{"ImagePath":"http://community.racingone.com/media/","BoundryClass":"","BoundryClassTop":"","BoundryClassRight":"popupConstraintR","BoundryClassBottom":"popupConstraintB","BoundryClassLeft":"","CloseButtonClass":"PersonaButtonStyleContainer","HoverContainerClass":"hoverItemContainer","OnDelayTime":0,"Padding":5,"VisualPointer":false,"Shadow":false,"TrackMouse":false,"XSize":0,"YSize":0,"PopupContainerClass":"popupContainer","ConstrainTop":false,"ConstrainRight":false,"ConstrainBottom":false,"ConstrainLeft":false}
Joined:
3-14-2007
Posts:
83
TOP FUEL INCREMENTAL Gs
5/10/2007 6:20 AM
These are from some recent runs, all in the 4.40s with one a 4.430.
60 ft. @ .827 sec = 5.45 Gs. 330 ft @ 2.138 sec = 4.49 Gs. 660 ft @ 3.009 sec = 4.53 Gs. 1000 ft @ 3.794 sec = 4.32 Gs. The 4.430 run average was 4.18 Gs.
No doubt the Gs change throughout the run and it appears the best would be between 0 and the 60 ft marker.
The slight increase between the 330 and 660 marker is likely due to a combination of clutch "lockup" and the increasing downforce caused by the large wing.
Joined:
4-1-2007
Posts:
366
Re: TOP FUEL INCREMENTAL Gs
5/11/2007 7:39 AM
Those numbers stagger the mind. Thanks for posting them.
To pull over 4Gs for an entire run is truly amazing.
I'm old enough to remember when getting into the 6's was a big deal. I was even one who thought the 5 second barrier would never be broken in my lifetime. Boy, was I wrong on that one. How long before they get 'er down in the 3s? Who knows, but it's gonna happen one day.
After reading your post, I'm now inclined to believe that the limit may be how many Gs a human can withstand and still remain conscious and able enough to drive the thing.
Joined:
7-21-2006
Posts:
226
Re: TOP FUEL INCREMENTAL Gs
5/11/2007 9:29 AM
The 3's,on rubber tires? I don't think so.Plus even if they over came that obstacle no track would have enough of a shut down area for the speeds,plus the chute would need to be computer controlled because the driver could not react quick enough,plus the safety factor regarding the driver and the fans.
Joined:
4-1-2007
Posts:
366
Re: TOP FUEL INCREMENTAL Gs
5/12/2007 8:06 AM
Yeah, I heard (and probably even said) all that stuff back in the day. They were the same points, yet barrier after barrier was overcome. They broke thru the 7's and then the 6's, then 5's. Kinda hard to believe that they can run into the 4's but it is common now.
One a side note, I agree that the tires are a key to performance. Always have been. Just curious as to how much natural rubber is actually in them nowadays? Anybody have an idea?
Joined:
3-14-2007
Posts:
83
Re: TOP FUEL INCREMENTAL Gs
5/14/2007 4:27 PM
'degatom>>>"""""I'm old enough to remember when getting into the 6's was a big deal. I was even one who thought the 5 second barrier would never be broken in my lifetime. Boy, was I wrong on that one. How long before they get 'er down in the 3s? Who knows, but it's gonna happen one day."""""
At least you did not make the same prediction as some of the college physics professors who, back in the 50s said that "Due to the cars depending on the force of gravity for traction the cars can never accelerate at a rate greater than one G and if they were to make the calculations they would learn that the lowest possible ET is 9.06 seconds and the fastest MPH is 199.5".
OK, so those old dumb, backyard engineers did not know how to make those calculations, so they just kept on chasing that rabbit to where they are today.
Joined:
7-21-2006
Posts:
895
Re: TOP FUEL INCREMENTAL Gs
5/14/2007 7:03 PM
I'm pretty sure that the tire/track prep in the 50's would only have allowed a 1 g pull. Can't blame them for not being able to predict the traction compound that is applied to the track, along with the incredible tires that are now available. Remember, those engineers weren't doing the calculations on a laptop (something else they could never have envisioned), they were using slide rules.......
Joined:
3-14-2007
Posts:
83
Re: TOP FUEL INCREMENTAL Gs
5/15/2007 5:18 PM
Paladin ;-) >>>""" Can't blame them for not being able to predict the traction compound that is applied to the track, along with the incredible tires that are now available."""""
What they did not and probably could not take into account was the natural weight transfer PLUS the additional traction caused by the launch angle which was sort of like the car trying to run under itself aka "blowovers" until they got that problem corrected.
As you know the NHRA had a nitro ban at Natl. events from 1957 until early 60s.
Here's the first recorded NHRA run better than 1 G.
http://www.nhra.com/50th/years.html?year=1961
And here's perhaps the first ever better than 1 G. It is very deep in the list; Bobby Langley is one of the 3.
http://www.draglist.com/lists/tf-et-year.htm
Joined:
7-21-2006
Posts:
895
Re: TOP FUEL INCREMENTAL Gs
5/15/2007 5:36 PM
Definitely give you the weight transfer arguement. In the 50's there were several ideas that I'm sure the engineers thought would never be overcome.
Even 10 years ago would any of us have believed it would be possible to get 2 gigs of memory on a little stick that you plug into the side of your computer? Think about it, we were using 3.5" "floppys" to get 1.44 megs.