Drag racing times and street encounters - how do they fit together?
08-27-2002, 08:30 AM
#1
Drag racing times and street encounters - how do they fit together?
I've read about a bazillion comments in here about how fast different cars do the 1/4 mile, etc, etc, and then have people blast a driver of an "inferior" car for beating the supposedly faster car in a street race (because "so-and-so got a 12.5s run out of that same car on the strip").
My question is this: Do you think a time is valid in an argument about which car is faster if the car(s) in question were not in street form when the time was achieved?
For instance, you get drivers lowering the pressure in their drive tires for optimum launch and traction. They would never do this on the street at a stoplight, for instance.
Also, decreasing weight by throwing out the spare tire, toolkit, having only 1/656th of a tank of gas in the car, etc, etc. You get what I'm saying - this doesn't happen in chance encounters on the street (turning off the A/C is about all you can really do - maybe put your top up if you have a 'vert).
So, back to the point. Do you think that, when talking about who would win in a street encounter, timeslips from drag races where the cars were not in realistic street form, are valid as proof that the person that won (or lost) only did so because they were a great (or bad) driver? Are said timeslips a valid reason for belittling a person who says they DID beat a supposedly faster vehicle (refer to the S2K beating the WS6 a while back up to about 110mph, before losing).
I've seen guys talking about Z06s with sub-12s runs in the 1/4, yet I have a feeling that they did this on non-spec tire pressures (not to be a magazine racer, but I have yet to see published times this quick in any of the big car mags). Same goes for a Camaro SS doing sub-13s runs - how often is that done on spec tire pressure, or without things thrown out?
Not flaming anyone, just wondering what everyone feels about this.
Personally, I've always thought that on any given day, almost everyone has a chance of winning. Driver skill is often the deciding factor, even when a car is supposedly outmatched and outpowered. As such, I take each encounter as a possibility of bucking the trend, a possibility of beating the unbeatable, of showing that it's not all about who did what where in their car in the past.
Comments? Flames? Ideas? Opinions? Let's hear it!
My question is this: Do you think a time is valid in an argument about which car is faster if the car(s) in question were not in street form when the time was achieved?
For instance, you get drivers lowering the pressure in their drive tires for optimum launch and traction. They would never do this on the street at a stoplight, for instance.
Also, decreasing weight by throwing out the spare tire, toolkit, having only 1/656th of a tank of gas in the car, etc, etc. You get what I'm saying - this doesn't happen in chance encounters on the street (turning off the A/C is about all you can really do - maybe put your top up if you have a 'vert).
So, back to the point. Do you think that, when talking about who would win in a street encounter, timeslips from drag races where the cars were not in realistic street form, are valid as proof that the person that won (or lost) only did so because they were a great (or bad) driver? Are said timeslips a valid reason for belittling a person who says they DID beat a supposedly faster vehicle (refer to the S2K beating the WS6 a while back up to about 110mph, before losing).
I've seen guys talking about Z06s with sub-12s runs in the 1/4, yet I have a feeling that they did this on non-spec tire pressures (not to be a magazine racer, but I have yet to see published times this quick in any of the big car mags). Same goes for a Camaro SS doing sub-13s runs - how often is that done on spec tire pressure, or without things thrown out?
Not flaming anyone, just wondering what everyone feels about this.
Personally, I've always thought that on any given day, almost everyone has a chance of winning. Driver skill is often the deciding factor, even when a car is supposedly outmatched and outpowered. As such, I take each encounter as a possibility of bucking the trend, a possibility of beating the unbeatable, of showing that it's not all about who did what where in their car in the past.
Comments? Flames? Ideas? Opinions? Let's hear it!
08-27-2002, 08:43 AM
#2
Registered User
It depends on how people run they're cars. Not everyone runs 10 psi at the drag strip. That is a favorite of high powered FWD cars, not RWD cars.
As far as the stock Z06's running low 12's (actually high 11's are the fastest). The slips i have seen and the one run I saw all of them were running stock tires on stock pressures. If you really want to know how a car will do on the street take a look at the trap speed. That will give you a good idea of how fast the car is at speed.
You will see a lot of sub 400HP AWD cars with ET like 11.5 at 117mph or something. While, a Z06 might only run 12.1 at 119mph..which car is faster? It is pretty obvious the AWD car is launching much better, but the Z06 is faster as it crosses the trap. The AWD got to the 1/4 mile faster, but the Z06 is gaining quickly. During a highway race the AWD launch will be factored out of the equation and the Z06 would pull this car.
A 1/4 ET is not a good guage of HP by itself. Indy cars run like high 9's in the 1/4, but have a huge Power to weight ratio over say the TT viper, but both run the same ET's??!?! The trap speed on the indy car is about 20mph higher though!!
Someone is having problems getting traction!!
As far as the stock Z06's running low 12's (actually high 11's are the fastest). The slips i have seen and the one run I saw all of them were running stock tires on stock pressures. If you really want to know how a car will do on the street take a look at the trap speed. That will give you a good idea of how fast the car is at speed.
You will see a lot of sub 400HP AWD cars with ET like 11.5 at 117mph or something. While, a Z06 might only run 12.1 at 119mph..which car is faster? It is pretty obvious the AWD car is launching much better, but the Z06 is faster as it crosses the trap. The AWD got to the 1/4 mile faster, but the Z06 is gaining quickly. During a highway race the AWD launch will be factored out of the equation and the Z06 would pull this car.
A 1/4 ET is not a good guage of HP by itself. Indy cars run like high 9's in the 1/4, but have a huge Power to weight ratio over say the TT viper, but both run the same ET's??!?! The trap speed on the indy car is about 20mph higher though!!
Someone is having problems getting traction!!
08-27-2002, 09:00 AM
#3
I know what you're saying and agree - quickest 1/4 mile times don't necessarily mean the car is "faster" in the scope of things, etc, etc.
I guess my point is this. I get sick of people seeing or hearing of a driver winning a race of any sort against a supposedly superior car and all they can say is "Oh, the driver must have sucked - those cars do the 1/4 mile a half second faster than yours does" and things like that.
They're using timeslips (often, as far as I can see) of best times or even average times from people that DO change their cars at the dragstrip to achieve those times.
I guess I'm just looking for people's ideas on where to draw the line. Just because, for instance, an S2000 takes a Camaro SS, does that mean that the SS was driven badly or does it mean that the SS just didn't have lower tire pressures, a box of ice over the intake, and the big spare tire taken out? Were drag radials used on the timeslip? You get the point.
Basically, do people know how the times they quote were achieved and if not, are those times even applicable in an argument?
I know an SS will do a sub-13s time with dropped tire pressure (or slicks), and a bit of weight reduction. However, what if it's only got the stock 245s (or are they 275s?) on back - they suck and a lot of drivers will NEVER get a sub-13s run on them.
How do you compare or can you even compare at all?
BTW, a sub-12s run means in the 11s.
I guess my point is this. I get sick of people seeing or hearing of a driver winning a race of any sort against a supposedly superior car and all they can say is "Oh, the driver must have sucked - those cars do the 1/4 mile a half second faster than yours does" and things like that.
They're using timeslips (often, as far as I can see) of best times or even average times from people that DO change their cars at the dragstrip to achieve those times.
I guess I'm just looking for people's ideas on where to draw the line. Just because, for instance, an S2000 takes a Camaro SS, does that mean that the SS was driven badly or does it mean that the SS just didn't have lower tire pressures, a box of ice over the intake, and the big spare tire taken out? Were drag radials used on the timeslip? You get the point.
Basically, do people know how the times they quote were achieved and if not, are those times even applicable in an argument?
I know an SS will do a sub-13s time with dropped tire pressure (or slicks), and a bit of weight reduction. However, what if it's only got the stock 245s (or are they 275s?) on back - they suck and a lot of drivers will NEVER get a sub-13s run on them.
How do you compare or can you even compare at all?
BTW, a sub-12s run means in the 11s.
08-27-2002, 09:09 AM
#4
Registered User
well if you want to figure out which car is faster...power to weight ratio is a good approx.
A camaro SS has sooo many advantages over a S2000 in a drag race.
It has a solid axle, which is a much superior drag suspension setup.
It has massive low end torque.
It has a great Power/Weight Ratio.
It's faster in a straight line.
If an S2000 beats a SS it could be for a number of reasons, but a properly driven SS that is running well is just plain faster, when going straight.
3400/320 =10.625
2800/240 = 11.67
couple this with solid axle and massive torque and you a mismatch.
I am not exactly sure what you are asking...
Street racing is nothing like real drag racing.
If you are on the street and punch it 1/2 second before the other guy in two cars like the SS and S2000 it might take over a 1/4 for the other car just to make up for the jump you got. It isn't even close to an exact science. If you are trying to say that drag racing is a worse way to tell which car is faster, then street racing...I disagree. At least on a drag-strip there are set stopping and starting points...and everyone knows they are racing!!
yeah, i missed the sub 12 thing...i read low 12's for some reason...i'm dumb!!
A camaro SS has sooo many advantages over a S2000 in a drag race.
It has a solid axle, which is a much superior drag suspension setup.
It has massive low end torque.
It has a great Power/Weight Ratio.
It's faster in a straight line.
If an S2000 beats a SS it could be for a number of reasons, but a properly driven SS that is running well is just plain faster, when going straight.
3400/320 =10.625
2800/240 = 11.67
couple this with solid axle and massive torque and you a mismatch.
I am not exactly sure what you are asking...
Street racing is nothing like real drag racing.
If you are on the street and punch it 1/2 second before the other guy in two cars like the SS and S2000 it might take over a 1/4 for the other car just to make up for the jump you got. It isn't even close to an exact science. If you are trying to say that drag racing is a worse way to tell which car is faster, then street racing...I disagree. At least on a drag-strip there are set stopping and starting points...and everyone knows they are racing!!
yeah, i missed the sub 12 thing...i read low 12's for some reason...i'm dumb!!
08-27-2002, 09:14 AM
#5
No, no, I'm saying the other way around. I'm saying I don't think that drag racing on a strip is a good way to necessarily predict the outcome of a street race.
The overall question here is, are drag racing results a valid reason for either belittling or disbelieving reported results of a street encounter (or even, in general)?
Is it even valid to say, for instance, "An SS is a faster car (in a straight line) than an NSX since the NSX almost never gets a sub-13s run, yet SSs are supposedly doing it a lot"?
In an argument, would the above line be valid when debating which car is faster (on the street)? Or is that all BS and things are completely different on the street?
Any clearer?
The overall question here is, are drag racing results a valid reason for either belittling or disbelieving reported results of a street encounter (or even, in general)?
Is it even valid to say, for instance, "An SS is a faster car (in a straight line) than an NSX since the NSX almost never gets a sub-13s run, yet SSs are supposedly doing it a lot"?
In an argument, would the above line be valid when debating which car is faster (on the street)? Or is that all BS and things are completely different on the street?
Any clearer?
08-27-2002, 09:15 AM
#6
P.S. I'm dumb too. Anyone else out there that's dumb? 
Trending Topics
08-27-2002, 10:02 AM
#8
Both. 
08-29-2002, 04:21 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Motor City
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JonBoy
[B].
The overall question here is, are drag racing results a valid reason for either belittling or disbelieving reported results of a street encounter (or even, in general)?
[B].
The overall question here is, are drag racing results a valid reason for either belittling or disbelieving reported results of a street encounter (or even, in general)?
08-29-2002, 06:18 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: na
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's mostly have to do with an ego thing I guess
beside, most ppl' can't stand seeing their car got killed by something with less prestiges
that's where excuses and nonsense camparison come in
beside, most ppl' can't stand seeing their car got killed by something with less prestiges
that's where excuses and nonsense camparison come in
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Timphan84
California - Southern California S2000 Owners
35
12-10-2007 08:30 PM
rayyu882
S2000 Street Encounters
15
07-02-2005 07:02 AM