60' times
 

How does one figure 60' times on a car that carries the front wheels past the beam?

Re: 60' times
 

I'm not sure exactly if I understand the question but aren't the timers tripped in that case by the rear wheels?

Scott

Re: 60' times
 

Yes, but in that case there is no true indicator as to what the car actually did. I was wondering if there might be some formula to convert the bogus number to a relatively accurate one...maybe subtract the wheelbase? :confused:

Re: 60' times
 

Scott, if the car lands as it is getting to the 60ft clocks it can be tripped by the middle of the car or anything lower than that (collector for example).
I don't think there would be any way to accurately measure the time.

Re: 60' times
 

I know there are a lot of cars out there that do this regularly...wonder if they just go off the long (wrong) numbers?

Re: 60' times
 

On Johns 67 Chevelle the best 60 was 1.28, on the rear wheels, the best ever 1320 ET was on the rear wheels with a 1.40.

Re: 60' times
 

Are you trying to say he tripped the beams with the back tires in both instances?

Re: 60' times
 

when your front tires leave the beams, it starts the clocks.........does not matter if they roll out or go sky high

Re: 60' times
 

They probably just look at the 330' numbers instead of the 60'

Re: 60' times
 

But it does matter which wheels trip the 60' beam... ;)

Re: 60' times
 

In this case the 60' time is actually the time to go 60'+the car's wheelbase. You car then back cipher what it would have been in the front wheels tripped the 60' beams.

Re: 60' times
 

Let's say the car 60' on the back wheels @ 1.40...would it mean the car's actual 60' would have been around 1.29 if the front wheels had tripped the beam? Hard to figure a formula to arrive at it.

Re: 60' times
 

This was the absolute fastest pass made by this car, and the fastest 330

1.403
3.74
5.86 115.7
9.29 142.3

This was the fastest 60 foot ever by the same car with the lights tripped by the front tires





1.28


I feel this is pretty accurate, a 67 Chevelle that trips on the rear tires runs about 12 hundreths quicker than the 60 foot clocks indicate.

My 68 Chevelle very consistently goes 1.395 on the rear tires, 3.73 330 although a shorter wheel base than the 67.


http://www.trracecars.com/2foot.jpg

http://www.trracecars.com/3foot.jpg

http://www.trracecars.com/4foot.jpg

Re: 60' times
 

I'll be damned...my guesswork/math was pretty darn close lol. :p

Re: 60' times
 

Could stage w/ back tires once LOL
Mike Taylor 3601

Re: 60' times
 

Our stockers running mid 10s typically had a 1.48 60ft with rear tires and it was 1.33-4 with the front tires. However, the faster a car is the less et difference will be seen. So, if it's a low 9 second car it's probably around .12. A mid low to high 10 second would probably be .14-.16. However, if it is tripping the beams with the middle of the car, you can have inconsistent numbers. I have seen runs .05-.06 slower in 60ft with same 330 on my high 9 second Firebird.

Re: 60' times
 

Subtract .10 - .145 depending on weight from the back wheel 60 foot and you will be close.

Re: 60' times
 

Country puppy has it about right. It's a calculated guess, look at 330 also.

Re: 60' times
 

The 60' beams are 8" off the ground, right? You would have to be almost straight up at 60' to catch it with the rear tires, and not the rocker panel. How high the front determines where along the rocker panel the beam catch it. Normally I'm 1.27X to 1.28X, straight up I'm 1.4X.

Re: 60' times
 

1.40-1.28 =.12

Re: 60' times
 

hey Ed, I've done that before...and I peed on myself the whole run..:(

Re: 60' times
 

I'm used to it. Until I got my Santuffs it was a too-common occurrence.
Gary Emmons has Santuffs and still does it. LOL

Re: 60' times
 

Late to the party

yes

with my high 1.1x to low 1.2x 60 footing car, the difference between tripping with the front vs. the back tires is a tenth.