1/4 Mile Times

[Greg Roles]

OK less bored with drag strip theory today : ) - Simon has just informed me he just had the 188kph confirmed by Motor, and they use the latest in satellite tracking for both 0-100 and quarter times and traps. Same for ALL cars.

168kw and 188kph with a 4.7-100 - doesn't add up.

[Ideo]

Slightly confusing then.

Parso? Guy?

Anyone else who won't just bitch and moan and say run it again?

[Candyman]

Given a tune only Viezu R did the quarter in 12.8 but the current car has exhaust and intake (I think), it would be quicker, yes ?

[Lucas_R]

In my eyes, the 0-100kph time seems pretty much in-line with what most stage 1 - stage 2 DSG gearboxed Golf R's seem to get.

The 188kph trap speed seems too high, and the 167kw dyno reading seems too low (thats not much higher than a stock Golf R dyno reading). Are you sure the 167kw hasn't been mistaken for 197kw?

[jasn78]

And this is the reason why I am only putting up drag slip times.

[parso_rex]

I thought all the times were on a proper timed strip as in WSID ( confused now ) but if this is the case this is crap....... using GPS is certainly not an accurate way of measuring things IMO, there's too many variables, number of satellites, cloud cover, obstruction, reflection to name a few and the faster you are going the worse it becomes, doesn't matter if its 10Hz or 20Hz if the data from the satellite isn't there its not going to be work properly. I don't know how that particular system works, whether it uses interpolation or an average when samples are missed or maybe a combination of both, who knows. On a track where you effectively repeat the same locations I guess the errors could be less overall if you get clever.
At least Greg is asking questions because he knows something is not right which I credit highly. I certainly don't rate any G-crap or GPS device for true 400m testing you might get close but you also might not.

With that dyno result much as we may laugh its really because we are just cruel b@stards but honestly it does seem a touch lower than you would think it should be.
So...
Did they do a best out of three or more pulls so to speak ? that's the usual case and if so you should see the runs pretty closely overlay each other. The first may be touch lower then the fouth and onward a touch lower as well due to heatsoak but really all pretty close. If for example it had no exhaust an intake or FMIC then the heatsoak would really badly affect the later runs...(which is why you'll see no 12 sec stock cars from me not safe IMO )
What was the ramp rate was it a typical 10 kmph/sec in 4th or say 7 in third ? or something else? , thats where you've got to look I reckon.

[Candyman]

Do they use Racelogic gear or similar ?

Should have been actual timing equipment

Still, they are generally close to a few hundredths. The Racelogic boxes are pretty damn good

Motor needs to post !

Edit - I like the post below, that would be interesting

[lavna]

Hi
Im the guy with the R that runs 12.8 with a viezu tune and nothing else
Those figures dont add up
My car does 0-100 in 4.0 seconds every launch it will go lower if i launched harder
Simon fly me up i will race the car at the drags for you and show what the car can really do

[Greg Roles]

Yeah look guys it doesn't add up, bottom line the car is a clients, so it wasn't launched over 4000rpm, but the owner is planning to re-run it I believe. Thing is, it has already been modded beyond Motor with a HPFP and other goodies planned, so the chances are we will never know about the mystery 188. Nor likely the mystery 168!!

Anyhoo, I'll stop wrecking Jasons thread, and just put the Motor results down to " act of God / Other ". I just wanted some of you real drag racers to comment on the bizzare results, but time to move on, for at the end of the day it's a petrol car thus not overly interesting to me.

[058oys]

Hey Guys

Here something I found that works well to find out your potential 1/4 times, as we know your mile per hour relates to the HP of your car so we can use this simple formula, now Im not saying your car will run these times but you do have the HP to do it, if your car was set up as a drag car and you have a perfect run, AWD drive cars seem to run spot on or in many cases faster and doesnt work real well with topfuel cars.

the track is 1360 feet and we use this divided by your MPH so lets say you can run 100mph

1360 ~ 100 = 13.60
1360 ~ 105 = 12.95
1360 ~ 110 = 12.36
1360 ~ 115 = 11.82

Have a mate with a supercharged outlaw car it runs 176 mph which = 7.72 car actually runs 7.6 with this MPH

lets take Guy_H golf R just because its on top it ran 119.356 ( 1360 ~ 119.356 = 11.394) and he ran 11.356 AWD cars seem to run faster I think this is down to great 60 foot times. Isn't there a R that runs 113mph that should be around 12.03 or faster

now my car has run 114 mph which = 11.92 but it only ran 12.6 but its FWD with big wheel spin so cant match the AWD cars 60 foot times

have some fun with it, its not perfect but very close IMO

Cheers

[Scuby_snax84]

Hey Guys

Here something I found that works well to find out your potential 1/4 times, as we know your mile per hour relates to the HP of your car so we can use this simple formula, now Im not saying your car will run these times but you do have the HP to do it, if your car was set up as a drag car and you have a perfect run, AWD drive cars seem to run spot on or in many cases faster and doesnt work real well with topfuel cars.

the track is 1360 feet and we use this divided by your MPH so lets say you can run 100mph

1360 ~ 100 = 13.60
1360 ~ 105 = 12.95
1360 ~ 110 = 12.36
1360 ~ 115 = 11.82

Have a mate with a supercharged outlaw car it runs 176 mph which = 7.72 car actually runs 7.6 with this MPH

lets take Guy_H golf R just because its on top it ran 119.356 ( 1360 ~ 119.356 = 11.394) and he ran 11.356 AWD cars seem to run faster I think this is down to great 60 foot times. Isn't there a R that runs 113mph that should be around 12.03 or faster

now my car has run 114 mph which = 11.92 but it only ran 12.6 but its FWD with big wheel spin so cant match the AWD cars 60 foot times

have some fun with it, its not perfect but very close IMO

Cheers

Lol, based on this I cant drive (0.8s slower). haha

My best to date is 13.5 at around 106-107. I think i need to learn how to launch the manual a bit harder. I also think that the extra gear change is hurting my time.

[Guy_H]

We were there watching all the Golf R's run down the strip, and our spotter recorded most of the times.

The Viezu car ran 105mph (168kmph) according to the journalist - it bogged down on the first launch (or two) and then it had a really nice (non bogged one) which was its best time. There certainly was no wheel spin issues, the last run it hooked up nicely.

[ViezuAustralia]

I must have checked with them 6 times now - 188km/h...

The car didn't bog on either run - hopefully the comparative 0-100 time can demonstrate that enough in any event. I think maybe you're getting mixed up with another one of the R's?

I'm hoping there's some footage of it.

Certainly everyone else I've asked who was there at the time of our runs recall it spinning all 4 before it would hook up.

He also told me all runs ran the same 13.2 (and 188 trap speed)

[Candyman]

It's that lightweight CF bonnet !

Sexiness.

[Greg Roles]

To be honest that does sound more realistic, but we are wrecking Jasons Time Slip only thread ( apologies again!! ) so time to let it be people. The truth always comes out in the end, let's leave it till cars / tunes can be run again etc etc, something I indeed intend to do for my own curiosity amongst other things.