I was perusing the Pure Stock results in the latest MCE, and found the final numbers VERY interesting. Case in point: this year, there were 21 cars in the 12s! And the bump to get into the theoretical "Quick-8" was a 12. 48!! I aslo found the Horepower numbers of interest. Some are no surprise, others are...but it also goes to show that more times than not the combination as a whole is more important than sheer horsepower. I made up a quick chart to dig a little deeper into the numbers, but I only charted the 21 quickest cars. Now, that's not to say the other cars are any less important, because more times than not that is where the best racing is! But, the simple fact that 21 cars qualified in the 12s flat blew my mind, so that seemed like a good number to use...plus, it took me long enough to just input the data for 21 cars...I can't imagine doing it for 110+ cars! Anyway, enjoy... ----------------------- Hillbilly Racing Team
Looks like my motor needs a few more calories so it will put on another 25 horse power so I can catch up with the rest of you!!! :3gears: :laugh: Jim
Hp I hate to screw with your work but I think Tim Clary's Chevelle was 438 HP. It doesn't change the positioning at all. Jim :spank: If you got really board how about a chart by the best 60 foot times???? That would be a measure of tuning and engineering! :grin: I'm off the chart with any of those. :blast:
Just think how much more horse power he would have if he would ditch those 1/4inch thick head gaskets!!! :Brow: :laugh: :moonu: Jim
Light weight's in our midst Rob, I hate to say it but they used 4367lbs....it should be 4267lbs. That knocks me down to 414hp and swapping spots with Petcou. Number 8 in HP is still pretty cool for an old Merc that's not even a Musclecar........ :laugh: Now I have to work on getting that mass moving. Speaking of Mass. Looking at the chart..and being smack in the middle of a swarm of Bee's got me thinkin'.....does Jimmy Bowman's Bee have power windows and seats? Cause' his car is 276 pounds heavier than the next heaviest Bee.. uzzled: :laugh: According to the chart anyway..........
Don't blame the hillbilly... Ok, should have it fixed, Brian...oh, and Lerum was right about Tim's horsepower, I cheated him by 5, but now it should be right... --------------------- Hillbilly Racing Team "C'aint where shoes, toes is for calculatin"
Everytime I look at the HP numbers, I gotta remind myself that I have one of the smallest motors in the field......... so I guess being mid pack in ET is pretty good.........
I think it's really good...........also keep in mind you've also only raced it what......2 times.....
Yeap, 2x. Hey, I am not complaining, it's just looking at the raw hp numbers was kind of an eye opener. Lots of dialing in to be done to be done from here, the car has potential. It's just reading the chart and seeing that 272 is near the bottom is kinda making me think of bigger motors ...........
I find the numbers a little confusing sometimes when you consider weight, ET and MPH. Can someone tell me are the hp numbers supposed to represent RWHP? o No:
Eff Rating Thought I would put together something that would make good conversation during the off months of the Pure Stock Drags. It is controversial drag racing but interesting non the less. What I have put together is an efficiency rating measuring a cars mile time verse its POTENTIAL mile time. You may ask Jim, how did you get your potential QMTs and how did you derive your formula? If you go to http://tnmotorsorts.com/dyno.htm and input the weight and mph you will get a potential ET. This ET is the maximized performance you can get with the weight and RWHP depicted in the Dec MCE mag. For this formula to work right the weights and HP need to be right on. I understand that tires, jacks, fuel different drivers can change for traction improvements but for conversation its a neat concept for. Things to remember! It is much harder to get cars that carry power be it horsepower, or high torque to be efficient. Tires being the limiting factor demand chassis tuning and driver finesse to apply it properly. Another way of saying it that lower horsepower cars have maximized traction. An example would be Brian McDowells 69 Chevelle post car. His 300hp/350 ran a best of 13.27@102.675 at a weight of 3492lbs.with 295 rear wheel HP. Brian told me he just mashes the peddle and the car will not spin the tires. His efficiency rating would be factored at 1.264. That would put Brian at #3 on the list. Formula for efficiency rating (A / B)-1 = Efficiency Rating (*) A=Lowest Potential ET obtainable using RWHP/Weight on http://tnmotorsports.com/dyno.htm B=Lowest ET Sept 2004 Pure Stock Drags at Stanton, Michigan Eample... David Hemker Buick GS Stage 1 (A / B)-1 = Rating 12.51 / 12.637 = .989950-1.0= .0100 or 1.0% from having the best et obtainable for RWHP produced. note.Aerodynamics is not part of this formula! <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v508/JLerum/Effrating.jpg">
It looks like Dan used Patrick Hale's formula for HP (see link below), because it yields the exact same results as were published in the magazine. Hale's formula has been used in Hot Rod, Car&Driver, and lots of other publications...and, it's always been my understanding that it dealt with "NET flywheel horsepower". But, I've seen this exact formula elsewhere and they referred to it as "rear wheel horsepower". So, as is usual when you try to start racing dynos & magazines, the numbers don't always jive. Anyway, check out the link below for a simple calculator that lets you plug in your numbers...but, be sure and scroll down and use "Patrick Hale's" formula, and be sure and use your MPH. MPH is more consistent as a hp indicator. http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm Jim and I talked yesterday, and disagreed on whether the HP numbers were flywheel, net flywheel, rear wheel, etc...the more I look at the formulas & numbers, the more I'm confused...any of you with dyno experience, PLEASE chime in....
Brian the weight discrepency of the Super Bee's could be due to a number of things such as: 1) DANA axle vs. 8 3/4 axle is about 50 Lbs heavier, the DANA was standard on 440-6 with stick and optional on the auto's. 2) Cast iron 4-speed + flywheel vs. 727 automatic, a friend of mine just converted his car from one to the other and now the car weighs 80 lbs more with the 4-speed. 3) Full tank of gas vs. empty, 18 gallon tank could make the car +/-108 Lbs 4) Buckets with console vs. bench? 5) Driver weight (Bob K looks pretty light to me vs. the others) Excluding item 4 and 5 already adds up to 238 Lbs. :Smarty: However I don't know if the Super Bee in question is an auto or a 4-speed. o No:
