Even if this is the case, the times still don't make sense. Look at the trap speed and look at the 60' time. The 105mph trap does not add up to a 13.3 e.t. with that launch. If there was a boost spike then you would still need a higher trap to pull that 13.3 with that poor of a launch. You see what I'm saying right?105mph reflects the power the car's putting down (which is very good for stock, better than I've ever seen), so whether or not he's getting a spike to get that 105mph ... it still doesn't add up to such a low e.t. with that launch. Do you disagree?

Chris

 

Forcefed ran 13.5 @ 105. He had the exact same trap. Most Rx7's that I have seen bone stock trapped 102 or so.

If my warped theory is correct that could be a difference of 30 to 35 hp. 13.3 @ 105 is very possible. Your trap speed has nothing to do with your 60' time or your launch.

If you go back to forcefed7 (on your forum) his post about how he got his 13.5 was very similar to this guys. BOTH of them said they abused the car.

I think Forcefed7 said something like "The way I shifted the gears could make a grown man cry".



David

 

You're making my point for me. Exact same trap with a gigantic improvement in launch. You've been to the track Zero, I don't have to explain the difference between a 1.8 and a 2.2 60' time to you ... do I? Don't start going RX7 blind on me now.

Chris

 

Ok, here is his post on LS1.com

(Quote)
Originally posted by MI_SS_IL


A 105 trap speed bone stock? Stock boost and everything else? That's very impressive. It's better than I've ever seen. Was it in optimal conditions (cold temps that type of thing)?

What was your 60' time (if you ran a 105mph, I'm not doubting your 13.5, I'm just curious)?

Chris


Missle, yes the trap is unusually high. That is because i was running 18 inch wheels tires versus the factory 16 inch wheels tires. Under normal circumstances, this would slow a car down by 2 to 3 tenths of a second. However, my 18 inch wheels were Volk Racing TE37s, that weighed just a pound heavier than my stock wheels, which is exceptionally light. The larger diameter wheels actually made the gearing a tad bit taller, hence the high trap speed. NOW, my 60 foot was a 1.88 which is very very good for 275-35-18 Kuhmo Ecsta Supra 712s. I obtained this time by half slipping the clutch out of the gate. Clutch drops and big tires are a big no-no on stock or near stock RX7s. The poor rotary doesnt have much torque to begin with, so a clutch drop with some grip certainlly isnt helping matters any.
Also, my 1 to 2 shifting technique is a factor. The way i slam the gear shifter into second is enough to make grown men cry. When i do my 1 to 2 shift, i dont wait for the syncros to disengage, but rather i stab the clutch, yank on the shifter hard, pull back slamming the shifter into second, and by the time the shifter is ALMOST settling into second, the clutch is already coming out. The car protests with a loud bang that can be heard throughout the unibody, but hey.......that's racing and i dont *****foot it.

All my 13.5 passes were made with 4500rpm clutch slips. Perhaps if i could have left around 5-5500 rpm and made it stick without grip loss or wheel hop, i feel a 13.4 would not have been out of the question.

All three above factors combined to give me the time that i layed down.

Darril

Here was his next post:

Yz, just an FYI: The power of the FD falls off significantly in stock and basic upgrade form at or around 6300-6500rpm. There pretty much isnt a point to rev to 8 grand except for 1st gear. When i take mine to the strip heres what i do. Stage the car and bring the revs up to 4500. Let the clutch pedal out until you feel it disengage, then hold it right there at that exact spot. When i launch, i dont do clutch drops. Ive found them to be useless with an FD due to the poor torque of the rotary. Instead i slip the clutch to simulate a load on the motor while still keeping the revs up. this is important for two reasons: 1) By keeping the revs up in the rotary, your already leaving at a higher rpm, with higher torque and hp 2) by simulating a load, i dont have to tell you that it makes the turbos spool quicker After i'm out about 25 feet, its nearly time to shift into second. I'll run first gear to redline because it first gear is over with so quickly and when you shift, the revs drop right to around 5-5200rpm, and your into the meat of the powerband. Second gear shift @6500rpm, and will fall right at the torque peak in third, somewhere in the vicinity of 4600-4800 rpm. Third gear shift comes at 6500 again. This technique took me about 2 months to get down perfectly, to the point where i know what the car will do, and how it will do it. The hardest part is to be consistent. Please try it, who knows, it may be a better technique if you can get it down correctly. Hope this helps.


I think these guys (darril and Kevin) are great drivers.

 

I remember the post. I seem to have forgotten that he wasn't on stock wheels. I would have made a point of that I would think ... they probably did raise his mph a little. Which just goes to show even more that 105mph BONE STOCK is very very unusual.

Chris

 

Btw, I should make it clear that I'm not calling Kevin T. Wyum a liar ... I don't know him so I can't assume anything. I do have to question his times though, whether timing equipment was off or he had some mods he's not revealing or something ... the numbers just don't make sense. There has to be some reasonable explanation otherwise he is literally a magician if he really ran that time more than once at different tracks.

Chris

 

(Smirk) okay I just made it all up and have been living a lie for 10 years : P Now I have egg all over my face. Sheesh.

( K I D D I N G)

Not to be a ***** or anything but I don't really care if it doesn't add up to you. I think the perfect example was Brooks car. I ran almost a second faster in the 1/4 than he did in his own car on the same day with the same boost etc. It's skill and practice. I don't know what to tell you but ET is not about 60' in 13+ second cars. You're transposing rules for cars where traction is an issue such as 12 second and better cars. How about this. Here are all the other time slip results from that day and the one a month later with the exhaust. You add things up and get back to me.


Sept 25 1993

ET MPH 60' 1/8 Time
13.585 104.45 2.258 na 10:10am
13.557 103.98 2.170 10:36am
13.337 105.62 2.212 8.695 1:09pm 14.531 92.80 2.258 9.333 3:11pm
14.839 98.94 2.441 9.711 6:28pm

Okay lets move to the October 9th runs. I have a millions runs that day.

ET MPH 60'
13.864 101.11 2.251
13.180 107.34 2.203
13.120 109.43 2.236
13.651 105.57 2.310
13.705 104.27 2.188
13.079 109.03 2.129
13.061 109.55 2.244
13.217 110.17 2.337
13.031 107.28 2.065
13.528 106.67 2.356
13.735 107.37 2.173
13.054 108.61 2.159
12.677 110.48 2.015
13.032 107.79 2.111
13.557 105.52 2.193
18.980 55.78 2.387
13.512 108.32 2.133
23.724 46.24 2.518
13.508 105.91 2.128
13.269 108.43 2.245
13.308 109.13 2.004
12.755 109.19 1.977
13.042 108.36 2.153
13.066 108.25 2.068
13.017 108.29 2.124
13.186 101.77 2.047
13.202 108.48 2.229


There now give me my damn trophy for the most runs in one day : P That's called a lot of practice. Oct 9th isn't in chronological order.

Kevin T. Wyum

 

is a LEGEND??
never heard of him.....
any where I can get INFO on KEVIN??

anyways...nice runs!!!

do you know the guy in WISCONSIN with the T78 rx7 that supposedly runnin 15s??

 

oh yeah...
i ran a 14.0 at 101 mph with a 2.2 60ft time and a boost leak at around 8 psi....

 

That's good to know ... because it doesn't add up. Let me see if I can prove it.

That I agree with, but there is not much skill involved in running a 2.2 60' time on a half decently prepped track. I'm not trying to be a ***** either and I'm not a launching master by any means (2.0-2.1's are my average so far). But I do understand how the launch works and 2.2 is nowhere near perfection.

This right here makes me seriously question your knowledge of drag racing. 60' is the number one most important determining factor in getting an e.t.. Your car is almost always going to make consistent power, it'll go up and down depending on heat etc., but more or less stay in the same ballpark and as long as you correct for altitude there's not much left. So that leaves only your launch and maybe shifting to improve your times. Generally, the lower your 60' time is the lower your e.t. will be (assuming you don't miss a shift or anything). If you want to lower e.t. without doing anything to the car, you learn to launch better, therefore I would say it "IS ABOUT" the 60' time ... in any car. I am very suprised at your above statement. Zero, speaks highly of you, but to me that does not sound like a knowledgeable assessment of drag racing.

No, I'm not. Traction is an issue for any 13 second car on stock street tires. Your 2.2 60' times prove that. In fact all your 60' times prove it, from 1.9 to 2.3, there's almost a second sitting between those times, I'd say that's significant.

You're going to make this easy for me. Let's see ...

Sept. 25
ET MPH 60' 1/8 Time
13.585 104.45 2.258 na 10:10am
13.557 103.98 2.170 10:36am
13.337 105.62 2.212 8.695 1:09pm

Look carefully at the above numbers. You're running generally 13.3 to 13.5 at 104-105mph with high 2.1-2.2 60' times ... right?

Now look at the numbers below

October 9

1. 13.217 110.17 2.337
2. 13.528 106.67 2.356
3. 13.557 105.52 2.193
4. 13.512 108.32 2.133
5. 13.269 108.43 2.245
6. 13.202 108.48 2.229

The most similar one there to your stock 13.3 is #5. You're running a mid 13.2 with 108mph (significantly more than 105) and yet you're still pulling a 2.2 60' time. Am I the only one that see's this? And then #6 goes and backs that right up.

Here's my point, you're running 13.2-13.5 at 106-109mph roughly when your 60' times are 2.1-2.3 roughly on October 9. So your 60' times (I picked out) are similar to that 13.3 bone stock run in September, you're mph are a hell of a lot higher than your stock 13.3 run and the e.t. is roughly the same in the examples I used compared to your stock 13.3 run.

So how do you explain that? Same launch, much higher mph and roughly the same e.t.? Where is all that power from the higher mph going? Your times almost look like they were run at 2 different dragstrips. They don't make sense to me, if they add up to you that's great ... I guess. They also don't coincide with all the other RX7's driving around running high 13's and low 14's with the same 60' times you were pulling on your stock 13.3. What's your explanation for that? You shift faster? Either way, I have all the explanation I need.

Chris

 

Here's my point since it might get lost in my long winded post. Your times between September and October do not add up to each other. The October ones make sense, the September ones do not (even less so when compared to October). Maybe the timing equipment was off or something ... it suprises me that you don't see a difference. Did you run at the same strip?

Anyways, I'm not attacking you personally, maybe there is some other explanation. If there is, someone is going to have to show it to me because I'm not seeing it.

Chris

 

I think the explanation is that an F-Body owner cant admit that the RX-7 is bad-*** and has EQUAL mod potential as any LS1 car.

Not attacking you personally, its just some manditory thing with F-Body LS1 owners I guess.

 

Damn it Zero, you can never stay on topic can you. It's just your nature to swerve around isn't it? What the hell does modding have to do with anything on this post? We can argue that next, but for now the topic is stock RX7's (it's not even an LS1 topic ... so again you're trying to move the focus off the topic). I'm going to keep you on course this time.

Chris

 

Look, the reason I posted that is this guy posted his data to you and obviously has a **** load of ET's to share. You are asking him to explain why he ran that time, you want me to post some of my retarted 60's and ET's?

Anytime ANYONE posts ANYTHING that makes this car look good, its called in question from you guys. It gets old.

 

why are you arguing something that happened 10years ago? its well documented that kevin ran those times, if you can find archives of the big list that go back that far.
you will also find that nick from n-tech was running similar times.

mike

 

Guys...don't be so quick to call B.S. I believe Kevin. RX-7s can run low-13s with awesome driving and little respect for the car. Here is what the slip looked like when my friend ran his 94 R2. As stock as stock can be:

60' 1/8 ET MPH
2.157 8.695 13.309 105.65mph

 

The point of the thread, and the point of my post, before Kevin's post was answering "What does a stock FD turn for ET?"

Stock FDs don't turn 13.5's or better. Stock FDs turn 14.2-13.7s according to the mags when the cars were new and from people taking the cars to the strip.

Kevin has a couple good runs admittedly abusing the car. Nick at N-tech ran a 13.49 with a 1.8 '60 time. Other than these couple of runs stock FDs don't run mid-to-low 13s.

So when your buddy asks "what does the car run stock" don't tell him ONE GUY in MN and ONE other guy in FL ran mid-low 13's. Say, most people turn low 14s to high 13s.

Hell there are lots of guys here that think they are in the 11's or 12s only to take it to the strip and run 13, 14 or 15s and give a bunch of excuses.

Jeff

 

You're missing a very basic concept here, oh and btw I was running 1.62 or better 60's on sticky DOT tires a couple years later so yeah I'm very aware of what a good lauch is.

The part you're missing and can't seem to get through your head is commonly called bogging off the line. Hooking up with a stock car and getting a good jump for the first 60 feet results in the car bogging and being WAY below it's powerband meaning it's like a turd just after the initial jump resulting in a **** ET like you're talking about running. If you want things to add up and get a better time in your own stock car then launch at a higher RPM and let the tires spin a little to keep yourself in the power band. That way the car doesn't fall flat on it's face after the initial launch and you don't spend half your run trying to get back up to steam.

After you figure this out you're going to feel like an *** for yammering on about how it doesn't add up etc. I really wish the track had 1/8th mile mph printed for runs it would make this easier.

Kevin T. Wyum

 

Just for kicks and giggles

this is way back in august before my current mods..

6:35 PM
13.549 @ 104.89 with 2.257 60'

7:39 PM
13.504 @ 106.50 with a 2.27 60.

Why do I have almost a 2 MPH trap higher on my 2nd run?

I can find 100 examples. Some days my trap would vary as much as 3 or 4 mph.

I know my car is not stock, but its the same priniciple.

 

I don't believe Kevin is lying (at least not knowingly) but he is 100% incorrect when he says 60' times aren't important, as MISIIL pointed out correctly.

The guy has no reason to lie, his #'s aren't really that far off but they are a little. A 2.2s 60' time just doesn't equal a 13.3 in a 100% stock FD. You'd have to totally nail the launch with superheated sticky tires to get a 13.3 with a stock FD ......and yet a 2.2 60' time is not even good, much less great.

So he basically made some kickass power down the track. More than any other stock FD on planet earth ever did. And of course there's a million explanations without him being a liar (which I don't think he is).

-45mph wind behind him.
-Dealer hollowed out the pre-cat and used his car as a demo car for test-drives and he never knew it.
-Track equipment was off.
-Super octane gas.
etc
etc

Either which way, it really isn't all that important. Whether or not it actually happened with a stock FD is insignificant because it didn't happen in any of the others and is definitely an abnormaility and if this was a scientific expiriment, then his timeslip would be thrown right out the window as simply being erroroneous data.

 

I know everyone can get some screwed up e.t.'s. He has a whole list of them to back him up though. His October ones makes sense, they're right where they should be. I see a discrepency between October and September ... so I'll point it out. I don't care if you don't want me to point it out or not. My intention is not to shoot down the RX7, my intention is to shoot down a bogus e.t..

Again, this makes much more sense. That 60' time is sooooo much different than a 2.2. Anyone who has ever drag raced knows the difference. Zero knows it, although he avoided it when I pointed it out to him because he doesn't want to speak ill of an RX7 even though I know damn well he knows the significance of that 60' time.

Really? Because here you say this ...

Seems like 2 contradicting statements to me. That's beside the point though and isn't really relevant to the argument so I'll leave that there.

Thanks for snide comments and the drag racing lesson. Coming from someone who doesn't know the difference between a 13.3@105 with a 2.2 60 and a 13.3@109 with a 2.2 60' ... your comments don't mean a hell of a lot to me.

As for bogging off the line ... are you trying to argue my point for me? If you're bogging then chances are you're not getting the best launch possible, hence the 2.2's. You are the one who is missing the point, 2.2 60' do not add up to 13.3@105. 1.8 60' times add up to 13.3@105. Apparently you don't see this though. I guess it's completely not even a possibility that the timing equipment may have been off ... no of course not.

You also didn't answer my questions ... did you run at the same dragstrip in September as you did in October? Do you have any other slips to back up that stock 13.3 at a different strip? I'm guessing ... no. Right?

Chris

 

i only drag raced a stock seqential turbo car once. the driver has a HUGE affect on the time of the car. driving skill can take a second off a time from faster shifting. my mechanic judge ito can shift so hard and fast you think the whole shifter is gonna fly out and hit the rear hatch glass. i can shift OK but no where near as fast as him. i'm willing to bet kevin can shift like that if he got those times in a fast car. i personally have seen the differences good shifting and bad shifting can make in ET's on my own cars and others

 

Any drag racer, I would think, would know the significance of the 60' time. That statement of his practically blew me away because I was told this guy is the guy to see when it comes to racing RX7's.

I really don't believe he is lying either. I never like to think anyone is lying. But there has to be some other explanation, like timing equipment. I've seen it before. Something has to explain it ...

Chris

 

By the way, while we're at ... it if this guy did run a 2.2 60' time and hit a 13.3 ... you all realize that with a 2.0 60' time he'd be running damn near 12 seconds. I'm sure quite a few of you have hit 2.0 or less on stock tires. You guys all have practically 12 second cars if they all ran like Kevin T. Wyum's, yet most are running mostly high 13's to low 14's. What's the deal?

Chris

 

"I don't believe Kevin is lying (at least not knowingly) but he is 100% incorrect when he says 60' times aren't important, as MISIIL pointed out correctly. "

You're mistating things there. I never said 60 foot wasn't important. I said it didn't matter much in 13 second cars, unlike how important it is in 12 second or better cars. It's about keeping the car in the powerband and I'm sorry traction is not that big of a deal in a 13 second car unless you're on spare tires or in snow/rain once you're passed the launch. A good hook usually results in a nasty bog slowing the entire run. If you want to know the trick to turning a good ET in a stock 3rd gen it's about keeping it in the power band and not letting that bog happen at the launch, course powershifting doesn't hurt : ) (that means not pulling your foot off the gas during shifts). That's why there's so many 13 second runs on the Oct. 9th. I was practicing and missing the 2 to 3 shift when not lifting off the gas a lot. Didn't you find it odd to have a few mid 12's like a12.67 at the same time as a bunch of low 13's on the same day?

I could have run similar times in any properly running stock manual 3rd gen if the owner didn't mind about the shifting and wheelhop.

Keep in mind also the result of all my practice launching. Eventually the differential exploded, as in a 5" hole punched through the side of the housing. Was nice to be under warranty. : )

Kevin T. Wyum