It's not that it's not important. It sounds like you have to decide whether you want a great launch and end up in a unoptimal powerband ... or have a half-assed launch in order to be in the optimal powerband. This is what I'm getting out of it anyways.

Chris

 

Doesn't depend on how high you launch AND if you don't bog? If you launch the car at 6K and don't break you will get a killer ET.

I keep forgetting we are talking about a stock car. So my car probably does not apply.

I can tell you if you launch at high rpm's and don't bog you will be in the optimal power band.

 

Yea what MISSIL said. its not that 60' times are unimportant. they are in fact very important, but the importance of them does not lie in trying to minimize them, but to get the proper time. too low of a 60' time and your 7 is in a low power band. too high of a 60' time and your car is in a great power band but you've already lost too much in the 60' time. The trick is what kevin did, get it perfect. 1.8-1.9 is a bit too low, and zero's 2.4-2.6 is a bit too high, kevin's 2.2 is just right for not losing too much, but enough to be in the higher power band.

 

dont yah ever SLEEP!?!?

 

Ok, Im just askin' so bear with me.

please note that my 2.4-2.6 were extreme cases, I average 2.2, with an occasional 2.0.

I can look at my timeslips and say that the better the 60' the better my time. My best time ever was with a 2.03 60'. If I run a 2.0 60' and a 2.2 60' I gain nearly .40 seconds on that 2.2 60' run.

The RX-7 that I went to the drag strip once, gets 1.8's on Nittos and gets his best time with that, I have seen his times and when he gets better 60 ft, he gets better ET.

Now with that said, are you refering to only stock cars? I mean...look at Abel, his best 60' ever (1.05) got him his best 7 second run. Thats a bit extreme I guess, but I don't see the same things you do with my experience.

 

I'm talking about stock situations with stock tires and stock cars. And more so stock rx7s. You take a stock american small block or big block, and they have so much torque at low revs that those guys have to focus on launch and shift only. Cars with turbos that spool and v-tec and things of that nature have to also think about what rpm range they will be in when their tires catch, when they shift. Maybe the difference between your times and experiences and kevins is the shifting. I dont know kevin or any of you guys for that matter, but from reaing the first couple pages it seems that he shifts VERY well. maybe and im not saying you shift slow because i dont know, but if you do shift slow, and if you shifted fast like kevin then your 2.1-2.2 times in the stock 7 would have been better quarter times than the 1.9s

 

I always thought that since you guys have 4.10's in the rear that you would be getting killer 60' times on a sticky track. I would think that would be your aim. I know that would be the goal in an N/A car. But I am starting to see the idea here behind being in the right powerband vs getting the best launch possible. This brings me to my next question, why are all these other guys who run 2.2's in the low 14's? Is it because they spin too much and still aren't in the optimal powerband? 99% of stock RX7 owners aren't going to be running mid-low 13's. They're going to run high 13's to low 14's for an average driver. Can all of these guys learn how to get a better e.t.? Then there's the guys who run 13.5@105 bone stock but with a killer launch ... they're taking a different route again to get the low e.t.'s. They get 1.8 60's to get there which is the exact opposite of getting into the powerband quickly by slipping out. It seems there's more to these turbo cars than I realized. Strange machines.

Chris

 

Well 99% of the stock rx7 owners arent professional drivers. Kevin described his shifting and that also has a lot to do with it. On top of which im sure certain people out there dont even know what power shifting is, so that has a lot to do with his time. the 13.5 @105 wiht a 1.8 seems about right. It seems to me that that person shifts very similarly to kevin and it is possible that the only difference was the launch, and kevin's 2.2 60' time was the reason he got a 13.33 and this person got a 13.5 with his 1.8 60'. Also, getting a 2.2 60' time doesnt mean you are definately in the perfect rev range. There is launch and shifting involved. Certain people focus so much on launch then they granny shift it. Others slip the clutch with no tirespin and then powershift. Not many people out there know what they're doing or can do eveyrthing well. When you combine proper launch with great shifting u get what kevin got. Some kick *** timeslips...

 

Hmm.

This launch thing seems all wrong to me.

You have 2 choices to get a good launch in an FD, slip the clutch or spin the tires. Slipping the clutch is hard on it, but you can get BOTH a good '60 time and hookup in the optimal part of the powerband. You don't HAVE to spin the tires, if you could spin them only ~10% faster than the car is going then you'll get the best launch you can get, coupled with slipping the clutch.

Slip the clutch.

Jeff

 

I'm not like debating what the best way to launch is. I'm just trying to clear up the argument...im just trying to explain what kevin was saying earlier about spinning and losing time while spinning in an effort to be in a bettter power range....i personally dont know what the best way to do this is, but apperantly kevin got a 13.3@105 with a 2.2 60' time. His way works for me on a bone stock FD

 

"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. "

No I haven't ever said that. Bad assumption on your part. I only said that's the best time it turned bone stock.

"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."

No I don't. I think you must not understand this was all from September 1993 and the car hasn't been stock since about 2 weeks after that date. Mr. Automagic also didn't seem to notice that only the september date was in stock trim, the October timeslips were with an exhaust. Anyway an accurate statement for you would be, the best time my car happened to turn was with a 2.2 60' while stock.

"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. "

On stock tires pretty much. I also don't think you understand what I mean by bogging. After the car hooks up and the clutch engages fully the RPMs plumet to match your gear and wheelspeed, which from experience at the time won't be high enough to be in the powerband without the tires spinning on a stock RX7.

"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 think you were given the wrong impression listening to Automagic. The car was no longer stock during the runs your looking at and had a fair jump in HP allowing the car to launch and stay in the powerband much more easily.

Kevin T. Wyum

 

Actually I did notice that Mr. Question Avoidance. Everyone keeps talking about how everyone should respect you. Take note of how some other of your fellow RX7 owners act and see how much farther they get with everyone when they are civil and answer questions. Why don't you hop off your high horse and come down to earth with the rest of us mortals. Instead of telling everyone how great you are why not explain things in a less ... snobbish ... manner.

Chris

P.S. btw, I drive a 6 speed, not an automatic ... guess that's a bad ASSumption on your part eh ... Mr. Question Avoidance?

 

"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?"

Not at all. The car was stock and I don't believe had any extra power over any other 93 R1.

"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?"

Bad driving, lack of practice, being too nice to their cars. Powershifting is not a great thing for the car.

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

I've raced at tracks all over the nation but sadly, the car was only stock for a few months and the only other track open during that time frame is about 400 miles away near Chicago so no I didn't drive 8 hours so I could "back it up". heh. Here's another part of the story. I got into all this by street racing every weekend in the early and mid 90's with my Turbo Regal and GN friends. The goal was not to get a hard on about how fast a car was stock, nobody cared in the least. I sure didn't. The goal was to beat my friends in 10, 11 and 12 second cars. So almost right after the 13.3 I was looking to go faster, meaning modifications. The whole 13.3 thing wasn't an accomplishment at all in my book. It was just an oh by the way that's what it ran before I made it fast.


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

Same track

"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)"

Actually no I don't think it's a really big deal for anyone capable of leaving from a stoplight without leaving a big black streak and cloud of one wheel wonder smoke. I don't think you understand my point. My point is that any average Geo driver should be able to make a 13 second car launch without concerns over traction. A 13 second car is incredibly slow and takes very little skill to drive compared to 12 second and faster cars. A good driver and some abuse can improve the times like I did even in the 13 second range but it get's a lot harder once you're past the 13's.

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

Do you know how a clutch works? It doesn't completely match up just because you let your foot off the pedal. They slip a bit till locking up. In fact the stock clutch slips from too much power once you're in the mid to low 12's halfway down the track.

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

Any stock 3rd gen manual R1 yes.

"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? "

No it doesn't have to be past the 60' mark. Most people with 2.2 60' times aren't getting it from modulating wheel spin to keep the RPM's in the right range, they get 2.2's from the car hooking and lunging forward because they launched at too low of an RPM which causes it to fall down. Raise the RPM's you launch at and it still does the same thing just a little further from the start line, hence decent 60' can = crap ET's."

"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? "

Heheh apparently I do know something you don't. I clearly stated it in my very first response where I posted those ET's you're quoting. The car was modified in October, not in September. Raising power output completely changes the bogging issue.

"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."

Very simple one. You stated in at least 3 posts that you had already proven me wrong. Where is the post proving anything at all? I don't mean you believe this or that. You stated you proved it. Show me where.

from another post of yours...

"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?"

First of all the best run in October was a mid 12. 12.6. Secondly "a bad 60' (aka bogging)" is an erroneous assumption on your part. I never said the bad 60' = bogging. Quite the opposite in fact, I suggested hooking hard can cause the bogging when using a stock RX7.

Kindly answer my question now : ).

Kevin T. Wyum

Chris

 

One thing I neglected to mention in my previous post is that Kevin is highly respected in the RX7 industry.

He created the best intercooler for the FD, one that is now being sold by M2 performance (soon to be taken over again by Kevin). BTW, I want one badly!!!!

I don't know how much difference it takes to get 2 tenths, but my car with stock exhaust also ran a high 13.5, so I would say that the car is certainly capable of a 13.2 as it sat.

 

Where did I mention that my input had anything to do with what MI_SS_IL has said? Also, you really should read through the forum rules sometime. When you do, pay particular attention to this one

Calling someone names such as Mr. Automagic or Mr. Troll is not only disrespectful, but it really makes you look foolish.

Now, on to this post in particular. How is the part that I quoted of myself wrong? Your best ET/MPH combo stock came from a 2.2.

Also, to make sure I'm understanding this, the difference between being able to cut a good 60' to get a good ET/MPH and having to spin the tires off the line is as narrow as adding an aftermarket exhaust? Geez, talk about splitting hairs, your cars must be hard to bracket race.

 

He may be respected for the products he creates, but some of his posts that I've read on this board haven't been very respectful.

Maybe he's just having a bad day

 

Damn, I just wrote big long assed post and then you finally go and answer all my questions.

Okay, give me a few minutes. I'll have a reply and hopefully an answer to your questions.

Chris

 

"Calling someone names such as Mr. Automagic or Mr. Troll is not only disrespectful, but it really makes you look foolish. "

I'll call a spade a spade. If someone is obviously a smart *** troll trying to stir the pot I'll treat him as such. Foolish is subjective and entirely in the eye of the beholder. I don't tend to agree. Once it became clear he was up to no good, such as cross posting on other forums for other people to come join in the spamming it was open season. Calling him Mr. Troll was very gentle as far as I'm concerned.

"Now, on to this post in particular. How is the part that I quoted of myself wrong? Your best ET/MPH combo stock came from a 2.2. "

That wasn't your quote. If you had said that it would be correct but you didn't. You said,

"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."

Which like I mentioned is not correct. It ran it's best ET when I happened to turn a 2.2 60'.

"Also, to make sure I'm understanding this, the difference between being able to cut a good 60' to get a good ET/MPH and having to spin the tires off the line is as narrow as adding an aftermarket exhaust? Geez, talk about splitting hairs, your cars must be hard to bracket race."

Keep in mind adding the exhaust gives an effective hp gain of about 50hp, a chunk is actually reduced weight and not hp. So yes thats enough to make the difference, soft sidewall sticky tires would be enough to fix that as well. As for bracket racing, heh. Don't even think about it, a manual is bad enough, a manual turbo is silly.

 

Here I go.

Most people who have ever been to a dragstrip know that statement is wrong no matter which way you look at it. Your statement doesn't say 13+ second "RX7" cars. It says "cars" in general. 60' time is huge for most cars, especially N/A cars. A car comes with a certain amount of power, once you are getting the full power potential out of the car the only thing you can do to lower the e.t. is work on the launch ... therefore it "IS ABOUT THE 60' TIME"

You do realize the difference between a 12 second car and a 13 second car can be 1/10th right? Even less than that actually. TRACTION IS AN ISSUE otherwise people wouldn't always be complaining about spinning or throwing drag radials on their cars. Ask Zero if traction is an issue for his 13 second car.

This is a very similar e.t. compared to your 13.3@105 with a 2.2 60'. Any logical thought would think that a higher trap speed with a similar 60' time would equal a better e.t.. I will not apologize for questioning it. I know the car was modded on this run, my point in bringing it up was you ran a much higher mph with a similar e.t. and similar 60' time. It deserves to be questioned. I didn't prove you wrong here, but I questioned it, you didn't bother to answer the question directly ... so it was left at that.

So, that's about it. You proved to me, or actually I should say others proved to me, that your time was possible. They offered an explanation I hadn't thought of. You gave the same explanation, just in more of a smartass way and were unwilling to take questions about it, so the point didn't get through I guess.

I have one final post to make after this. It'll be up in a few minutes.

Chris

 

Do you notice that I said the exact same thing as you? Your car ran its best stock ET/MPH when you turned a 2.2 60'. Verbage aside, we are in agreement.

Even just looking at the table of timeslips on page 2, I can definitely tell that thing would be a horror in a bracket racing competition. Does the inconsistiency get irritating?

 

From my perspective, if you go back to page 1 when Kevin first replied, some of us had some questions, chris asked a few questions, which was ok, and kevin replied back, after his 60' time was mentioned, I can count several posts where Chris sorta got on his case. I mean...I think Chris had legitimate questions like alot of us did, but I can count several posts before kevin even had a chance to reply, comments like "things just don't add up" or "somethings wrong and you know it", etc. It had the appearance that chris did not believe kevin from the start and really did not wait for an explanation.

I know chris just wanted to get to the bottom of things, but I think he could have been a little more patient and waited for kevins explanation.

 

Alright, this is not something I do easily ... or often for that matter. I can admit when I'm wrong and it appears I may be wrong about my assumptions that the 13.3@105 with a 2.2 60' run was impossible. Genieman17 has explained things to me and made me see them in a way I never saw them before. Generally, the rule is the lower the 60' time, the lower the e.t.. I don't have much experience with turbo cars and it is my mistake for assuming they run the same way as an N/A car. I'm still not a 100% sure of everything, but then again I am not 100% percent sure of myself the way I was coming into this thread either.

There are still things I disagree with Kevin about. 13 second cars can and do have traction problems whether he thinks they do or not. 60' is important for any car and more so for N/A cars I now see. He never specified his comments to include only RX7's so for that I will not take blame. He also can't answer a question which really doesn't help when you have a discussion with him. He also seems to think a great deal of himself ... I never get along with these kinds of people. Pompous and unwilling to explain his point are not a good combination. Instead of answering even 1 question I earn a new nickname, get told I don't know anything about cars (because I only had 10 posts on here at the time ... how he connects the 2 is something I'm sure only he knows) and a bunch of other smart-***, non-relevant comments. Everyone tells me to show respect ... it's kind of hard to respect someone like this ... respect goes both ways, I don't care who he is, he's no better or worse than anyone else, no matter what he may think of himself. As for me cross-posting things between forums, if you knew our history with Zero you would know why I did that. Do I also have to point out the fact that I did everything I could to keep this thread on topic. I must have made 4 or 5 posts telling Zero he was deliberately bringing up irrelevant points. After he just keeps going ... yes, I cross post something between forums. That I will not apologize for. If you think that makes me a troll so be it. So back and read through my posts and come back and tell me if it really looks like I'm here to troll.

I do not know if an apology is in order or not to Kevin. I asked him many questions and received 0 answers. Lot's of irrelevant comments, but direct answers ... no (at least up until the end here, I only had to ask 15 or 20 times). I will not apologize for asking questions, maybe for doubting his times so persistently, but that's why I asked so many questions. I'll leave it here unless someone else has any more questions or comments for me. I also must say that I misjudged this board to some extent. One of our local board guys made a post here and was banned after the first post. Since then I've had a low opinion of the place. But on this post, especially on the first page people reported accurate times for everything, nothing embelished and throughout the thread there have been some informative posts. I know I am probably perceived as a troll by some people here, but that was never my intent on this thread (you'll realize that to be truth if you go back and read all of my posts). I actually learned something on here, which is always a good thing.

I believe I made a wrong assumption about the time you ran Kevin. You have my apologies. I still don't think you handle yourself very well, but that does not change the fact that I seem to have been wrong. Congratulations, you seem to be the greatest RX7 driver ever. You should start a school, you'd probably make a fortune if you could teach others to pull low 13's in stock RX7's (note, that was not sarcasm, I know it can be taken as such). It's not a common e.t., I know even you will agree with that.

Chris

 

"Even just looking at the table of timeslips on page 2, I can definitely tell that thing would be a horror in a bracket racing competition. Does the inconsistiency get irritating?"

Most of what you saw in those times was practicing and trying to figure out what works best for the car. They aren't as all over the board like my times suggest but they still are horrid for brackets. I'd beat my Rx7 with my A6 in brackets any day of the week.

Kevin T. Wyum

 

There's no need to apologize. I don't often have time to read the forums and even less often reply to them. If nothing else I was annoyed with the big production you were making out something as trivial as a 13 second ET I ran almost 10 years ago before I had done anything to the car. You were being a pest about it and in my estimation you were doing so intentionally trying to troll the forum and stir up crap with your buddies. You got treated as such, end of story. Put any spin on it you like now but you were still acting like a troll. As for my thinking I'm great, not really. I do believe I'm really good at getting the cars to turn good ET's and designing things to make them better etc. but that's the extent of it. There are legions of people on these forums and the RX7 mailing list that would hand my *** to me on a road or autoX course. If you want to talk to someone who truly thinks they're great you need to speak with Tuck.

Kevin T. Wyum

Kevin T. Wyum

 

Ok you know what...before i was just explaining my view on the et....but now this is ridiculous. The guy was wrong. He admitted to it and apologized and you're still being a dick. Maybe it's not an important topic, but it was important enough to start a 9 page argument of which you were a part of. After the argument one of the people admitted to being wrong which isn't easy to do on a forum in front of lots of people. And a post that over 1200 people viewed. The least you can do is be an adult about it and accept his apology without insulting and degrading him even more.