Hey Keith
We met last year. You pitted opposite us in the next row over. I'm
disappointed in not seeing you this year, but glad we met last.
Dave the Hayseed
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Turk <kturk@ala.net>
To: Marge and/or Dave Thomssen <mdthom@radiks.net>; Land-speed Racers
<land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Bonneville Transmissions and red faces?
Spunky and Old Fart.... indicate a Character... Hate I didn't have the
opportunity to meet you Dave....( or did I and can't remember? CRS )
Well next Years Party will have a Better Flavor I am sure... it was fun but
needs some work around the edges...
K
----------
> From: Marge and/or Dave Thomssen <mdthom@radiks.net>
> To: Land-speed Racers <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Subject: Fw: Bonneville Transmissions and red faces?
> Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 12:33 PM
>
> Hey gang
> I got a kick out of Joe's comments. Even though I may be spunky (and a
> genuine old fart, not a semi-old fart) I was not red-faced at the
keyboard.
> I was trying to focus on the experience of the list. Racing is a
> combination of theory, analysis, and experience.
>
> Yes, Dave, keep your comments coming, they are very interesting, and just
> what we need to keep this thing going.
>
> Incidentally, I am amazed at the number of cars on the salt that do not
have
> quick change rear ends. Our experience shows that some minute changes
in
> final gearing made a difference in speed.
>
> Dave the Hayseed
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Amo <jkamo@rapidnet.com>
> To: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> Cc: The Butters Family <bbutters@dmi.net>; <Land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 12:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Bonneville Transmissions
>
>
> Dave, please keep your comments coming, it is obviously tough for you to
> hold back
> in key situations, and I rejoice in that. Your demeanor may bite
alittle,
> that is
> AOK on this list as most here are semi-grown up, plus we will eventually
see
> the
> face behind the web name at the salt or at "The Salt Talks" in the bend
in
> the
> road. I cant help lately envisioning Mr."Dave the Hayseed" (whom I was
> fortunate
> to meet at this years salt talks) typing on his keyboard with a beet red
> face, as
> he is a semi-old fart and seemed like quite a spunky fellow. Many,
likely
> most of
> us on this list really need the technical dialogue facilitated by all on
> this
> site, whether it be a "Rocket Scientist", a multi forum racing guru, and
> just as
> importantly so shmuck like me who might ask a very uninformed question
based
> on
> ignorance but fueled by a desire to learn.
> I think my caffeine buzz is peaking, just felt compelled to comment
on
> the
> value of this banter, old way, new way, your way my way, it all gives
> perspective
> that facilitates a better understanding to pursue speed.
>
> Joe (why yes I will be trying some different shifting at WOS in a couple
> weeks
> based on this) Amo
>
> dahlgren wrote:
>
> > I don't mean to flame or harass on this issue but I find it very
> > interesting and a core subject to the sport of land speed racing. So
> > please don't take any of it the wrong way hopefully...This is long and
> > may beg for the 'delete' key so be warned..
> >
> > if a theory is correct it works no matter what the variables are.. So i
> > did go out and put my car in second ..drove 100 feet a valid distance
in
> > my mind .. with the engine floored it was much slower than using 1'st
> > and second....car weighs 2500 lbs has about 150 hp and 170 ft lbs
> > torque..traction was not a problem in either case
> > I think your theory if it is going to work has to have unlimited
> > distance.. Acceleration does matter because if you are going faster
> > sooner then you have more distance left to achieve the peak velocity.
By
> > the way the long course in my mind is only 4 miles long in the first
> > place because the only way to reach the highest AVERAGE speed over a
> > mile is to have the entry and exit speeds be as fast as the car will
go.
> > A good example would be a car that enters the final mile at 250 and
> > exits at 275.. if I put more gear in the car it will accelerate to a
> > greater speed at the entrance because you have the is gearing advantage
> > for the whole 4 mile previous and will only go slightly slower at the
> > exit speed..I have been doing this since 1991 at bonneville and it
works
> > every time.. the downside is 1 it is harder on the engine(more rpm) to
a
> > small degree and 2 the driver hates the zero G input to the car and
> > complains about it seeming to float.. The downside to not using a
> > transmission are 1 it wastes valuable real estate waiting for the car
to
> > get up to speed. 2 if there is any problem with the run there is not
> > enough distance to ever recover 3 it is very very hard on the bearings
> > to lug the engine down to a very low rpm and apply full load. it is
also
> > very hard on the pistons for several reasons the most being if you have
> > a carb the main jets have no picked up yet and the engine will be very
> > lean and the high egts will hurt the engine (burned piston)..If you
have
> > mechanical injection the engine will surely be fat and take a while to
> > clear out if it does not wash the rings out..If you have EFI and it is
> > tuned right the air fuel ratio will be good but now you are making even
> > more power on the slow turning crank and beating the bearings to
death..
> > I really hate to blow my own horn.. but i have been racing
> > professionally since around 1975 24 hrs daytona Nascar winston cup
> > nascar Modified Bush cars..Drag races.. fastest car shootouts..won
> > zillions of races / championships / manufacturer titles / pole
> > positions..etc To be real candid if you went to every event held at
> > bonneville and set a record at every one i suspect you have still not
> > won enough....I am semi retired now as the pressure of all that every
> > day was too much for me but did learn so many tough lessons that they
> > are not forgotten.. I still consult, manufacture some parts that always
> > seem to end up on winning cars and travel around doing tune up work and
> > new product design for other companies. Do yourself a favor just for
> > laughs. Try it my way and see if you car is faster...what is to hurt by
> > running a different gear ratio for one pass or running the engine up in
> > rpm and keeping it in the power peak for a full pass???? If it is so
> > fragile that it can't stand the rpm then fix it...
> > At what RPM does your car make peak power?? peak torque??? In all my
> > years i have never seen a car that did not go faster with more torque
at
> > the rear wheels, though i have seen many cars with suspension that was
> > incapable of transmitting the power(fixable) and have seen drivers that
> > would not drive and apply the torque sensibly(replaceable) and have
seen
> > tires that would not hook up(selected wrong) and have seen cars that
> > were hopelessly constructed wrong(disposable).
> >
> > If you know the HP and torque #'s for your engine and the appropriate
> > rpm,very valuable info, and your car is still accelerating beyond the
> > last measured mile I am willing to bet you that if you work on the
> > gearing and shift points the car will go faster than it does now. will
> > the peak speed be greater?? maybe , maybe not.. is there a record for
> > exit speed?? not that i am aware of.. to attain peak speed in most
cases
> > the car has to run about 5 to 8% beyond the rpm for peak power through
> > the entire timed distance and not be able to go very much faster at the
> > 5 than it does at the 4 for the highest average speed. you should be
> > right at the wall when you have no more power left to overcome the aero
> > drag and rolling resistance with the engine is up to speed... If the
car
> > is not getting light then adding weight is worse than adding more tire
> > to get the bite to this this because the rolling penalties are less
than
> > the inertia problems associated with the weight. You should be racing
> > the lightest car that does not want to fly.. I would think that
anything
> > in the /CC classes can have any suspension they want. There are many
> > designs that will apply torque very softly to the tires and allow them
> > to hook up with small g loadings and do not rely on a great deal of
> > weight transfer. If spinning the tires is a problem i would look at
the
> > suspension and tires way before taking power out of the car by running
> > the engine in high gear only.......
> >
> > my opinion for what it is worth or not...but a real good topic to kick
> > around..
> > Dahlgren
> >
> > The Butters Family wrote:
> > >
> > > Well sort of your Pro stocker would have to be able to leave the
line
> in
> > > high gear and you would have to be able to run with the throttle wide
> open
> > > for max. engine efficiency, neither of which are going to happen.
> Believe
> > > Kieths car showed the increased speed because he was able to run
with a
> > > whole lot less wheel spin. First of all we are talking about speed
at a
> > > given distance, matching final gear ratio to the cars power will
> determine
> > > ultimate top speed of course. My theory is that speed at distance is
> > > determined by the total power available to do the job. With gearing
> you
> > > can change your et, even cut your terminal velocity with two short of
> gears
> > > but have little effect on how fast you are going at any given point.
If
> your
> > > street car has a stick shift go out and run it between two points as
> hard
> > > as you can using all the gears, then do it in say second and high,
your
> > > speed should be nearly identical. The only explanation I have for
> this
> > > is that even though the et was muuuch slower the motor was able to do
> the
> > > same amount of work. While you would think blitzing threw the HP
peak
> > > several times would gain speed, apparently chugging threw it builds
the
> same
> > > speedOriginal Message ----- Well thats my story, my car is a 53 stude
> > > running a hemi BB/cc with a 3 speed TF, I'm sure it would be just as
> fast
> > > with direct drive and a push to 60mph, wheel spin is a big problem.
> Hope
> > > theis helps let you know where I am comming from. Best regards, Kvach
> > > From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > > To: The Butters Family <bbutters@dmi.net>
> > > Cc: Marge and/or Dave Thomssen <mdthom@radiks.net>; Land-speed Racers
> > > <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 1:22 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Bonneville Transmissions
> > >
> > > > So if I understand this right then... If I put my pro stock car in
4th
> > > > and leave the starting line that that at the end of the quarter
mile
> the
> > > > car will go the same speed as if i used all the gears?? When you
lose
> 5
> > > > mph at the quarter does your car go the same speed at the 5 as if
you
> > > > were not 5 mph down?? Why do all the 'big' streamliners keep
wanting a
> > > > longer course ??? How fast does your car or cars you have messed
with
> go
> > > > ??? I am sure that if I start in any gear that my Pontiac i drive
on
> the
> > > > street will go exactly the same speed at the 5 no matter what gear
I
> > > > start in.. but going 125 is not much of a challenge either. How do
> > > > explain away the change of shift points in Keith Turks car making
203
> at
> > > > the 3 instead of 197 at the 5???? Doesn't having the correct
gearing
> and
> > > > going as fast as soon as possible make the course appear to be
longer
> > > > because you are going faster sooner and have more distance left to
get
> > > > the last MPH out of the car??
> > > >
> > > > to quote "We got a 225 record with 183cid 3rd gear only???
Nebulous"
> > > >
> > > > Is this the theory you are using?? Do you think the 225 might of
been
> a
> > > > 245 with all gears working??
> > > >
> > > > well we got a 216 record 219 qualifying with a 91cid gas lakester
and
> > > > went 213 at the 1/4... used all 5 gears.. which one is more
efficient
> > > > ??? and that was on the first pass.... Do you think if we left in
high
> > > > gear that the car would of gone 219 at the 5 on 91 inches ???
What's
> the
> > > > physics behind your theory??
> > > >
> > > > Oh yeah and the e-mail you quote.. what's that thing doing on the
long
> > > > course at 179 if you should be going over 175 at the quarter in the
> > > > first place???
> > > >
> > > > Hate to make this sound like a flame but I really can't figure out
the
> > > > logic behind it all.. Help me be smarter and tell me how this is
all
> > > > supposed to make sense..
> > > > A very confused engineer..
> > > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Butters Family wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This has been my experience with every car I've
ever
> > > messed
> > > > > with, the speed it was able to generate in a given distance
> hadnothing
> > > to
> > > > > do with the number of gears you shifted it threw, just the power
it
> had
> > > > > available to do the job. Kvach----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Marge and/or Dave Thomssen <mdthom@radiks.net>
> > > > > To: Land-speed Racers <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 7:35 PM
> > > > > Subject: Bonneville Transmissions
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, gang our experience might be interesting. In 1979 we ran
> the
> > > > > Original
> > > > > > Goldenrod streamliner (the one from Denver) with my flathead
> (unblown
> > > on
> > > > > > gas) and a T-10 4 speed. It ran 179 MPH in the last mile and we
> > > thought
> > > > > the
> > > > > > gear spread was just right for the motor until something
> malfunctioned
> > > in
> > > > > > the transmission and it locked in high gear. We pushed it off
as
> fast
> > > as
> > > > > we
> > > > > > could (60Mph) and it chugged off barely able to pull away from
the
> > > push
> > > > > > truck. The quarter time and the 2 and the 3 mile were slow, but
it
> ran
> > > > > > 179MPH in the last mile anyway. Anyone have similar experience
> that
> > > might
> > > > > > suggest that a long course car doesn't need a transmission at
all?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dave the Hayseed
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
|