca 341.680 mph

And Austin Prock at 337

 

[Fordie]

Tasca 341.680 mph

Incrementals attached, 290.88 mph at 660’ (a tick slower than his 339.87 yesterday). Force had the same 60’ & 330’ numbers but couldn’t make it stick…

 

[.]

Incrementals attached, 290.88 mph at 660’ (a tick slower than his 339.87 yesterday). Force had the same 60’ & 330’ numbers but couldn’t make it stick…

If it's not legit, then it's not legit..... I simply posted what I saw on Flo

 

[J. S.]

Tasca 341.680 mph

Looks like this may end up like the Chris Karamasines 204 mph deal where we won't know if the 1st 340 is legit or not. Guess we'll have to wait till someone runs that speed at an NHRA event.

 

[Professional Fan]

Last run of the day!

 

[Bubba]

Tasca 341.680 mph

I'm not buying it.

 

[Luke Nieuwhof]

 

[Jack]

Just saw the incremental times on Facebook. The ET was 3.84 in 1,000 feet but the 341 mph speed was shown as being in the quarter mile ???

 

[twostep]

Just saw the incremental times on Facebook. The ET was 3.84 in 1,000 feet but the 341 mph speed was shown as being in the quarter mile ???

I saw that. It's a misprint. I dunno....if he did run 341 they had that thing really zinging past the 660. Robert Hight's 3.79/338 record pass numbers were 3.07/294; Tasca's, 3.12/291. That's a 50mph gain from 660 to 1000.

I hope it's legit or else discarded quickly. I'm sure nobody including Tasca wants to speculate about the legitimacy from now on.