Ken Keir wheelie bars

[69Cobra]

Originally Posted by HP HUNTER

Your the one who brought the car up on this thread, walking around with your chest puffed outthe cars never been a 1.28 60, if it did you would just post the time slip. Actually I signed up over a week ago, but when I saw you giving advice to someone who clearly out performs anything you've ever done in over 20 years of racing, I couldnt resist. (deep staged as was everyone of it's 4000+ passes in competition)
Is that 1.28 Jersey math LOL

Dude. Go away!!!!! You are out of your league here. ET and MPH are not based on weight or hp or heads or cubic inches alone. MPH is a product of hp to weight ratio and there is a formula (1320 / MPH = ET) that is for an optimum pass. This formula doesn't ask for weight. This formula doesn't ask for air conditions. There for it wouldn't matter if his car weighted 7000# and had a nitro funny car engine in it you still wouldn't believe it went 1.28 60'. Its obvious that he put you on the trailer some years back and you can't get over it. I think its time you take up a different sport, maybe underwater basket weaving or something.

[HP HUNTER]

Originally Posted by 69Cobra

Dude. Go away!!!!! You are out of your league here. ET and MPH are not based on weight or hp or heads or cubic inches alone. MPH is a product of hp to weight ratio and there is a formula (1320 / MPH = ET) that is for an optimum pass. This formula doesn't ask for weight. This formula doesn't ask for air conditions. There for it wouldn't matter if his car weighted 7000# and had a nitro funny car engine in it you still wouldn't believe it went 1.28 60'. Its obvious that he put you on the trailer some years back and you can't get over it. I think its time you take up a different sport, maybe underwater basket weaving or something.

You have no idea of what your talking about. As far as being out of my league, I dont think so. Have you EVER run a footbrake NA heavy small tire car? If so give some examples.

[69Cobra]

Originally Posted by HP HUNTER

You have no idea of what your talking about. As far as being out of my league, I dont think so. Have you EVER run a footbrake NA heavy small tire car? If so give some examples.

You win. I don't know what I'm talking about. No I have never run a footbrake NA heavy small tire car. I drive my car with a clutch then I shift it with my hand all the way down the track. My car is closer to the 4000# mark and on stock leaf spring suspension on 9" tires. Now since you know everything. What should my car run on 9" tires and about 4000#. It seems like this is all the info you need to be able to tell someone that they can or can't do something.

[HP HUNTER]

Originally Posted by 69Cobra

You win. I don't know what I'm talking about. No I have never run a footbrake NA heavy small tire car. I drive my car with a clutch then I shift it with my hand all the way down the track. My car is closer to the 4000# mark and on stock leaf spring suspension on 9" tires. Now since you know everything. What should my car run on 9" tires and about 4000#. It seems like this is all the info you need to be able to tell someone that they can or can't do something.

Ok, tell me your HP and conditions the car is run in. But it does not 60 foot 1.28. With out getting into an arguement could you post your times, 60 330 660 1320. Think about this: If we run a car the same as the car in question, and it runs 1.31 6.27 9.98 @ 130.9 and Ed runs 10.07 @ 131 why cant you class racers see why I find it hard to believe how a car that runs more MPH and a slower ET (10.07) has a 3 hundreths faster 60 foot, were talking about the same exact bodied car here. Read my post carefully.

[69Cobra]

Originally Posted by HP HUNTER

Ok, tell me you HP and conditions the car is run in. But it does not 60 foot 1.28. With out getting into an arguement could you post your times, 60 330 660 1320.

I'm not getting in to the details of my car with you. But I do think that Chevelle with the info given could and should 60' in the low 1.30's to high 1.20's with an automatic. In my opinion the automatics 60' better than the stick cars.

[HP HUNTER]

Originally Posted by 69Cobra

I'm not getting in to the details of my car with you. But I do think that Chevelle with the info given could and should 60' in the low 1.30's to high 1.20's with an automatic. In my opinion the automatics 60' better than the stick cars.

1.2 60s have been done, but not by Eds car, but it does run low 1.3 60s, theres a big difference from a low 1.3 to a 1.28.

[HP HUNTER]

Originally Posted by 69Cobra

I'm not getting in to the details of my car with you. But I do think that Chevelle with the info given could and should 60' in the low 1.30's to high 1.20's with an automatic. In my opinion the automatics 60' better than the stick cars.

I agree the auto would be better under most cases with a 30x9, but some of these guys are awful good with the clutch, example: Kip Martin 1.32 60s @ 10.3s, 3000 pound car, of course that isnt a stocker either.

[69Cobra]

Originally Posted by HP HUNTER

I agree the auto would be better under most cases with a 30x9, but some of these guys are awful good with the clutch, example: Kip Martin 1.32 60s @ 10.3s, 3000 pound car, of course that isnt a stocker either.

So you are okay with Kip's numbers being a 1.32 60' running 10.30's but not a 1.28 60 running 10.00's. I get it....

[HP HUNTER]

Originally Posted by 69Cobra

So you are okay with Kip's numbers being a 1.32 60' running 10.30's but not a 1.28 60 running 10.00's. I get it....

Yes I am, theres a big difference between a 2950-3000 pound backhalved SS car running 1.32 60 @ 10.30 and a 3880 pound bolt on suspension car running 1.28 @ 10.07. I dont think you understand how far the gap is between those 4 hundreths. Wouldnt it just be easier to post the time slip with the 1.28 and put all this to rest??

[1320racer]

Originally Posted by HP HUNTER

it does not 60 foot 1.28.

again because the guy hiding behind a screen name who registered soley to pursue his agenda says it can't be. Too funny. Somebody better tell Kevin Borgstom and Joe Abazzia who both went 1.29 60 foot in their B/SA Chevelles and at a slower ET if I remember correctly and with LESS power than my 468.

That said, the accusations from the internet experts and careet test/tuners is nothing new, you name it, they've said it, going back over 10 years ago and long before my ride ran a 10.07 and a 1.28 60 foot. Those that refuse to believe say it didn't weight 3880 lbs. it wasn't a 468, I was spraying it, the clocks were off, jersey math, yada, yada, yada and not 1 has ever seen it in person. Meanwhile numerous racers who know the car, who have actually seen it run and who competed with me weekly, as well my engine builder have stated online it was exactly as I have posted.

Now, unlike the rest of the drag racing forums on the net whose posters are largely career test/tuners, bench racers and dreamers, this group here, largely class racers, know that the peformance I had achieved with my Chevelle while impressive and on par with some of the best stockers back in 2007 is not only believeable, it's not all that difficult to do with a properly preppared car especially given my engine was not stock eliminator legal. This is what this guy fails to understand...the devil is in the details and my Chevelle while bracket raced was a built as if a stocker!

On that note, up untill 2007 when I retired the 468, my Chevelle ran quicker and faster than EVERY 454, 496, 502, GM's 720HP 572 and most 540's in a similar Chevelle here in Division 1 brackets!

Now, many of the same group that have doubted the combo and performance of my Chevelle, also doubt the combo and performance of my current ride that has 60 footed 1.17 off the footbrake!

Truth me told, today 5 years later, I could have the same car/combo at the same weight running new best numbers at least 2 tenths quicker and maybe even run a 1.27 60 foot.

Thanks to those that have sent me PMs and my appologies to Ken for the direction this thread has gone.