As a spectator, in which it's looked the same for decades now, indeed, yes it is.biker_ev wrote:Yeah, 3.x seconds at 300+ mph is boring as hell!
Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk
Don't watch!!!!!VARIANT | one wrote:Top Fuel is pretty much a technologically stunted form of motorsport... for safety reasons. What they should do it ditch the nitromethane nonsense, mandate pump gas, and open up the rulebook on just about everything, and let them work their way back up to the current speeds through different tech. Vacuum traction would be awesome to see in drag racing, maybe six drive wheels. It's just --- boring the way it is right now.roon wrote:If they were any longer they would begin to resemble F1 cars.
Agree, top fuel should use the 1/4 distance. Nowadays it is too similar in performance with funny cars, which is a shame.strad wrote:Brian, You didn't mention that you have to anticipate what happens when you put out a cylinder.
As it is if you lose even one it starts pushing you toward the wall. What happens when you are depending on it for downforce or traction?
The only problem I have with modern NHRA T/F is that they need to go back to 1320ft.
I believe the thrust is of the order of 1000 lbs. Pointing straight back that gives the car an extra 1000 lbs of accelerating thrust. Pointing straight up (and assuming unlimited power and a coefficient of friction of 3) gives the car an extra 3000 lbs of thrust. Somewhere in between (close to vertical) is optimum but this changes further down the track as the car becomes less traction limited.
Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests