Just some info for you guys:

multiply M.P.H. by 1.46666 to get Feet per Second or how many feet your car is covering every second.

Assumming typical car length of 15 feet

60 mph = 90 feet per second so 2 car lengths equates to being ahead by approximately .3 seconds.

At 90 mph (132 feet per second) this same .3 second lead would equate to a 40 feet lead or almost 3 car lengths.

If the manual TL gets to 60 mph in 5.7 seconds and the 5AT does it in 6.3, we could get a good approximation that the 6sp will beat the 5AT by 3 1/2 car lengths.

The whole fallacy in this is that in a drag race, the speed is constantly changing so you are continuing to cover more ground ever second, that is why acceleration is denoted as feet per second per second or in "lame man's" terms, how many feet per second you are increasing each second. So by the time the 5AT gets to 60 mph, the 6spd is already past 60 mph and covering more ground per second, so we could expect the difference to be more like 4 car lengths.

Still, since in most close races the speeds are relatively close, the feet per second rule should translate car lengths to time reasonably.

Hope this clears up some confusion about car length wins and their equivalent lead in seconds.

 

what about the flux capacitor?

 

You mean flux capacitor?

 

The capacitor flunked...

 

Swat Dude - interesting. I'm not an engineer, and don't claim to be able to do the math. But I think it's a lot more complicated than you have made it out to be.

Anyone with drag racing experience knows that 60' times are everything when racing cars with similar performance. The launch can put you two car lenths ahead of someone else, even though you may hit the same speed in the same number of seconds.

If someone spins his tires excessively at the launch, he will sit and watch the other car pull away, but when his car does hook up, he will actually have a brief instance where his car accelerates at a faster pace because spinning his tires put him into the meat of the powerband more quicky than a car that "bogs" off the line.

Heck, I think I'm even confusing myself here! Just some food for thought.

I'm also not sure about your statement that it would actually be closer to 4 car lengths. It seems to me that if virtually the entire 0 - 60 run is BELOW 60 mph, then it would be less than the number of car lengths calculated based upon ft/second at 60 mph.

Again, just food for thought. You have some very interesting posts, so please don't take this as being critical - just a little good natured debate. And I certainly don't claim to be right.

 

JJscs,

Friendly debate is the reason I am here. You are correct in your assertion that I oversimplified the equation, but I was just trying to dispel some of the myths going around that 3 to 4 car lengths was an outrageous lead.

Basically, this argument assumes constant speed, so if I'm going 90 feet per second and you are going 90 feet per second and we are not accelerating or decelerating, if you are 1 second behind me, you are 90 feet behind me.

Your other point is very valid in that this equation does not take into account better starts, or specific acceleration curves. There are alot of varibles involved here.

Nevertheless, at the instant you are doing 60 mph, or 90 feet per second, if you look back from the TL, or forward if you are in the G35, LOL, and the other car is 3 to 4 lengths behind or in front, you can assume that your times are about .5 to .66 seconds different at that moment, which in street racing could be the difference in the start, the tires, the driver, the number of people in the car, etc., etc.

As far as the flux capacitor, the problem is the ball bearings, and that is why this was written for the "Lameman".

 

I would say that this is one of those myths about drag racing. Spinning your wheels at the start never gets you a better time than being at the edge of traction. How many pro dragsters do you see spin off the line and win?

Yes, I know that people get better times etc when spinning, but means they can not get the car launched as good as it can be...

 

First of all, I did not say it got you a better time - I said it would create a point in the run that your rate of acceleration would actually be faster because it put you in the meat of the powerband.

Now, having said that - you are dissagreeing with what I have read several times over the years in car magazines. If a car has a peaky powerband, they often spin the tires to get into the meat of the powerband. You may not agree with them, but they do it for a living.

And your comment about Pro drag racers - they don't have to because they have cars with powerbands set up for low and mid range torque, and have torque converters with a higher stall speed to put them into the powerband immediately using slippage in the transmission - effectively the same as a manual tranny using slippage of the tires. So, if you don't believe spinning the tires can help, then you must not believe in higher stall speed torque converters either!

 

Swat Dude,

Thanks for the math on that MPH vs Foot Per Second. I've been wondering that for many years. Its one of those things that has been in the back of my head.

 

I just finished installing my Flux Capacitor and I can now go 0-60 in -365 DAYS.
LOL

 

:lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

Nicki thanks...I needed that.

 

You do know that most normal drivers will never be able to get the 5.7 sec to 60 that C&D got right? Acceleration times with a manual depreciate significantly with driver skill and gear shifting speed.