fwiw - I believe you. I like Chris, but your story doesn't sound far-fetched to me. Somebody out there has to have ran the very best time ever - and I most likely have not witnessed that run.

Your time is about 1/2 second better than the best time I've ever witnessed from a bone-stock RX-7. But hey - my best stock time is more than 1/2 second slower than the quickest times reported for stock LS1 f-bodies too. (Which we all know are high 12s - on factory rubber I might add.) I personally believe that combinations of track/weather conditions, variance in performance from car to car and driver skill make it quite possible to see that wide of a spread.

I certainly believe in the possibility of tall-tale-telling on these forums. But you can only go so far before the forum-community will discount your story. Most of the time when I hear a sincere account of a not-too-far-fetched e.t., and possibly several persistent naysayers, I conclude that by and large the naysayers are jealous that they never got such a good e.t., or possibly only got there after considerable upgrading.

Since it is kind of on topic, I will reiterate that 13.2 is very nice - and a bit more than .2 seconds better than my best stock time in my SS. But, I wasn't on that track on that day, so I'll never know what I might have ran. And - I certainly believe well-documented accounts of the LS1's prowess such as this one. So, I'm pretty pleased with how my car stacks up against the 3rd gen RX-7 - regardless of what a fine car it was.

 

You know what, I haven't actually seen a timeslip for one thing. I really don't need to see it, I just would like an explanation for it. For another, he hasn't been able to answer any of my questions. The time doesn't make sense and I'm looking for an explanation.

Yeah right, so what you're saying is that if he had a perfect run he would have run a 12.9@108 in a bone f*cking stock RX7? His launch would be a hell of a lot better, if there was no bog anywhere his mph would have gone up and therefore his e.t. would come down even more!!! Are you on crack or what?

My initial intent was not that. After you started going off to every topic you could think of other than the original one ... yes, I'd be more than happy to stir up trouble. Isn't retaliation always the excuse you use? Then I have to listen to this wizard Glass_man start yapping about Canada and Japanese RX7's ... again completely off topic. Kevin can't answer a question to save his life (are you two related by any chance?). So yeah, you're the one stirring up trouble, I'm just starting to play along with it. I'd be more than happy to have this post go back to, and stay at, the original topic. But you'll be the first one to take it off topic again.

First of all, I haven't insulted RX7's in any way and I haven't used LS1's as a comparison to them yet! And you are the one who started things off with your crap about Japanese RX7's when you knew damn well what the topic was about.

Chris

 

I see what you're saying, but I asked him a lot of questions and he never answered one of them. I don't know if he's too cool or if he really just doesn't care? I do not call b.s. easily and I always try to give the benefit of the doubt, but his complete avoidance of anything I asked shows me that he is either to scared to answer, he can't answer or that he simply can't be bothered to answer. I don't think it's the latter because he's still on the thread bouncing questions at me. I'll be more than happy to retract the b.s. flag and even apologize for putting it up if he starts to answer the questions put to him. Until then though, his times do not add up and I think most of you agree with me. Even his times from September to October do not match.

Thank you man, I'm glad to see someone will discuss the original topic without any flaming going on.

Here's what I see from your timeslip. A low 2.1 60', that is significantly different than a 2.2. A high 13.5 e.t. at a high 102mph. Your launch is better than Kevins by quite a bit and your mph are lower. You are right, you do seem to pull a lot more after the 1/8 mile. But here's what I see, Kevin runs almost 2 tenths quicker with higher mph but a much worse 60'. It's that 60' time that isn't making any sense. I know he pulls more on the top end, but that 60' is just awful. Again, for example, if you pulled a 2.2 60' on your run instead of a 2.1 your e.t. would be roughly in the 13.8 area with roughly the same mph. To tell you the truth your timeslip is unusual too with that trap speed ... did you get more than 1 run in that day? Are all your slips similar to this one? While yours is unusual it's not completely out of the realm of reality, but a much worse 60' time and a much lower e.t. still does not add up to me.

Chris

 

I only read about the first 4 pages of this thread, so please forgive me if my question has already been answered and I'm beating a dead horse.

You've said that your car in 100% bone-stock trim, right down to the air filter, runs a consistent 13.3@105mph with a 2.2 60' time. I think I read enough of your reasoning, tell me if this is accurate.

You say your car runs its best ET/MPH combo when you turn a 2.2 60' because you can keep your car in the powerband longer. If you had run a 1.8 60', your ET and MPH would have been worse since the only way to get that 60' time would be to bog your car.

I saw this time slip you posted (12.755 109.19 1.977) and this slip (13.269 108.43 2.245) and it got me thinking. Did you do something different on the 1.9 run to prevent bogging? You ran a great 60', (~3/10ths better) and your ET got roughly 5/10ths better which seems reasonable (every 1/10 better in 60' = 1.5/10ths in 1/4mile ET).

Why did the bog not hurt you in this case?

I tried to make this post as clear as I could, and I tried my best to come off as sounding respectable.

 

You wouldn't happen to know the 60' time on that run would you?

I went to bed Mr. Question Avoidance. Have no fear, I'm back now.

And I'm still waiting for you to answer even 1 question. When you start answering my questions I'll be more than happy to answer anything you throw at me.

I was thinking the same thing except in the opposite direction. I asked if anyone disagreed with me ... and as you said, I was met with silence. What does that tell you?

In the end, I still am not calling you a liar, but your times on that particular day at that particular track do not make sense for a bone stock RX7. You keep going on about how unbelievably amazing of a driver you are, yet you don't think traction is a factor for a 13 second car, yet your 60' times bounce around all over the place. A lot of the stuff you say does not make any sense, the fact that you can't answer a question piles on top of everything else. I can't have a discussion with someone who is only willing to ask questions but not answer any.

Chris

P.S. I'm going to make a list for of every question I would like answered. Until you start to answer some of them this will be my last response to you.

 

Good luck getting an answer. I see exactly what you're saying.

Chris

 

I'll tell you this much, reading through the first four pages of this thread is pretty confusing. The conversation is going in ten different directions.

I tried to state my question as clearly as possible. Hopefully, now that the questions are easy to understand Kevin can get back to us with his answer.

 

Alright, here we go.

Questions I've asked and you haven't answered

1. you believe there is nothing strange about running 13.3@105mph with a 2.2 60' time in a stock RX7?

2. how do you account for all the other stock RX7's pulling 2.2 60' times running high 13's to low 14's?

3. have you ever duplicated that stock 13.3 at more than 1 track?

4. your runs in September and October, were they at different tracks?

5. you still don't think traction is a factor for 13 second cars (actually you don't have to answer that question, I'm just throwing it in to discredit you ... that statement speaks for itself)

6. you don't fully engage the clutch until after the 60' mark?

7. do you believe you can make any stock RX7 run low 13's with the same 2.2 60 foot times you pulled?

8. if you answer yes to #7, what do you do differently than other people who get 2.2 60' times and still run high 13's or low 14's? Whatever you do, it has to be after the car is past the 60' mark, so I'm curious to see what magical touch you use?

9. how is it that you run in September with a certain e.t., a certain launch and a certain mph, but in October you run the same e.t., with the same launch, but a much higher mph? In fact, sometimes on your October times you run a similar mph, a worse e.t. and a better launch. Like this for example 13.557@105.52, 60' 2.193 ... how do you do that when you're running 13.3@105 with a 2.2 60' in September? If you have some explanation, let's hear it. Maybe you know something I don't ... if you do then why not tell me?

Now, in answering these questions I don't need any lessons in launching or how to keep the powerband where it should be or stories about exploding differentials or a definition of powershifting or anything else. Just answer 1-9 ... then I'll answer any question you ask me.

Oh, and this post right was just classic

I'm new to cars, but you're the one who can't explain anything ... yeah okay Instead of wasting time taking personal jabs at me why don't you answer the thread related questions you've been asked?

Chris

 

What exactly are you guys waiting to hear?

The guy (kevin) had a timeslip. It only shows a 60' and an ET. He offered you the simple explanation that he gave up a little time early to make a little at the end (see my post on page 6 or 7 on how this CAN be possible). Driving a manual trans., sequentially turbocharged car w/ no torque has its complexities. Ever see an F1 or Indy car leave the pits? Hardly the same as a winston cup or trans am car is it? Ever notice that the guy who gets the best start in an F1 race isn't always the guy with the highest velocity coming into the first corner?

Perhaps if the slip had split times every 60' for the whole 1/4 mile and could be compared with a slip w/ a better 60' time, maybe the point at which he "made" the time back would be apparent. But it doesn't, and no amount of supposition will change that. The only "proof" is the ET on the slip. Same as in any form of racing, the stopwatch tells the tale.

But even if we did have that sort of detailed info, apparently you guys aren't inclined to believe timeslips anyway... we'd be hearing: "how can you get that great 60'-240' time with such a crappy 0'-60' time?" so i don't know what anyone could "answer" for you.

 

I'm waiting to hear an answer to the questions I've asked. You know, I don't even care about his 13.3 anymore. I'm sure he does have a timeslip that says exactly that ... my point is it's not normal ... he doesn't seem to agree with me though. 2.2 in a stock RX7 does not generally lead to a low 13. Who disagrees with me? Anyone (other than Zero)?

Chris

 

GENERALLY, no it doesn't. Generally they don't run 13.3. Maybe they would if everone wasn't busy trying to cut hero 60' times, i dunno.

but the concept behind the technique kevin explained does have some merit. Hell i don't drag race, i think its silly. But i can grasp the concept, and i DO know from many a street race that keeping this car in the sweet spot is alot more complex an issue than in any of the N/A cars i've driven.

And like i say, nothing will be PROVEN either way until we see a run w/ split times in 60' increments to see where the "gain" occured. And that'll never happen.

 

Do you really honestly believe that? It boils down to getting a bad 60' time (aka bogging) get's you a better e.t.. That's ... well it's wrong, plain and simple. If you want proof of it, just look at his October runs ... his theory falls apart if you look at his list of times there. His best run was a high 12 and it was on a great launch (a 1.9). Where does the theory come into play there?

Chris

 

Steve, I *NEVER* used those words.

Like I said, i would never do so since I have never been there.

just drop it.

 

He states that he got a crappy 60' time not because he (aka) bogged, but because he was slipping the tires to keep the motor revving, and the turbos spooled... my guess would be that he gained ground through the middle of the run. Heres his quote:

"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. "

As far as the october runs, the car was in a different state of tune then as i understand it. he'd added an exhuast at least, and therefore was working with different parameters.

I can guess that the car was able to build boost much more quickly, and therefor it wasn't as necessary to "give up" as much time slipping wheels. He could launch harder to improve his 60', and still build enough boost to run well at mid track. See how he improved the 60' by 3 tenths but the ET by 4 or 5?

A car like yours with linear power delivery, and a wider band of power, that doesn't need to spool turbos or deal with any of this crap won't behave the same way.

 

Wow I can't believe you guys managed to get 8 pages of arguing in just under 2 days. Very impressive i must say...I didn't read all of it, just the first 2 pages and then skipped to the 8th. So if i mistakenly repeat what someone else said i apologize. I understand what MISSIL and Kevin are saying. It seems like they're not trying to hear eachother but are each just repeating their own side back and forth. It seems to me that what kevin is saying is that in a stock car with sequentials, it is very important what rev range you're in. What MISSIL seems to be saying is that the most important thing is 60 foot times. I happen to agree with kevin, and not at all because i also own an rx7. (i know that sounds sarcastic but it wasn't intentional ) Let's just assume that there is a car, not necessarily a tt rx7, but any car. Let's say that car can run 13.5s. What can happen is that you can either run a 13.5 with a 1.8 60' time at like 102 or you can run a 13.5 with a 2.1-2.2 60' time at like 105-106. The reason being that because you overspinned (is that a real word?) the tires you put your motor in a higher rev range which made up for the time you lost while the tires were spinning. And thats why it is possible to run the same time in a car, but have lower 60' times and lower trap speeds VS. higher 60 foot times and higher trap speeds.
What kevin seems to be saying is that because the of the seqential turbo and the intercooler in the 7's, it is more important to overspin and have a lower 60' time for the sake of being in a higher rev range for the purpose of having higher speeds because at higher speeds the intercooler adds just that much more hp which would lower you quarter miles times more than a good 60' time. I hope that makes sense to everyone like it does to me...also i hope thats what kevin is saying....otherwise i feel stupid....by the way...everywhere i've read about rx7's they ran 13.5s stock, meaning a professional driver in a brand new stock car could run 13.5s and us normal mortals high 13s to low 14s

 

Yes, exactly, this is what I do see. This is how it should work too. Improve 60', improve e.t.. Whether he's slipping or bogging or whatever off the line ... he's running a 2.2' 60' time which is highly unusual to a low 13 e.t. in a stock RX7. What you're saying has some sense to it, I still don't see such poor 60's equalling such low e.t.s for a stock 7 though. Let me sit and think about it for a while.

Chris

 

kevin is NOT saying that a bad 60' time equals a low ET. Hes saying that a super-low 60' time does not NECESSARILY equate to a low ET. Theres a very important distinction there.

Hes simply stating that employing a technique that renders the best-possible 60' time doesn't necessarily produce the the best 1320' time, and the best 1320' time was his goal.

 

This was also a very good post. It actually tries to put things in perspective and is about the specific topic. I wish the whole thread was like this, then we wouldn't have 6 pages of nonsense of the 8 page thread. I have to think everything through and see what I come up with.

Chris

 

Chris I see what you're saying too, in an NA car it makes sense that the lower the 60' time the better the quarter time will be. But because of the twin turbo and the intercoolers and the boost pattern. the 3 tenths that kevin would lose in the 60' time will put him in the rev range where his car accelerates faster and he therefore gets his speed up higher, and by doing so the intercooler plays a bigger factor and his speed increases and from doing that he drops more than 3 tenths of his overall time. In essence he's sacrificing the 3 tenths during the 60' time to drop even more off of his overall time because he can more easily pick up speed. Also im sure that the guy can shift quicker than the Ferrari F1 system so that makes his acceleration and therefore his times that much better also.

 

Man, where were you on the first page!!

This post makes sense, and seems to be a logical explanation. If Kevin had simplified his answers in this way, I doubt there would have been so much confusion.

I get it, but i don't understand why a lot of others haven't done this and gotten similar results. Kind of like everyone else on this site is cutting themselves short by trying to launch well...

Seems like for this method to work the best, you'd need to make a whole lot of horsepower up top to make up for roughly 3/10ths of time lost in the 60'.

 

sort of. you need a lot more on top vs the bottom, and since the turbo's have to spool and the torque on these things is equivalent to a go-ped at low rpms the power at high rpms is WAAAAAAY higher, and on top of which, the hp level is 255 on a stock rx7, but with 90mph of wind going intot he intercooler the hp is probably even higher at higher speeds and that is why it is more important in this car to be at high revs and at high speeds rather than low 60' times...i think kevin basically did say what i said....just in a different way.....and way back like 8 pages ago i dont think people were interested in listening to the other side of the argument, they were only interested in proving their own point. in fact chris and kevin are both right....

 

Just so everybody knows, Kevin Wyum has the best time in the twin turbo (non-sequential) car EVER recorded - 11.13 @125 MPH and he did it back in 1996, I think. Some of these remarks concerning his knowledge of drag racing are bizzare. Some respect is in order here, whippersnappers!

Second, the thread originally asked a question that Kevin is in a unique position to answer, since he has an archive of timeslips & he posted them. Seems to me that he provided the ONLY evidence-based answer to the question in the whole damn 8 pages of ranting.

 

Damn it, this is actually starting to make sense to me. Okay, let me walk myself through it Forgive me if I'm repeating you, but I need to spell it out for myself to make sure I have it correct.

The trick is to slip off the line, you get some tire spin because that way your rpm's are up, you're more in the proper boost range for optimal power. You're sacrificing time in your 60' time by spinning in order to get into the optimal boost range. In theory, being in the right powerband earlier will overcome the time you lose in the slipping launch. You're making power earlier by spinning because you're higher in the range than you would be if you hooked right up because then your rpm's would have to climb into the optimal range which would kill your mph a bit. This also explains the 105mph which also isn't the average for stock RX7's. Power is being made earlier and you're in the right range right down the track.

Do I have it? If so, I have a few more comments and observations and questions.

Chris

 

Some of the remarks he made concerning drag racing were also bizzare and more importantly, incorrect. 13 second cars can experience traction problems and 60' is a very important factor in achieving optimal e.t.. I'm learning it's not so important in RX7's, but in N/A cars it is probably the number one factor. If he had specified his comments were related only to RX7's that would different, but he did not do that. He made general statements about 13 second cars. Respect or not, some of the things he said were straight out wrong if applied to more than just the RX7. I think I'm about to admit I was wrong about some things too. Just give me a few more minutes. The fact that he couldn't answer simple questions put to him like if he raced at 2 different tracks didn't do much for his credibility with me. How hard is it to answer a question like that? Is he so far above the common man that simple civility does not apply to him? Gimme a break.

Chris

 

I disagree with the comment that 60' is not as important in RX-7's. I have a good 40 or 50 timeslips and have enough to judge. I can say in GENERAL the better 60' I get the better my time is assuming that I do everything else the same (same boost, shift redline, etc).

I have had a number of occasions where I spun like crazy, getting a 2.4-2.6 60'. On most of these occasions my trap was alot higher, but my ET was slower.

I have had a few instances that I could not figure out, like why with the exact same boost on the same day I would hit a certain 60' 2 times and have two significantly different times.

Without any doubt the most important things in my opinion are to keep the revs up in this car, when you get out of the power band you WILL get a bad time, but in my experience 60' is just as important.

Just my opinion.