Fastest Stock Twins thread

[g11ary]

Grasshopper :-)

[chrisBoid]

Chris--0-60 = 2.1
         et    = 112.09
         29/05/05 @ RS11. :cheers

Updated, there\'s not much in it

[Warthog]

Sorry Chris I should have added it\'s 12.92 . :wave

[chrisBoid]

Sorry Chris I should have added it\'s 12.92 . :wave

Updated, even closer now!

[andrewrx7]

I think the idea of putting a "natural cap" on the rules is important. Otherwise we may as well just have the one table in 1/4 section with all the times - as there is right now.

I think the purpose of this second table should be mainly for the average joe\'s of us who don\'t have an RX7 simply for drag/track racing.

lets face it - none of us daily drivers in our stock\'ish cars are going to get anywhere close to Geoffs 1/4 time (no offence meant to the guys running twins that are actually high up in that table). But if we have a seperate table with rules the exclude the big monsters then we have a better ground to compete on, and therefore with try harder to achieve better times.

My two pence worth...

Cheers
Jon

Great idea, full marks to everyone who is getting this off the ground!

But realistically, how many people have the cars to actually compete at the top of the table? Probably not many!! A handful at most? Not sure....

As a suggestion to go along with Mr Blairs post, to maybe expand on this idea, why not split this into, say 3 or 4 groups, dependant on the cars power? Say upto 300horses, then 300-350, 350-400, and then anything above? Would this even the competition out a little more? Would this give something for everyone to aim for, within each group, rather than one ultimate goal which most of us won\'t get anywhere near? Just a thought....  :chat  or  :flamed  ?!

[chrisBoid]

I think once there are enough competitors and the table fills out a bit, we can see what the spread is and look to break it up from there.
At the moment there is best 1/4 mile time, best top speed and best 60ft time to play for.  As it stands, all the honours don\'t belong to the driver positioned first.

[andrewrx7]

I think once there are enough competitors and the table fills out a bit, we can see what the spread is and look to break it up from there.
At the moment there is best 1/4 mile time, best top speed and best 60ft time to play for.  As it stands, all the honours don\'t belong to the driver positioned first.

Fair enough. That implies we should be submitting any and all attempts!  I know I\'m standard, and am nowhere near those times from my one attempt, and never will be though!  

[davegttph1]

Cool. good thread

my 0-60ft time was 2.077 which I thought was pretty good, still only managed a 13.529 SQM @ 99.81mph

[g11ary]

Think a short short term solution is to add another table for bhp so guys can compare. Also so as this does not become too much hard work for Chris. limit the table to 10 or 20, as if you look at the 1/4 times it gets big and messy, and everyone on this table is allowed on the other. Unless we eventually make the other table for single turbo cars, making Glens life easier.

[davegttph1]

Ok well for info Im running 325bhp... Hoping to get a go at rotorstock3 cause I know Shakespeares strip is definately stickier than the pod

out of interest though How come people are pulling about 110mph on their runs but Im only hitting about 100....? yet still getting a respectable time ish

[chrisBoid]

Cool. good thread

my 0-60ft time was 2.077 which I thought was pretty good, still only managed a 13.529 SQM @ 99.81mph

Added, what does "SQM" mean?

[chrisBoid]

Think a short short term solution is to add another table for bhp so guys can compare. Also so as this does not become too much hard work for Chris. limit the table to 10 or 20, as if you look at the 1/4 times it gets big and messy, and everyone on this table is allowed on the other. Unless we eventually make the other table for single turbo cars, making Glens life easier.

You make a good point Gary.  As the table grows, so does the complexity of updating it - I\'m willing to manage it but I know that a better solution is needed.  It may be time for me to investigate PHP.  I see one database of details which can be sorted and grouped in many different ways to provide sub-tables e.g. standard twins etc.  Oh if only we had a Java web container available!

[chrisBoid]

With regards to splitting it up into bhp groups, we fall into the currently unsolved problem of engine, hub, dyno values and how they compare.  I think we all agreed that the values were good from a continous tuning point of view but they cannot be used for comparison.

[davegttph1]

SQM = Standing Quarter Mile

[TonyBlair]

Perhaps we leave BHP out of the table for now... otherwise we get the problem of whether it\'s fwbhp or rwbhp?

Cheers
Jon