The 14b Drag Race Discussion Thread

[TSimage]

There is nothing you can do short of making it out of a different material that will be lighter than a butcher crank. Ask me how I know...

There is literally nothing left on my crank to take off. It has too much taken off if you ask me..

 

[SBstar]

Wow, I hate when a good thread turns into a crapstorm. It'd be nice to get back on topic and actually think things through. It's tough when one person has the know-it-all attitude though and won't listen to reason.

I think the aero mods are interesting, but as stated they will have a minimal effect on ET if any at all. So we can probably drop that argument eh? Obviously any lighter parts are going to help, whether sprung or unsprung, rotating or not. Titanium axles and aluminum driveshafts, and butcher cranks etc...We've discussed that to death, nice to know someone out there has the pockets deep enough to try all that and show us how big an effect it will really have.

I agree with Dave, a lightweight awesome clutch is a better investment then axles, however, this guy probably has ordered that already too, am I right?

As for now I'm leaning towards the Megan's for anyone interested in a build that is actually going somewhere and is talked freely about .

 

[hubz91talontsi]

Good info. If i did truely have an unlimited budget this would be first tied right next to a titanium crank =P
For $3,000 this could be yours

Im not sure how much the butcher weighs but this is 25.8lbs

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

I agree with Dave, a lightweight awesome clutch is a better investment then axles, however, this guy probably has ordered that already too, am I right?

Wrong. Ill burn up my SBR 3500, and tear into my act 2600 first. I have looked into titanium flywheel bolts to be honest

As for now I'm leaning towards the Megan's for anyone interested in a build that is actually going somewhere and is talked freely about .

Take some weights for us. We can all agree that we like lightweight!

 

[91stocker]

There is nothing you can do short of making it out of a different material that will be lighter than a butcher crank. Ask me how I know...

There is literally nothing left on my crank to take off. It has too much taken off if you ask me..

Yea thats what i was thinking. Im running a knife edged 4340 crank, which i considered contacting ffwd to get it "butchered". Why do you say too much has been taken off? It can always be balanced after.

We've discussed that to death

Maybe so, but we need something to talk about till spring haha

Im not sure how much the butcher weighs but this is 25.8lbs

They claim 29lbs on the dsm crank, the evo crank weighs in at 26.5lbs.

 

[TSimage]

My butchered crank weighs roughly 26lbs as well. So you have found yet another useless product that cost too much and does too little.

As far as me saying it lost too much weight is the idea that the crank works as a counter balance. A lot of that weight is on the crank lobes for a reason. With nothing there, yes the crank spins more freely but the cranks ability to revert inertia is reduced and thus the crank can "warp" or "twist". A known DSMer had this issue, I wont reveal his name but I hope to test out if that was a freak occurrence or not. Other than that one isolated issue I have never heard of anything else so there may have been more at play.

 

[bullettdsm]

Its obvious you enjoy being a troll. From your post I never figured you to have the intelligence to do anything else but continue on in your current path. At this point you could run a 10 and I don't think any of us would believe it was done on a 14b.

Ficksed for my clarification.

Guys the best way to get rid of a troll is to ingore them. I've had my say on him and I now try to ignore all his posts. Unfortunately, what has happened now, is you have a very informative thread that is cluttered up with bullsiht (which is pretty sad).

For those that think this is a give and take of constructive ideas, I beg to differ. It is more of "make up a postion (based on some idea), get reasoning why that position doesn't work, then argue for the sake of arguing". Not a constructive situation.

Give the guy his gold star and don't feed him any more.

MB

 

[hubz91talontsi]

My butchered crank weighs roughly 26lbs as well. So you have found yet another useless product that cost too much and does too little.

"Engineered for 12,000+ r.p.m. and made with similar geometry specs and material as our crankshafts that are rated for applications of over 2,000 hp, we are confident our 4G63 crankshafts will meet your needs and more"

Give the guy his gold star and don't feed him any more.

Awww thanks.

Unfortunately, what has happened now, is you have a very informative thread that is cluttered up with bullsiht (which is pretty sad).

Phil stop cluttering this up with supra talk! ..Roll racing.

 

[Phil1320]

Ok.....wow......crapstorm.......good word Shane....

.....and me agreeing with all that TSimage was saying..... I guess when it comes right down to it we are on the same sheet of paper after all.

Bullett.....good point. I've started that already!

I think you are completely missing the point. This is the 14b DRAG RACING thread. Not the MPG thread, not the 50-100 thread, not MPH racing thread. We are trying to drill it into you that Aero modifications don't significantly affect the ET at a 1/4 mile track, but you keep beating around the bush and cluttering the thread with posts that don't contribute anything to the 14B Dragracing conversation. What Phil is trying to say is that WE DONT CARE WHAT MPH THE CAR RUNS. Aero mods are going to improve MPH but be very very ineffective at improving ET.

Yup!

 

[9!'clipseDOHC]

As for now I'm leaning towards the Megan's for anyone interested in a build that is actually going somewhere and is talked freely about .

Hey Shane, I just saw this and thought you might want to see it too: http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/vendor-announcements/390285-maperformance-megan-coilovers-amazing-price-all-1g-2g-dsm.html

Well I got my car put back together and did a boost leak test, it's only holding 10 psi from the turbo inlet but the sound of air rushing out of the compressor cover is gone. I think it must be the 1g BOV opening up. Time to look into crushing it.

 

[Phil1320]

Hey Shane, I just saw this and thought you might want to see it too: http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/vendor-announcements/390285-maperformance-megan-coilovers-amazing-price-all-1g-2g-dsm.html

Well I got my car put back together and did a boost leak test, it's only holding 10 psi from the turbo inlet but the sound of air rushing out of the compressor cover is gone. I think it must be the 1g BOV opening up. Time to look into crushing it.

Nice......oh yeah, gotta crush the BOV, I've been running mine crushed for about 12 years and it's a must. That should help for sure...good luck!

 

[SBstar]

No kidding, I forgot about that, I've got to pull mine off and crush it this year, didn't bother last year but i'm sure it leaks at the pressures I'm putting it through.

 

[hubz91talontsi]

Wasn't going to; but had to. DRAG ISN'T A CONSTANT!!!!!!!!!!!

You can run a 1G AWD that's a 11.200 car trapping say 120mph with completely stock body at .30 Cd for example. Do all the aero modifications possible and make it perfect to a .20Cd (I don't even think that's possible anyway). What's it going to run: 11.175 @ 122. Go back to the stock car and add a big ricer supra style wing, canards, and a Shogun bumper: the Cd just went up to .40. What does the car run at the dragstrip: 11.225 @ 119.0

None of this makes any sense at all. This looks like something you would read in the 80s. Drag coefficient isn't a damn constant. The drag coefficient of phil's car is about double at 120mph. Im not trying to be a dick and never was. Stop questioning my intelligence. Pleaseeee

In my car, a 0.1Cd decrease should be worth about 0.06sec and 3mph. There are a hell of a lot more low-hanging fruit than focusing efforts on reducing Cd for drag racing.

Maybe a hundredth of drag coefficient not a tenth. Most cars only have 3 tenths. You'd need to make the thing a fiberglass bullet to take off tenths. Something is wrong with that quote.. Again its probably quite old.

 

[Phil1320]

No kidding, I forgot about that, I've got to pull mine off and crush it this year, didn't bother last year but i'm sure it leaks at the pressures I'm putting it through.

Most definitely......

 

[Nate Crisman]

Wasn't going to; but had to. DRAG ISN'T A CONSTANT!!!!!!!!!!!

None of this makes any sense at all. This looks like something you would read in the 80s. Drag coefficient isn't a damn constant. The drag coefficient of phil's car is about double at 120mph. Im not trying to be a dick and never was. Stop questioning my intelligence. Pleaseeee

Maybe a hundredth of drag coefficient not a tenth. Most cars only have 3 tenths. You'd need to make the thing a fiberglass bullet to take off tenths. Something is wrong with that quote.. Again its probably quite old.

Im extremely confident that my quotation of Kiggy was factual and correct. Kevin is one of the smartest DSMer's to ever mod the car, and is kicking everyone's ass with his own ingenuity. We both agree that the stock drag coefficient of a stock 1G DSM is about .30 Cd. We agree on 3 tenths.

Kiggly says that by his experience and calculations, reducing Aero drag on his 170mph 1g down to .20 Cd would only yeald a .060 second of ET and 3mph gain on the timeslip. And yes, in his more elaborate post which I didn't and won't quote, he goes on to say that removing a full tenth of Aero drag is borderline impossible. Meaning that doing the entire list of aero improvements I listed before won't even get you .060 of ET on a 170mph car. It would yeald 3mph improvement, but very little ET.

Extrapolating this to a 120mph 14b car....accomplishing that entire list of aero improvements might yeald a realistic Cd drop down to .25. And since the average speed of a 14b dragstrip run is well under 100mph the amount of performance gain is going to be WAY WAY WAY less.

Hence why I have stated...over and over....that Aero modifications are a waste of effort, time, and money on a 120mph 14b car that is not running at 100% efficiency.

I'm not questioning your intelligence, Im questioning your rational and theory. I believe you are overstating the effect of Aero drag over a slow average speed drag race by a magnitude of maybe 10. You seem to think that decreasing Cd of a 1G DSM from .30 stock to .27 with an air dam is going to somehow net you a big ET gain. Im saying that decreasing .03 of Cd is like pissing in the wind and might not even gain you any ET that is beyond the error of run to run varience.

Go do the math on HP to overcome aero drag along the curve of MPH that a 14b car would typically run. shit...just calculate the HP required to maintain speed at the intervals of gear changes, 1/8mile , and trap speed. Your going to find out that the HP lost to aero drag is very small and only starts to be significant when the car is well over 100mph, which is only the last 3 seconds of a run.

I'm not going to do the actual math on paper, but here is #'s from an online aero drag calculator using .30 Cd and 5.82 ft'2 frontal area:

• stating line: 0 HP lost to drag...speed 0
• 60' .3hp lost to drag speed 30mph 1.5 second ET
• 330' 2.5hp lost to drag speed ~60mph 4.5 second ET
• 660' 11hp lost to drag speed ~100mph 7 second ET
• 1000' 15hp lost to drag speed ~ 110mph 10 second ET
• 1320ft 20hp lost to drag speed ~120mph 11 second ET

Now with the same data but .25 for Cd with the same 5.81 frontal area:
stating line:

• 0 HP lost to drag...speed 0
• 60' .3hp lost to drag speed 30mph 1.5 second ET no effective gain
• 330' 2.1hp lost to drag speed ~60mph 4.5 second ET .4hp gain
• 660' 9.7hp lost to drag speed ~100mph 7 second ET 1.3hp gain
• 1000' 13hp lost to drag speed ~ 110mph 10 second ET 2 hp gain
• 1320ft 16.7hp lost to drag speed ~120mph 11 second ET 3.3hp gain

Going down to the "impossible fiberglass bullet" .20 Cd: at 120mph : 13.4hp worth of total drag. At the absolute best case...an impossibly low aero drag would save you another 3.3hp for the last 1 second of the run.

Going back up to Stock .30 Cd and cranking the speed to 135mph 16G/Nitrous territory brings total Aero drag loss to a whopping: 28.6hp. That's moot as no 14b car is going to be nailing 135mph trap speeds.


This illustrates that doing significant improvements to reduce Aero drag will only gain you something in the order of 3.3hp at the top of the track. Big whoop, like I said. The other factor is look at the amount of elapsed time spent at each interval. on an 11 second run to 120mph......7 seconds of that time you are at less than 10hp worth of total aero drag! Aero drag only starts to really accumulate into a significant at the very end of the track where your spending all over 1 to 2 seconds, which is the great factor explaining the effect on MPH but not on ET.

I would estimate that he AVERAGE amount of horsepower lost per unit time during a drag run of a stock aero 1g DSM is less than 10hp total. That leads me to believe that if you want to put your best foot forward on effective use of effort: you don't bother to worry about any aerodynamic improvements until you are within 10hp of absolute perfection in engine performance. All of the aero modifications that are reasonable would only yeald the same ET improvement as adding 10hp.

1. Adding 10hp is pretty easy..and when you do it, you can use that 10hp for the entire ET down the track.
2. Removing .05 of Cd is quite hard, actually may not even be possible.
3. Adding 10hp of Applied power during the first 1 second of the run might gain you some real ET
4. Adding 10hp of Applied power during the last 1 second of the run might gain you nothing in ET
5. Reducing Aero drag has the effect of only adding effective power at the very end of the run and only for a very short duration of time.

WORRYING ABOUT AERO ON OUR DRAGSTRIP CARS GOING 120MPH TRAPS IS AN EXCERCISE IN WASTED EFFORT

 

[16g DSM]

Im extremely confident that my quotation of Kiggy was factual and correct. Kevin is one of the smartest DSMer's to ever mod the car, and is kicking everyone's ass with his own ingenuity. We both agree that the stock drag coefficient of a stock 1G DSM is about .30 Cd. We agree on 3 tenths.

Kiggly says that by his experience and calculations, reducing Aero drag on his 170mph 1g down to .20 Cd would only yeald a .060 second of ET and 3mph gain on the timeslip. And yes, in his more elaborate post which I didn't and won't quote, he goes on to say that removing a full tenth of Aero drag is borderline impossible. Meaning that doing the entire list of aero improvements I listed before won't even get you .060 of ET on a 170mph car. It would yeald 3mph improvement, but very little ET.

Extrapolating this to a 120mph 14b car....accomplishing that entire list of aero improvements might yeald a realistic Cd drop down to .25. And since the average speed of a 14b dragstrip run is well under 100mph the amount of performance gain is going to be WAY WAY WAY less.

Hence why I have stated...over and over....that Aero modifications are a waste of effort, time, and money on a 120mph 14b car that is not running at 100% efficiency.

I'm not questioning your intelligence, Im questioning your rational and theory. I believe you are overstating the effect of Aero drag over a slow average speed drag race by a magnitude of maybe 10. You seem to think that decreasing Cd of a 1G DSM from .30 stock to .27 with an air dam is going to somehow net you a big ET gain. Im saying that decreasing .03 of Cd is like pissing in the wind and might not even gain you any ET that is beyond the error of run to run varience.

Go do the math on HP to overcome aero drag along the curve of MPH that a 14b car would typically run. shit...just calculate the HP required to maintain speed at the intervals of gear changes, 1/8mile , and trap speed. Your going to find out that the HP lost to aero drag is very small and only starts to be significant when the car is well over 100mph, which is only the last 3 seconds of a run.

I'm not going to do the actual math on paper, but here is #'s from an online aero drag calculator using .30 Cd and 5.82 ft'2 frontal area:

• stating line: 0 HP lost to drag...speed 0
• 60' .3hp lost to drag speed 30mph 1.5 second ET
• 330' 2.5hp lost to drag speed ~60mph 4.5 second ET
• 660' 11hp lost to drag speed ~100mph 7 second ET
• 1000' 15hp lost to drag speed ~ 110mph 10 second ET
• 1320ft 20hp lost to drag speed ~120mph 11 second ET

Now with the same data but .25 for Cd with the same 5.81 frontal area:
stating line:

• 0 HP lost to drag...speed 0
• 60' .3hp lost to drag speed 30mph 1.5 second ET no effective gain
• 330' 2.1hp lost to drag speed ~60mph 4.5 second ET .4hp gain
• 660' 9.7hp lost to drag speed ~100mph 7 second ET 1.3hp gain
• 1000' 13hp lost to drag speed ~ 110mph 10 second ET 2 hp gain
• 1320ft 16.7hp lost to drag speed ~120mph 11 second ET 3.3hp gain

Going down to the "impossible fiberglass bullet" .20 Cd: at 120mph : 13.4hp worth of total drag. At the absolute best case...an impossibly low aero drag would save you another 3.3hp for the last 1 second of the run.

Going back up to Stock .30 Cd and cranking the speed to 135mph 16G/Nitrous territory brings total Aero drag loss to a whopping: 28.6hp. That's moot as no 14b car is going to be nailing 135mph trap speeds.


This illustrates that doing significant improvements to reduce Aero drag will only gain you something in the order of 3.3hp at the top of the track. Big whoop, like I said. The other factor is look at the amount of elapsed time spent at each interval. on an 11 second run to 120mph......7 seconds of that time you are at less than 10hp worth of total aero drag! Aero drag only starts to really accumulate into a significant at the very end of the track where your spending all over 1 to 2 seconds, which is the great factor explaining the effect on MPH but not on ET.

I would estimate that he AVERAGE amount of horsepower lost per unit time during a drag run of a stock aero 1g DSM is less than 10hp total. That leads me to believe that if you want to put your best foot forward on effective use of effort: you don't bother to worry about any aerodynamic improvements until you are within 10hp of absolute perfection in engine performance. All of the aero modifications that are reasonable would only yeald the same ET improvement as adding 10hp.

1. Adding 10hp is pretty easy..and when you do it, you can use that 10hp for the entire ET down the track.
2. Removing .05 of Cd is quite hard, actually may not even be possible.
3. Adding 10hp of Applied power during the first 1 second of the run might gain you some real ET
4. Adding 10hp of Applied power during the last 1 second of the run might gain you nothing in ET
5. Reducing Aero drag has the effect of only adding effective power at the very end of the run and only for a very short duration of time.

WORRYING ABOUT AERO ON OUR DRAGSTRIP CARS GOING 120MPH TRAPS IS AN EXCERCISE IN WASTED EFFORT

wow was that dry! ! i give ya'll props for running 11's on a 14b!

 

[hubz91talontsi]

I can't quote anything due to my phone. Don't start the "that I expect half a second off" crap. You can't calculate aero down the track. To many factors.. Shifting, air temps.. The list goes on. Kiggly's car will produce over 3 times the factory drag force. You keep using the factory .30CD. That's just from the start of the race. It will be a increase all the way down the track. With your constants you would only gain a tenth from driving something that looks like a bus and something that looks like a pencil.

I agree with you 100% that it's a small increase for the effort. I just saying there are a few more hundredths that your calculating. I haven't even bothered with the additional friction of the rolling friction due to the extra drag force.

 

[Sirnixalot]

you are missing his point. When the air starts providing any significant resistance the run is damn near over.

 

[Nate Crisman]

you are missing his point. When the air starts providing any significant resistance the run is damn near over.

Bingo. Thankfully someone else gets it!

Cd DOES NOT change with speed. The only thing that changes Cd is physical changes to the car, it is a static feature of the vehicle. (unless your driving a 300GT VR4 or Porsche 911 with active aero body parts that move). Frontal area also does not change.

Anyone who thinks Cd changes with speed deserves to have their intelligence questioned when they are trying to argue the merits of aero modifications without a basic understanding.

 

[emo1010]

To me 14b racing is about budget and simplicity. If you have money to build all these crazy motors, suspension, areo ect. why would you stay with the 14b? Why squeak out 10ths or 100ths when you have all the stuff to support a big turbo? Toss on the big turbo and run 9's. I guess i just dont get it.

I think i have posted this here before but ill do it again just to try and get this back on track. ( I havnt had a 14b car in 3 years and still read this thread every day). Aaron S. and I built this car on a budget of about $3000. It took us almost a year to get it to the track and started with a wreaked 91 talon and a 90 laser that had been sitting a feild with no engine and trans.

BASICS & SUSPENSION
90 fwd laser
It's completly gutted
sparco race seat
5 point harness
painless wiring control box(ie power switchs)
Stock 6bolt(sans the balance shafts)
stock trans. open diff.
kyb gr2's with ebay coil overs
ploy. motor mounts
22" slicks( too small)
14b
2G manifold

MODS
1 gallon fuel cell filled w/ c16
-8 an feed to rail -6an return
aeromotive fuel ps reg.
550cc injectors
walbro 255 extranl fuel pump
Maft translator
gm 3" maf and translator.
super afc
pwr 8" liquid to air I/c
ebay o2 housing modified to use external gate
ebay external gate w/17psi spring
2.5 to 3" exhaust dumped under the car about the rear engine cross member.
aluminum fly wheel
act 2600 fly.

The gutting was very basic, Unbolted and removed anything that wasn't need to run at the track. The only "cutting" was the bracing between the rear shock towers and the passenger side seat mounts. The slicks I think limited us a bit on the launch as the best 60' we got was a 1.69 once but avg 1.7x.( you can see the car move sideways at the launch on the video i posted a few pages back.) tuning was also limited by crappy piggy back stuff but at the time fit perfect with in our budget.

The point is that big complex setups are not always better, we took the car to the track maybe 6 times, with a total of about 60-65 passes with the first pass off the trailer ever was a blistering 19.62@ 51 mph and by the last pass we made in the car we ran a 11.76@ 113 mph. Joes setup was very basic if you look at it too...no super secret parts or anything, just light weight, tuned very well and driven really well.


My .02 is Ill always be more impressed with a fast simple set up than and overly complex set up.

Eric

 

[91stocker]

Bingo. Thankfully someone else gets it!

Cd DOES NOT change with speed. The only thing that changes Cd is physical changes to the car, it is a static feature of the vehicle. (unless your driving a 300GT VR4 or Porsche 911 with active aero body parts that move). Frontal area also does not change.

Anyone who thinks Cd changes with speed deserves to have their intelligence questioned when they are trying to argue the merits of aero modifications without a basic understanding.

Yea i completely agree. We have alot of built diesels out here at the local track. When you see a f250 sitting 3 ft off the ground and as aero as a brick crack off a 10 sec run or a jeep cj with no top run a 6.2 1/8 you got to think maybe only shep and rau need to think about aero mods haha. These dsm's seem to be pretty damn aero compared to most old school muscle cars and they do alright in the 1/4.

 

[Nate Crisman]

You can't calculate aero down the track. To many factors.. Shifting, air temps.. The list goes on. Kiggly's car will produce over 3 times the factory drag force. You keep using the factory .30CD. That's just from the start of the race. It will be a increase all the way down the track. With your constants you would only gain a tenth from driving something that looks like a bus and something that looks like a pencil.
.

One most certainly can calculate the power lost to aero drag down the track, I just did it three or four posts ago, but you are simply too stubborn and ignorant to accept that you have been proven wrong.

And I have a very very significant typo in the tirade above: I was listing 10hp in my closing statement....when in reality, I should have been referencing the difference in power lost to aero drag between a .30 and .25 Cd vehicle, which was at most 3.3hp. Doing all the Aero modifications possible is going to gain the equivelent ET of about 4hp or less.

You can do all the aero modifications you think can possibly work, decrease the Cd down to .25. Do your underpan & bumper dam. I'll make 4hp more and be way ahead of you in ET, because that's the way it works.

And yes...given the same weight, same traction, same applied power: A vehicle shaped like a bus and a vehicle shaped like a pencil will have a much closer ET than you think. The MPH difference could be significant, but the ET will be much closer than you'll admit. You can take a scoolbus with a completely flat front. It has a huge frontal area and is the worst possible for Cd since it's flat on front. Run it at the dragstrip...(I don't have a clue what school buss's run..but I bet it's in the 20's and less than 60mph). You can add a big giant 8ft long pointy cone to the front of the bus to make it shaped pretty much like a pencil. Lets just assume the cone is made of weightless unobtainum that's within your budget...hahaha,....it's Cd is drasticly cut down, maybe in half. It still runs that same 20.xxx. maybe it hits 61mph.

Why do you think GVR4 that are big blocky squares and 1G's that are round and smooth produce damn near the same performance at the same level of modification and weight? BECAUSE AERODYNAMICS AT THE DRAGSTRIP DOESNT MEAN CRAP FOR ET. Aero modifications will make thousandths of a second difference in ET, maybe a hundredth or two at best at our speeds.




EDIT:

I really do apologize to all the sane people reading this thread for using up a couple pages arguing with hubz91talontsi when I should have just let it go. Unfortunately, I just have a pet peeve about willful ignorance. Hopefully there is some real information in this that can be of some use to the community. From this point on, Im going to do my best to ignore Hubz until he starts contributing to the conversation with real information, real timeslips, and real build information. Im sick of the secret squirrel crap and at this point and sick of him preaching to everyone else when he doesn't understand what he's arguing about. I might as well have tried explaining that "dry" post above to my 4 year old son, at least he has the common sense to say "dad, I don't understand" when the topic is over his head and I could stop wasting everyone's time and attention.

 

[Phil1320]

This is awesome!!!!.....

 

[hubz91talontsi]

Drag is not a constant man. I will fight that until I die. I'm not being stubborn at all. I have a graph sitting infront of me that shows a curve in drag force. The actually CD of a car is 0 sitting still. No wind.. No drag.

 

[Nate Crisman]

Drag is not a constant man. I will fit that until I die. I'm not being stubborn at all. I have a graph sitting infront of me that shows a curve in drag force. The actually CD of a car is 0 sitting still. No wing.. No drag.

Anyone interested in reality can read all they want about Coefficient of Drag on this link. It pretty much proves Hubz does not comprehend the terms his is throwing around and does not understand the basics of physics and their application to auto racing.

Drag coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drag equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drag FORCE does change with speed. Cd doesn't! DRAG FORCE IS NOT Cd. Cd is Coefficient of Drag which is a CONSTANT applied to a specific form/shape and surface texture for the purpose of CALCULATING the FORCE OF AERO DRAG.

The tirade I went on many posts above illustrates exactly how much drag force increases with speed. It accounts for an increasing amount of horsepower lost as speed increases. What you seem to be completely oblivious to is that the amount of power in question is extremely small with our car and our speeds and the difference in power due to drag that can be gained with Aero modifications is so small that it barely warrants discussion beyond DONT BOTHER.

you are such a tool. I just can't help myself.

 

[bullettdsm]

I just can't help myself.

Sorry Nate, all that information you posted, I didn't even read.

I would ask that you refer to this;

For those that think this is a give and take of constructive ideas, I beg to differ. It is more of "make up a postion (based on some idea), get reasoning why that position doesn't work, then argue for the sake of arguing". Not a constructive situation.

and realize that you will not make a difference and please get back to the thread of information at hand.

MB