Dave, there is a "real live" recent record run like your example - Chauvin
Emmon's 300+ mph Mod. Roadster record 2 years ago. I can't quote the exact #'s
but on his return run, the car ran well through the 3, developed a fuel leak in
the 4 (but cleared the lights under full power), and then due to lack of vision,
MISSED the gate (and lights) at the 5. His time through the 4 was good, and
averaged with his down run at the 4 gave him the record.
Ed (still sitting on the fence on this record issue)
Dave Dahlgren wrote:
> I only have one thought on trap length. I am in favor of
> several traps located along the course. The reason for this
> is, if we have a record for the kilo and one for the mile,
> then why not one for 132 feet? It allows more places to be
> used that do not have as long a distance to run up to speed.
> Also multiple mile or kilo traps going down the course help
> a great deal to tune the car. there have also been
> situations where you might have a run that the trap speeds
> progressed well in one direction but on a return run had a
> problem with what you considered the target trap and the
> previuos trap was a higher speed. As long as the record is
> set on the same piece of real estate I do not see where it
> matters how long the run up was in both directons.
> ex.
> down run
> trap 1 300
> trap 2 350
> trap 3 355
>
> return run
> trap 3 325 ( turned the boost up)
> trap 2 300 ( its going away)
> trap 1 200 ( blew it up)
>
> so the averages are
> trap 1 250
> trap 2 325
> trap 3 340
>
> so the record would be 340 in trap 3 same real estate in
> both directions
> If you only had the 1 central trap (trap 2) the record would
> be 325.
>
> With this type of course it would be advatagous i would
> think to have a central 132 foot trap so the smaller tracks
> could have a record for the shorter distance. basically have
> 3 different length records for each class mile, kilo,132
> ft..
>
> My 2 cents anyway ..
>
> Dave Dahlgren
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|