slngsht

No prob. I just pulled the trigger on a set of C5 wheels and tires that LocostV8 told me about. Now I have to go home and make sure they won't hit the body http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/lol.gif. If they do, i'll use them as a spare set for the C5. If there is room, I can put my Z06 wheels on the Rotus. 18" wheels are "a bit" much for the Rotus http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/lol.gif but I'll throw them on and see. They were almost free. I'll have to buy adaptors though, so definitely not the ideal setup.

soon they'll have spinners and naaaawwws stickers

Near Baltimore, there is a Camaro on I-95. I've seen various cars used by Maryland State Police, including beat up Buicks, etc... Also, the colors of the state troopers are very hard to detect when they're in the median against brushes, etc... http://www.mdsp.org/images/home/trooper_badge_car.jpg

That's him.

I guess that settles it.

That's the other option. But keep in mind, the supra is over 3500 lbs.

Yes, I know there is a wheel and tire section http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/blush5.gif I'll move it there shortly http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/biggrin5.gif I called up BF Goodrich today, b/c they have drag radials in sizes ranging from 275 to 325 in 15" diameters. Basically drag radials are R compound tires with softer sidewalls. I figured with our cars being light, that may not be a problem, and I could run these tires effectively in autox. Anyway, their tech guy agreed that the strategy makes sense. So, question is, what 15X9 or 15X10 wheels do you recommend? I could go 325 in the rear, 275 front, or stay 275 all around. Obviously I want the wheels to cost $1, weigh 1 lb, and have no trouble running over mines http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/lol.gif

Sometimes he crossed over to the "right" side http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/rofl.gif

If that was a green Caterham on slicks at Ripkin, it was probably Michael D

As I look for more grip, there are a few drag radials available in the sizes I want, but no regular R-compound "competition" tires. Typically, the drag radials have softer sidewalls compared to their autox versions - I'm wondering if that's a bad thing on a seven. These tires are designed for 4000 lb cars. on a 1600 lb car, is the sidewall still "soft"? Discuss

We asked that question. They said that it rains on a regular basis, early afternoon - for 15 minutes, then the sun comes out, and it's dry again.

that's 4" wider than what I have. Arya tells me the toyota 8" holds up fine on 500 horse buick GNX apps... maybe the 7.5" will be fine with my weak 440 horse on a light car http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/biggrin5.gif what are the best WIDE 15" R compound tires around? I found some wide ones, but all are drag tires.

>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4436151838066052701&q=caterham

having fun across the pond

YouTube Video

No. It's a nice thought, but given my current state of work, etc... not really worth the huge design and fabrication effort.

http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/lol.gif No AWD... I just wondered if anyone had a rear diff like that. I think I'm just going to go the simple route. My nephew will get me an 8" Toyota rear, we'll load her up with a trutrac diff, and 3.09 rear. With slightly taller tires, I should be able to hit 60 in first, and 100 in second.

I agree with some of his conclusions, but here are some thoughts, as they apply to the way we actually use engines. 1- if engines were used in steady state, like with a CVT, where the engine runs at its peak efficiency range (in either power or fuel consumption), then he is right... HP is king, and peak HP is all that matters, because that's where you run. 2- Since for most of us, that is not the reality, and we actually use the engine throughout its dynamic range, things besides peak power matter. One running joke on this matter is: What do 1000 hp supras have in common with 400 hp supras? They both run 12's in the quarter http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/biggrin5.gif. The reason people say this exaggeration is because the power produced is very peaky, so the area under the power curve is smaller than comparable engines that don't produce as much peak power. So, which is king, HP or Torque? Depends on the application. For a race car, where you're sawing at the stick all the time to keep the revs in a 2000 rpm window, peak power is what matters. For the street, it's neither - to me for a street car, the king is the area under the power curve. That's what gives you good driveability, and performance. By the time a high HP car works its way up the power band, or does the downshift, the guy with the broader torque curve (same as the power curve in concept) is long gone. Also keep in mind, cars with flatter curves are easier to handle when powering out of corners, etc... One more thing on this subject. When you look at curves for stock LS1s, etc... you notice peak torque is quite low, and it drops steadily throughout the rpm range. When you install aftermarket cams, they knock down low rpm torque, and put it more on the high rpm range, hence more power. The reason manufacturers don't do it this way is driveability (besides emissions concerns, fuel economy, etc...). Imagine going constant speed down a highway, and the road starts on a gentle hill. The engine with a fatter torque curve on the bottom does a much better job of maintaining speed, because as engine rpm drops, it produces more torque, requiring less of a correction by the driver. Damn, I wish I could write like this on the business proposal I'm supposed to be working on... I should change careers - seriously

found the correct link >http://www.v8914.com/Horsepower-v-torque.htm

The address says http://www.v8914/Horsepower-v-torque Seems like an incomplete address

10.85 is in a C6 Z. He's very well known in the community.

thanks for the read... For what it's worth, I posted this thread in the offtopic section. There is a guy on corvetteforum who is VERY good at getting excellent 1/4 mile numbers, and he is a nice guy to boot - and from Maryland no less http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/biggrin5.gif. Anyway, he did a write up on what he does, and I cut and pasted it here: http://www.usa7s.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=299&KW=z06

If it weren't for the 30 MPH speed limit, and the summer traffic, I could make as good a time on that road as on 81 http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/biggrinjester.gif But it's not worth the cost http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/ack2.gifhttp://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/leaving.gif

Good points... I hadn't heard the 12" roll thing before. In my case, maybe more weight would help... maybe I can have a passenger stand on the rear axle and hold on to the roll bar http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/lol.gif There is no doubt quarter mile numbers are more dominated by power/weight, than by traction ability. I will make another measured run next time it's warm.

The bike guys say the bike is only half trying http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/images/emoticons/lol.gif I don't ride a bike, so I can't comment, but I believe the fastest bikes run that track in the 7:50 range, and the fastest seven is in the 7:20 range.