Best 60'

[MARK@FORCEPOWER]

We were at the track yesterday doing some tuning and generally getting our car dialed in for the season. Our focus for the day was on the launch and the first two gears. We don't use Nitrous, so getting getting a large frame turbo to wake up and go is always a challenge.

We are usally happy if the car runs a 1.4 or 1.5 60' but yesterday we cut a .981 60' We were just blown away, even had the track check there equipment to make sure it was working right. Unfortunatly we only run the first two gears on that run, would have been nice to see the 1/4 mile result.

More info is at the below link.

http://www.forcepower.ca/forums/show...3772#post13772

[CBRE]

Looked like a 1.5 at very best by the vid, equipment does make mistakes. A 1.2 in an AWD looks like the car is shot out of a cannon, that looked dead slow.

[SS Laser]

Sorry dude a bird some paper or something tripped the beam. No way you ran under a 1.00 60ft. Shep does not even do that.
I know there are some DSM/EVO's that can do low 1.2 60ft. Did you back that 60ft up with one close? That will tell you the truth right there.

[MARK@FORCEPOWER]

Looked lie a 1.5 at very best by the vid, equipment does make mistakes. A 1.2 in an AWD looks like the car is shot out of a cannon, that looked dead slow.

I know the video doesn't look that fast Curt, it was a lot more impressive in person. Like I said, we usally run in the low 1.4 sec area. Our log does show it as one of our best 1st gears even better that a 1.4 60'

I was the first one to question it, but I couldn't find that damb bird or piece of paper anywhere. lol.

[SS Laser]

Oh I am sure it was 1.3 something. Let us know what kinds of 60ft's you get next time out. Good luck!

[David Buschur]

Yeah, it ain't happening....but you are welcome to make a liar out of me!

[MARK@FORCEPOWER]

Yeah, it ain't happening....but you are welcome to make a liar out of me!

That was about my response when I first see the slip, but with nothing other than my log to examine after the fact it looks a lot closer to being possible than the alternatives offered. When I look at the log, everything tells me that it is very close to the way the slip reads. If I add the .981 to the time at which the car first registered speed. It puts the car approx 2/3 of the way through first gear, which is clearly where the 60' beam is on the video/track. If I add say 1.4 seconds, just as an example it puts the car past the top of 1st gear. Our logs don't lie and the log shows us as being where we should be for the 60' time or very close to it. The log also shows the car accelerate to 42 MPH at the 60' mark approx. with virtually no wheel spin (best I can see on the log is the tires broke loose just a split second before the 60' mark), that in it's self is a first, our tires very often spin up about 10' out of the hole at that track. Obviously there will be some level of eror checking it this way, but it's all we have now.

At the end of the day all we have now is the time slip, so untill someone can show me something ealse that triggered the beam I guess were stuck with it.

[SS Laser]

I don't want to be a dick but come on. I don't care what the log says. You did not 60FT THAT FUCKEN FAST. This happens all the time. DSM/EVO has stupid fast 60ft for car. Can not repeat the same 60ft. It happens.

When you have Dave and Curt telling you the same thing I am it would be good to quit posting and get back to the track to see your real 60ft's.

[MikeRizz]

No way that is real in an AWD DSM. Something else triggered the beam or simply a timing malfunction. Six second Pro stock cars cut 60' times like that.

[Lonnie gandee]

No way that is real in an AWD DSM. Something else triggered the beam or simply a timing malfunction. Six second Pro stock cars cut 60' times like that.

^^^^Exactly... I remember a Turbo mag article a Looonnnggg Time ago where they thought Lisa Kubo ( remember that name) had cut a .9xx 60-ft.... She was running 8's i believe, and even she knew it was impossible...

WOW and I just watched the video.... That was a 1.9 and a misprint... Adjust your clutch so you dont roll out the hole..

[farook]

I've seen videos of Curt's old gsx, Shepard talon in person, and I think it was polks white 1g that had a video all in the 1.2s and they left WAY harder than that. Hell I think my talon cutting mid to low 1.4s looks more legit. Sorry I'm just not buying it after watching the video.

[MARK@FORCEPOWER]

I wasn't going to make to much of this, just put it up to share, but the level of ignorance and arrogance in some of the posts only prove that very few people understand what it takes to run clean fast 60' times and further to that how to position and stage the car for maximum advantage. Feel free to go back over other videos of our car, even the year we won Eliminator. You will see our car starting to move prior to the green light, that is just good staging and I can't remember the last time we tripped a red light. Running a good 60' does not require a car to come out of the hole sideways, spinning wheels and bouncing like a Kangaroo, like so many I see. I was never looking for your approval and don't give a fuck if you do or don't except it.

You all seem to put a lot of "stock" in what it looks like, well I suggest you all get together and try to come up with a consensuses, because so far you "so called experts" range from a 1.2 - 1.9 I guess we should all stop picking up our slips at the end of the track and just come around and ask "what it looked like". Perhaps we can pick somebody in the stands to tell "us racers" what it looked like. LMAO.

I am all for scrutiny and ready to listen to any "intelligent" input, that is why we put up all our data, slips and video. We don't hide anything, which is more than I can say about a good percentage of the industry. I don't know how many times I see on the net people just post they did this and did that with no back-up and we are just expected to believe it.

Below is a post from my (son) the driver on another forum, as he is not a member here. Just so he can have his 2 cents.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I probably shouldn't but I'll respond in this thread to a few that have commented to this on other boards.
Obviously with a wicked time like this....people will question.

To say it looked more like a "1.5 or a 1.3" is funny. I've seen 1.3's that look slower than this .981. Naturally. haha. I've also seen 1.7's that look more like 1.3's.
We've also probably all seen complete runs that "look" faster or slower than what they actually were on the time clock.
Are we going to start questioning final ET's and MPH's??? How about 1/8th's??? Thinking back now....I think I've run a bunch of 10's that "looked" more like 9's. hahaha. I should look into that. haha.
Common sense should also tell you that depending on where you're watching from, the run or partial run may "look" faster or slower depending. ie. behind, beside, in the car, half track, big end, snack hut, ground level, grand stands...etc.
The timeslip LOOKS like a .981 to me. What does it look like to you?

In response to the comment, "a bird or piece of paper tripped the beam".
I think you're right. It was a bird. A low gloss BlackBird!!!
I've been racing for about 8 years now nearly week in and week out with my car or supporting customer cars and I've NEVER seen a 60ft timing issue due to a pre-tripped sensor. At most, maybe a failure in a sensor not recording period.

And of coarse the comment about, "Well, Shep has never done that".
Well I guess if Shep can't do it, then nobody can. We should all just pack it up and quit because Shep went super fast in a DSM. haha.
Wake up DSM community. There are tons of DSM's out there daily still banging away running times. Records and times will fall.

And last but not least....the comment about "it aint happening".
Well.....That just happened!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps in the future we will just get one of to come to the track and tell us what it looked like. The track can sell there timing equipment. lol.

If you have nothing inteligent to say, please flame on.....

[CBRE]

What is the best ET and MPH for that car as of today?

[farook]

So a car your happy with 1.4-1.5 60fts suddenly clicks of a .981 and you're going to get so butthurt for people questioning it? Not to be an ass but this isn't your own forum so everyone isn't going to instantly blow you because of it. You don't just shatter the dsm record and expect everyone to believe you because of one pass. I was at an event at norwalk a few years back when ams was racing the tpg black 2g and something tripped the beam and recorded some rediculous 60ft. Shit does happen, sorry to say. I'm not 100% discrediting it, just seems awefully fishy thats all. Tell your local hardass that I'll be at the shootout if he wants to punch my face for disagreeing hahaha!!

[Rogue]

April fools?

[MARK@FORCEPOWER]

What is the best ET and MPH for that car as of today?

What is the relevance in that Curt, Oh hang-on your going to tell me the car doesn't 1/4 or trap fast enough to cut that kind of 60'. If that's the case, you would be wrong again. A car doesn't have to run 7's or 8's to cut fast 60' times. To honestly answer your question though, I don't know. We have a completely NEW set-up in the car this year that we are still dialing in. We have only had one clean track day so far to work on it, as the first time out we stripped 4th gear "again". The car will be going on the dyno later this week, if your interested I can provide you that data later, my best guess would be north of 800 whp and our goal with this set-up is to run consistent reliable 9's, if there is such a thing. Or perhaps I'll just get someone to "look" at it and tell me what it should run.

In my opinion the "bigger" cars are at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to cutting clean 60' times. Usually a lot of power has to shaved out and managed very carefully, plus the suspension / tire set-up has to be bang on. We have spent a lot of time on the off season making the necessary changes for this and our focus so far this year has been the first 330' of the track. I believe this effort has paid off.

"FAROOK", I am fine with your opinion and respect anyone that disagrees with some level of intelligence. What pisses me off more than anything else is some of the arrogance and ignorance that comes through in some posts. I never posted this up looking for a pat on the back from anyone, I'll take care of that and pat my own back after a hard days work. lol.

What the negative replies have done, is force me to go back and analyze every micro second of the run to satisfy MYSELF as to whether it happened or not. The data I have supports the car completing the 60' as the slip states.

Why is it so hard to believe that a car that can comfortably cut a "low" 1.4 60' with the tires in full spin, could then cut a substancially better time with no wheel spin, it's not rocket science. Perhaps a bit of luck, but I'll take that on any drag day.

As far as the "record", would you not expect it to be broke one day. Some of the times guys have run in the past are years old now. I would expect with improved products and knowledge that some of the old records should fall.

[Tunze]

It is on video, and you can see the 60' timing beams. Watch the video in in slow motion with a .000 time counter and you should be able to tell how accurate the slip is. From what i can see on the video the car moves at 0:06 and the front of the car hits the beams at 0:08 on the time counter on the video. I know that is not completely accurate, but by the video it appears to be at least more that 1.000 second.

Either way you could shut us all up by backing it up on another pass.

[MARK@FORCEPOWER]

It is on video, and you can see the 60' timing beams. Watch the video in in slow motion with a .000 time counter and you should be able to tell how accurate the slip is. From what i can see on the video the car moves at 0:06 and the front of the car hits the beams at 0:08 on the time counter on the video. I know that is not completely accurate, but by the video it appears to be at least more that 1.000 second.

Either way you could shut us all up by backing it up on another pass.

I'm not looking to "shut anyone up", hell we all have an opinion. A discussion perhaps would be better.

"Go out and back it up" I would be kidding myself to think it was that easy. Perhaps someone else can give it a shot, I'm not sure if we have enough transfer-cases.

[Spoolin0nYou]

Timing equipment screws up. You didn't run a sub 1 second 60'. Accept it.

I ran an event on the 22nd. The timing equipment told me that somebody had a 42 second autox run. It wasn't possible, as the fastest people on the course ran a 62.xxx run. What happened? Timing equipment error. It happens.

[SS Laser]

Holy Cow! Did you bang your head? Because I am right now. If the car can do it once it better damn do it again. It is called backing up a record.

I am not ignorant or arrogant. I do know what it takes for a AWD car to run a freaken sub 1.3. IT IS VERY HARD TO DO. It is not magic. A sub 1.00 60ft AWD DSM is magic. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

I am being a dick now because you are so lost.

Tell your son if Shep, Buschur, Brown and MANY other's that have been racing DSM's while he was a glimmer in your eye can not build a car that runs sub 1.00 60ft's it is not going to be some high/mid 9 sec DSM doing it.

I really can't grasp that anyone would even think this could happen?

Sheps car ran a 7.70 when you get close then you can talk shit.

Please stop this now my head hurts from banging it off the wall.