Gtech Results In

Unit 5302 · 04-14-2001, 03:41 PM

No I didn't.

There was just no way I could accurately gauge that inconsistancy into the equation without getting very technical and doing some seriously ridiculous amounts of math.

The acceleration for the said 14.00@100 car I'll submit is a 1987 GT with 2.73's. For your non-seemless acceleration I'd submit this car shifted 1-2 at 35mph, and 2-3 at 65mph and finished the 1/4 in 3rd. For all practical purposes the negligable amount of time lost in shifting would basically balance out. Obviously the Gforces in 3rd would be smaller than in 2nd, but since the car only spends 5mph in second gear I can pretty much rule your idea that I need to examine that factor out the window, inferno, and instead say with a high degree of certainty that a 5.0 Mustang will not accelerate faster at 100mph in 3rd than it would over the average of a 60-100mph run. Would you argue with that? You don't own the hypothetical car, or any Mustang 5.0 for that matter, so in this case, I think you should hold that information correct.

Now if you look at my post, you'll see that I said the average acceleration over the last 60ft would be less than .96mph different than the terminal speed at the end of the 1/4 mile. The reason I said "less than" was because I took into consideration the fact the acceleration curve of the Mustang 5.0 would be weaker in 3rd at 100mph than it would be over the entire 60-100mph range. Now if you'd like I can give you the G-force of my particular car at 100mph vs the average based on say a number averaged from a sample every .5 sec from 60-100mph, but I'm extremely confident it will back up my original assumption based on the kind of rpm the 5.0 would be turning at 100mph in 3rd.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
GTech vs Track?????	Stang Runner	Windsor Power	2	06-20-2001 05:37 PM
Results with Box Upper on my 347 verses Cobra	8850	Windsor Power	9	01-22-2001 12:39 AM
Top Truck results	hotrodford_87	Racer's Club House	2	06-07-1999 07:51 PM
Results & Points Updated	StangFlyer	Racer's Club House	0	05-21-1999 06:11 PM
FFW RESULTS	WILK7	Racer's Club House	39	05-03-1999 07:41 AM

04-14-2001, 03:41 PM	#11
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	No I didn't. There was just no way I could accurately gauge that inconsistancy into the equation without getting very technical and doing some seriously ridiculous amounts of math. The acceleration for the said 14.00@100 car I'll submit is a 1987 GT with 2.73's. For your non-seemless acceleration I'd submit this car shifted 1-2 at 35mph, and 2-3 at 65mph and finished the 1/4 in 3rd. For all practical purposes the negligable amount of time lost in shifting would basically balance out. Obviously the Gforces in 3rd would be smaller than in 2nd, but since the car only spends 5mph in second gear I can pretty much rule your idea that I need to examine that factor out the window, inferno, and instead say with a high degree of certainty that a 5.0 Mustang will not accelerate faster at 100mph in 3rd than it would over the average of a 60-100mph run. Would you argue with that? You don't own the hypothetical car, or any Mustang 5.0 for that matter, so in this case, I think you should hold that information correct. Now if you look at my post, you'll see that I said the average acceleration over the last 60ft would be less than .96mph different than the terminal speed at the end of the 1/4 mile. The reason I said "less than" was because I took into consideration the fact the acceleration curve of the Mustang 5.0 would be weaker in 3rd at 100mph than it would be over the entire 60-100mph range. Now if you'd like I can give you the G-force of my particular car at 100mph vs the average based on say a number averaged from a sample every .5 sec from 60-100mph, but I'm extremely confident it will back up my original assumption based on the kind of rpm the 5.0 would be turning at 100mph in 3rd.