Top Fuel Dragster evolution. Morphing Top Fuel and F1 (5 Viewers)

[Chili]

That's true too but I doubt the timing retard would allow it. Besides, 350 is just an arbitrary number - if it were achieved once the hoopla dies down everyone would be talking 360. 340 was the holy grail for years and now that the barrier has been broken it's ho-hum and everyone is go for 350. Just like diarrhea, there's no end to that crap.

Look at the 4 pro classes - Top Alcohol too - other than the TF speed increase directly attributed to the winglet delete none of the speeds or ETs have improved over the last several years. I actually believe the nitro ETs in both classes have slowed on average. Hight ran 3.79/339.87 (2 separate passes) 9 years ago, AFTER NHRA banned the laid-backs. Millican ran 3.62 8 years ago, Brittany a year later. That's it; 2 cars, other than Langdon's 3.62 in testing.

Everything has its limits and perhaps drag racing has reached it. Not that it matters much. There's a lot more ways to re-imagine and improve the sport than running absolute numbers.

Drag racing has not reached it yet but it has for Funny Car and Dragsters. For the last few years many are trying to see how quick and fast they can go in a door car. Scott Palmer has been trying for years to be the first door car into the 4 second zone. Even after his accident in Studzilla, he is still chasing it with a different car. Jimmy Taylor has went 5.11 @262. Todd Moyer has ran as quick as 5.14. They were both Turbo cars it not sure what size turbos they were using or if they had another power adder as well.

 

[ironpony]

I don't think Top Fuel has reached its true limit yet, I think the rules have slowed us from finding out where that limit really is.

To me, the ultimate limit isn't the rulebook. It's physics... and how much money you're willing to spend chasing it.

Everything else—current rules, track conditions, and tire technology—is part of the equation, but they're also constraints. Looking back, I think if the NHRA hadn't stepped in with rule changes, 350 mph would have been reached a long time ago.

That said, I give the NHRA a lot of credit. They've done an incredible job of keeping the sport as safe as possible while trying to maintain a level playing field. That's important, and I understand why those decisions were made.

But I'll admit it... I'd love to see what a completely unrestricted Top Fuel dragster could do if the only limits were physics, engineering, and budget. How fast could it really go? What would it look like? That's the thought experiment that started this thread before we all came back to reality. There's nothing wrong with a little bench racing and imagining what might be possible.


.....

NHRA did not step in, Goodyear did.

 

[Nitro Bass!]

NHRA did not step in, Goodyear did.

Makes sense, and there you have it.....

 

[twostep]

One last rendering for the hell of it. Nice thread guys, great ideas floating around.View attachment 17829

 

[twostep]

One last rendering for the hell of it. Nice thread guys, great ideas floating around.View attachment 17829

I've enjoyed your thread, Brian. I still believe drag racing's 'apex predators' have bit off about all they're capable of chewing - or allowed to chew - but if nothing else I can imagine the track talk should a top fuel dragster pull to the line looking like the ones in this post. As the old saying goes, "and the crowd went wild".

Thanks for coloring outside the box.

 

[Nitro Bass!]

You know the more radical designs would have to be completely re-engineered from the ground up, starting over with new everything in chassis and car design. But, some creative bodywork with more efficient aerodynamics, as well as front and rear wing mods could be game changing without completely re-engineering the entire car. It would at least look amazing and I bet the performance would really pick up. It would just be very cool to see before they slow it down….

 

[ironpony]

You know the more radical designs would have to be completely re-engineered from the ground up, starting over with new everything in chassis and car design. But, some creative bodywork with more efficient aerodynamics, as well as front and rear wing mods could be game changing without completely re-engineering the entire car. It would at least look amazing and I bet the performance would really pick up. It would just be very cool to see before they slow it down….

I am going to have to go the opposite on this. My background is in aircraft although the design might be more "aerodynamic" the increases in frontal area are a "drag" and will counteract the aerodynamic advantage. This was learned with the removal of the mud flaps. As downforce increases the HP to overcome it increases exponentially.
You are trying to accomplish a balance of downforce with the minimal drag required to create it. TF & FC have already decreased the angle of the wings to reduce downforce and maximize MPH. Some of the recent MPH increases could just be from a rear wing adjustment, the front wing is preventing a blow over.
There is a point of being too aerodynamic, the F14 was too aerodynamic at speed the airflow was so smooth the control surfaces did not respond. The fix was the addition of glove vanes at the leading edges of the wings that popped out creating a disturbance of the air which then allowed the plane to maneuver.
F1 cars for example the wing will open creating the downforce at low speed to get thru corners then close reducing the drag for the straights. IIRC there is a 12 MPH difference in the open, close scenario.

 

[mick]

great post ken maune ..... remember a few years ago when it was reported the FC's were slipperier on the top end than the TF'rs,
and at the time they achieved the greater mph's. robert hight had a couple 339 blasts, and then bob's 340+, followed by austin's
340+ i think at the finals two years ago, but then quickly eclipsed by brit's string of 340+ runs, followed by both kalitta cars, not to
mention shawn's two 345 blasts. what am i missing here? did TF pickup that much only due to sans mudflaps? or is it that combined
with something else?

 

[Nitro Bass!]

I am going to have to go the opposite on this. My background is in aircraft although the design might be more "aerodynamic" the increases in frontal area are a "drag" and will counteract the aerodynamic advantage. This was learned with the removal of the mud flaps. As downforce increases the HP to overcome it increases exponentially.
You are trying to accomplish a balance of downforce with the minimal drag required to create it. TF & FC have already decreased the angle of the wings to reduce downforce and maximize MPH. Some of the recent MPH increases could just be from a rear wing adjustment, the front wing is preventing a blow over.
There is a point of being too aerodynamic, the F14 was too aerodynamic at speed the airflow was so smooth the control surfaces did not respond. The fix was the addition of glove vanes at the leading edges of the wings that popped out creating a disturbance of the air which then allowed the plane to maneuver.
F1 cars for example the wing will open creating the downforce at low speed to get thru corners then close reducing the drag for the straights. IIRC there is a 12 MPH difference in the open, close scenario.

Great post, Ken.

Let me ask you this, since you have the experience:

If we're only talking about picking up another 5 mph to break the 350 mph barrier, don't you think a more slippery and aerodynamically efficient Top Fuel dragster with less drag but still enough downforce to keep the rear tires planted could find that extra 5 mph?

I'm not saying it's easy with today's gearing and rev limiter, or that aerodynamics are the only answer. I'm just wondering if there's still enough efficiency left on the table that a more efficient aerodynamic design could get there. I'd really like to hear your thoughts.

 

[ironpony]

Great post, Ken.

Let me ask you this, since you have the experience:

If we're only talking about picking up another 5 mph to break the 350 mph barrier, don't you think a more slippery and aerodynamically efficient Top Fuel dragster with less drag but still enough downforce to keep the rear tires planted could find that extra 5 mph?

I'm not saying it's easy with today's gearing and rev limiter, or that aerodynamics are the only answer. I'm just wondering if there's still enough efficiency left on the table that a more efficient aerodynamic design could get there. I'd really like to hear your thoughts.

IMO we are at a combination of mechanical limits, RPM, gear ratio, tire diameter vs aero, drag. If you watch the overhead shots the cars black track the entire 1000'. In order to stop black tracking you have to increase downforce to increase traction. Increasing downforce creates drag needing more HP to overcome. It is a double edged sword. I believe it is very possible right now it is just going to take the perfect scenario launch, fast but not too fast to the 1/8, then excellent traction and hit the rev limiter at the 1000' mark.
Launch no shake or rattle, smooth tire slippage. 1/8 mile get there too quick you are going to hit the rev limiter early, get there late you are not going to max out the rev limiter.
Oh and do not forget it will be on used tires because they will grow slightly larger adding gear ratio to the end of the run.

 

[Nitro Bass!]

IMO we are at a combination of mechanical limits, RPM, gear ratio, tire diameter vs aero, drag. If you watch the overhead shots the cars black track the entire 1000'. In order to stop black tracking you have to increase downforce to increase traction. Increasing downforce creates drag needing more HP to overcome. It is a double edged sword. I believe it is very possible right now it is just going to take the perfect scenario launch, fast but not too fast to the 1/8, then excellent traction and hit the rev limiter at the 1000' mark.
Launch no shake or rattle, smooth tire slippage. 1/8 mile get there too quick you are going to hit the rev limiter early, get there late you are not going to max out the rev limiter.
Oh and do not forget it will be on used tires because they will grow slightly larger adding gear ratio to the end of the run.

This might sound like a strange question, but would it be easier to achieve the speed by cutting horsepower so the tires are actually planting and not black tracking? If the tires are slipping all the way down the track doesn't that mean it's hurting performance?

 

[ironpony]

This might sound like a strange question, but would it be easier to achieve the speed by cutting horsepower so the tires are actually planting and not black tracking? If the tires are slipping all the way down the track doesn't that mean it's hurting performance?

Cut HP....blasphemy I tell you....................

 

[Nitro Bass!]

Cut HP....blasphemy I tell you....................

Haha....amen!

 

[none]

Two things:
Thing one, the tires have to slip a little or they will shake.
Thing two, the timing retarder (rev limiter) starts coming in at 2,75 seconds.

Alan

 

[GumbyWVU]

I've enjoyed your thread, Brian. I still believe drag racing's 'apex predators' have bit off about all they're capable of chewing - or allowed to chew - but if nothing else I can imagine the track talk should a top fuel dragster pull to the line looking like the ones in this post. As the old saying goes, "and the crowd went wild".

Thanks for coloring outside the box.

I agree, it's been very interesting, good food for thought.

 

[GumbyWVU]

IMO we are at a combination of mechanical limits, RPM, gear ratio, tire diameter vs aero, drag. If you watch the overhead shots the cars black track the entire 1000'. In order to stop black tracking you have to increase downforce to increase traction. Increasing downforce creates drag needing more HP to overcome. It is a double edged sword. I believe it is very possible right now it is just going to take the perfect scenario launch, fast but not too fast to the 1/8, then excellent traction and hit the rev limiter at the 1000' mark.
Launch no shake or rattle, smooth tire slippage. 1/8 mile get there too quick you are going to hit the rev limiter early, get there late you are not going to max out the rev limiter.
Oh and do not forget it will be on used tires because they will grow slightly larger adding gear ratio to the end of the run.

sounds like maybe the only thing left to make a difference - for now - is if Mother Nature provides the right conditions. But who knows what the next 10 years will bring.

 

[Nitro Bass!]

Two things:
Thing one, the tires have to slip a little or they will shake.
Thing two, the timing retarder (rev limiter) starts coming in at 2,75 seconds.

Alan

Two questions, Sensei Reinhart:

First: I understand the tires need to slip early in the run to help prevent tire shake, but I always thought that from about half-track on, having the tires fully planted would make for better performance. Am I thinking about that correctly?

Second: It also seems to me that if the rev limiter had been tweaked, or removed altogether, 350 mph could have been achieved many years ago. Does that make sense?

 

[none]

First: Yes they need to spin early in the run, how do you propose stopping them downtrack?
As Ken said, more downforce/drag? Or as you suggested less power?

Second: The timing retarder (rev-limiter) was introduced to curtail the top speeds, of course they would be higher if you disabled it.

If you think back a few years when the Funny Cars were setting top speed every weekend it was because they had a different timing retarder setting. They were under full power .2 (2/10 of a second) longer than TF and that allowed them to run a few MPH faster.

Alan

 

[GumbyWVU]

First: Yes they need to spin early in the run, how do you propose stopping them downtrack?
As Ken said, more downforce/drag? Or as you suggested less power?

Second: The timing retarder (rev-limiter) was introduced to curtail the top speeds, of course they would be higher if you disabled it.

If you think back a few years when the Funny Cars were setting top speed every weekend it was because they had a different timing retarder setting. They were under full power .2 (2/10 of a second) longer than TF and that allowed them to run a few MPH faster.

Alan

follow up please - how does the air pressure in the tires affect the shake? Doe it vary to find the sweet spot relative to the weather conditions?

 

[none]

Air pressure is dictated by track temp and grip number. And it's the opposite of what you might think.
If you need more bite, you increase the air pressure, if you need more slip, you lower it.

Alan