WHMP Testing

[vegasnitro]

I doubt it was "hot clocks" (even though that would be funny), we are talking about a National Event facility that was recently upgraded (less than a year), not some off-the-beaten-path track that is trying to drum up publicity. All of that being said, I am dubious about an .807 sixty foot time. That would be the best all time by a bunch. So I guess what I am trying to say is, she staged the car with the back wheels It is the only logical explanation.

I any event, we will find out in 10 days in the parking lot at the Fairplex.

 

[yoda]

...
There are a number of factors that can effect top speed, but those factors have a much less effect on the E.T. as compared to the car's acceleration early in the run.

Like the series of shallow ruts that run across the right lane at about 800' maybe?

 

[Frank]

I don't know if anyone else on here is an "actual" crew member on a top fuel car other than Tony Smith. If Virgil Hartman and Tony say the run looks like it is a possibility, why would anyone think it isn't? If they say it is a possibility, I certainly would not question them. Also, it is not a good verification in Pomona unless the weather duplicates from Phoenix.

 

[MM]

The best 60 ft time I ever recall seeing was Cory Mac in Norwalk the last year he drove for DSR. It was .810 or .811 if I remember right, but the run didn't see the 330 cone. I could believe a .807 is in the realm of possibility.

 

[Usual password less 1]

An .807 60 footer is not out of the realm of possibility, I believe Steve Torrence has a couple .815's under his belt. I think if the 60 foot was false, you probably have a 330 foot that was really slow.

Looking at all the progressives and splits, it looks like a legit run to me.

There are a number of factors that can effect top speed, but those factors have a much less effect on the E.T. as compared to the car's acceleration early in the run.

To me, if you had a 60' that was quick for whatever reason, then all the incrementals from there on would be "skewed" by the same amount. Looking at some of the other quick runs including Morgan's 3.704 from Pomona, 3 of them ran a 1.261 split from the 60' to the 330', with the slowest being a 1.268. Brittany's was 2/100's slower at a 1.281. From the 330-660', she was also the slowest albeit not by much with a .873 split as opposed to a quick of .868 and the slowest a .871. Again it was just testing and it was still a great run by Brittany and her team!

 

[Nunz]

Hey Jeff, congrats on the Plueger gig!

 

[Just Paul]

To me, if you had a 60' that was quick for whatever reason, then all the incrementals from there on would be "skewed" by the same amount. Looking at some of the other quick runs including Morgan's 3.704 from Pomona, 3 of them ran a 1.261 split from the 60' to the 330', with the slowest being a 1.268. Brittany's was 2/100's slower at a 1.281. From the 330-660', she was also the slowest albeit not by much with a .873 split as opposed to a quick of .868 and the slowest a .871. Again it was just testing and it was still a great run by Brittany and her team!

Exactly right Jeff. The 60 was off, and it carried the rest of the run like it always does when there is a similar problem. The 60' is just the first hint there is an issue. I've seen it fall the other way also, The clock will start when it should not, and the 60' will be slow, and carry those added numbers the rest of the track. The proof is in the numbers as Jeff posted.

 

[T.Smith]

To me, if you had a 60' that was quick for whatever reason, then all the incrementals from there on would be "skewed" by the same amount. Looking at some of the other quick runs including Morgan's 3.704 from Pomona, 3 of them ran a 1.261 split from the 60' to the 330', with the slowest being a 1.268. Brittany's was 2/100's slower at a 1.281. From the 330-660', she was also the slowest albeit not by much with a .873 split as opposed to a quick of .868 and the slowest a .871. Again it was just testing and it was still a great run by Brittany and her team!

Ok and I knew that was going to be the response.

So who's to say the car didn't shake the tires to cause that 60-330 split to fall back to a 1.281? We both know there are many events happening in that area of the run. Being 2/100 behind at the first split, it still managed to be within 5/1000 at the 330-660 split.

I'd be curious to know what her reaction time was.

 

[Randy]

Ok and I knew that was going to be the response.

So who's to say the car didn't shake the tires to cause that 60-330 split to fall back to a 1.281? We both know there are many events happening in that area of the run. Being 2/100 behind at the first split, it still managed to be within 5/1000 at the 330-660 split.

I'd be curious to know what her reaction time was.

Hey Tony. Hope you're doing well. Are you going to be at Pomona?

RG

 

[Usual password less 1]

Ok and I knew that was going to be the response.

So who's to say the car didn't shake the tires to cause that 60-330 split to fall back to a 1.281? We both know there are many events happening in that area of the run. Being 2/100 behind at the first split, it still managed to be within 5/1000 at the 330-660 split.

I'd be curious to know what her reaction time was.

Ask and you shall receive!! Lol. .136

 

[TooTall999]

Gotta laugh at this...if it had been Langdon driving for AJ or a Schumacher car, nobody would think twice. But instead it's a Force car, so all the sceptics (aka Force haters) have to try their damndest to discredit the run.

 

[Paul]

Gotta laugh at this...if it had been Langdon driving for AJ or a Schumacher car, nobody would think twice. But instead it's a Force car, so all the sceptics (aka Force haters) have to try their damndest to discredit the run.

Well Paul Songas is actually a Force supporter. He has no reason to discredit the run, so that blows your theory up. If she never comes close again to duplicating the run or have a 60ft time in the same neighborhood you will get the answer on your own.

 

[Just Paul]

I'm gonna be pulling for Beckman now.

Anyway, I'm not a Force hater in the least. I have no reason to dislike that team. I doubt Jeff Arend hates John Force too. My opinion would be the same no matter what, but to me it's all about numbers. We have seen it before and we will see it again. Time got taken off the 60 foot, and the difference carried the entire pass. The missing time gets added to the reaction time.

Same works in reverse. Jack Beckman had a false red light in Gainesville a couple years ago. The system subtracted reaction time but that difference was added to his 60' and carried it all the way showing in his elapsed time. If memory serves correct he left with Robert Hight and ran within a car legenth of Hight but the ET showed he was 2 tenths off which was impossible.

 

[Treeshaker]

Thompson came to JFR from AJ's team this year. AJ is the leader in clutch finger design and clutch application. That is why many teams pay handsomely to lease AJ's fingers & clutches.

To get through the shake zone, crew chiefs dump timing out of the motor and then either shove a bunch of timing back to get the motor ahead of the clutch or let the clutch stay with the motor and bring the timing back slowly, depending on the track conditions, tuning preferences, etc. Depending when you take this timing out and put it back will either affect the 60' time or 60' to 330' split. I would venture a guess that on this particular run that event took place after .8 into the run. The 330' to 660' split is controlled more by when the clutch is allowed to totally catch up to the motor. This is one of the hardest parts of clutch application to control as there are several variables. One is the crew chiefs settings on the clutch controller, number of clutch fingers, finger weights (both by finger size and bob weight on each), finger radius, then you have clutch wear that changes lever angles, the more angle the more pressure, more pressure more wear, clutch finger stops set prior to the run, tire slippage, and motor power. With a hopped up motor, tight track, and maybe a softer than normal clutch disc, the clutch saw more wear and the lockup fingers hit their stops early and it took longer for the clutch to catch up to the motor which would show up in the slower time for this segment with a little slower 660' mph. The 1,000 foot trap is only 66' long and if a driver hits the chute just a tad early or shuts the motor off a tad early, it will slow the mph without a noticeable effect on the ET.

As Mike said, Cory's .810 didn't see the 330' cone, so adjustments had to be made and it looks like the stars were aligned and the adjustments made by the JFR crew were the correct ones for this particular run.

Timing sheets are bought by most teams at the NHRA events that give all the pertinent numbers so that teams can see where on the track their car is performing better/worse than the competition. It is a very valuable tool. This sheet is probably where Jeff is getting his numbers from.

As I said before, to me the times look very realistic. And I think you will see many cars performing at this level this year with all the little improvements that have been made lately.

 

[Butch]

Thanks Virgil, The last time I worked on an fuel car was mid 70's. It was much simpler then.

 

[none]

I am surprised no mention of other 60 foot times by the team during the other runs during the test..............

 

[T.Smith]

Hey Tony. Hope you're doing well. Are you going to be at Pomona?

RG

I'm hanging in there, there's a lot going on here with the new governor, so the wife and I are trying to save every dollar we can incase the s**t hits the fan in a few months. So no Pomona for me...plus my I'm hoping my daughter will be competing at Notre Dame next weekend. She a D1 track and field athlete for Central Michigan Univ.

How's semi drag racing retirement going?