Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hello Guys,

My mate here at work came to me with a set of figures produced by his friend's newest toy for drag racing.

This toy is apparently a computer you plug on to your cigarrette lighter on the car and somehow (I am sure there is at least one more cable he isn't telling me about) this computer measures how long it takes for the car to reach each interval of 10 Km/h.

Then he said to me, that the car to win the drag race is not necessarily the fastest car at every point of the race, so he wanted to know what was the distance covered by the car at different time intervals rather than speed intervals.

And so, thanks to some vague memories of high school physics and the geniuses on the internet who seem to have an Excel formula for everything you want to do I produced the spreadsheet I attached.

All you need to change is the values on the coloured cells (i.e. time taken to reach each increment of 10 Km/h, what time intervals you want to find [1 second, ½ seconds, etc]); everything else is automatically calculated. I have protected the spreadsheet so you don't accidentally muck up the formulae, but you can unprotect it without the need for a password.

You can get a lot more detailed information from computers already available in the market which you can take from your car and plug into USB on your PC...shweeeeet! But if like these guys all you have is speed increments and times, then you can use this free spreadsheet that I put together with the assistance of the most awesome Excel geeks in the planet.

By the way, the figures on the spreadsheet belong to a Subaru WRX STI VIII 1997 (stock standard).

Have fun, and keep racing.

Velocity.xls

Edited by Kichy
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/310322-drag-racing-times/
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

Here are the results for my mate's car.

1995 Toyota Soarer - 2.5L V6 Twin Turbo

1 second 5.56 m

2 seconds 21.25 m

3 seconds 42.50 m

4 seconds 66.81 m

5 seconds 94.17 m

6 seconds 125.42 m

7 seconds 160.14 m

8 seconds 196.53 m

9 seconds 236.25 m

10 seconds 278.19 m

11 seconds 322.36 m

12 seconds 368.75 m

13 seconds 417.36 m

Awesome! :)

Hello everyone,

Here are the results for my mate's car.

1995 Toyota Soarer - 2.5L V6 Twin Turbo

1 second 5.56 m

2 seconds 21.25 m

3 seconds 42.50 m

4 seconds 66.81 m

5 seconds 94.17 m

6 seconds 125.42 m

7 seconds 160.14 m

8 seconds 196.53 m

9 seconds 236.25 m

10 seconds 278.19 m

11 seconds 322.36 m

12 seconds 368.75 m

13 seconds 417.36 m

Awesome! :laugh:

Where's the 402m time?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Major thread necro but how bad of a job is it to DIY? Looking at it online it looks like if you reuse your ring and pinion as long as those are in good condition it should be fine to just pull the axles/front cover and replace the diff that way? Or should I be replacing everything and doing preload measurements/gear mesh testing like the factory service manual mentions for the rear diff?
    • in my list I had the R33 GTR as the best Skyline. Infact I had all GTR's (33>34=32), the NSX, the GTO, the 300ZX, the 180SX, the S15 better than the FD RX7. I had the MR2 and the A80 as 'just' better. I also think the DC5R Integra looks better but this is an 01 onwards car. I also think the FC>FD. It's almost like aesthetics are individual! The elements @GTSBoy likes about the FD and dislikes about the 180 are inverse in my eyes. I hate the rear end of the FD and it's weird tail lights that are bulbous and remind me of early hyundai excels. They are not striking, nor iconic, nor retro cool. The GTO has supercar proportions. I maintain these look much better in person (like the NSX) especially with nice wheels and suspension which is mandatory for all cars pretty much. Some (or all) of these you have to see in person to appreciate. You can't write a car off until you see one in the flesh IMO. Like most people we probably just like/dislike cars which represent certain eras of design or design styles in general. I also think the 60's Jag E type looks HORRIBLE, literally disgusting, and the 2000GT is nothing to write home about. FWIW I don't think the Dodge Viper Gen1's have aged very well either. You can probably see where I rate bubbly coupes like the FD. I know we're straying now but the C4 and C5 absolutely murder the Viper in the looks department as time goes on, for my eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if people who love the FD, also love the MX5, Dodge Viper, Jag E Type, etc etc.
    • I used to hate R31s, and any of the other Nissans that led up to it, and any of the Toyotas with similar styling, because of the boxiness. They were, and remain, childish, simplistic, and generally awful. I appreciate R31s a lot more now, but only the JDM 2 door. The ADM 4 door (and any other 4 door, even if they are unique compared to our local one) can eat a bowl of dicks. The Aussie R31 is also forever tarnished by their association with stereotypical bong clutching Aussie R31 owners of the 90s and early 2000s. I think the Nissans of the 70s (other than 120Y/180B/200B) are far superior looking to the 80s cars. The 240K era Skylines are boss. The same is broadly true of Toyotas. Hondas don't ever register in my thinking, from any era. Mitsus are all horrid shitboxen in any era, and so also don't register. Subarus are always awful, ditto. Daihatsus and Suzukis also don't generally register. They are all invisible. I think the SW20 MR2 looks fiddly. The 3000GT/GTO is like that but way worse. Too many silly plastic barnacles and fiddly gimmicks ruined what could have been a really nice base shape. Kinda-sorta looks like a big heavy ST165 Celica coupe (and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I think the 180SX is dreadfully bland. It's not bad looking. But it has no excitement to it at all. It's just a liftback coupe thing with no interest in its lines, and bad graphical elements (ie wide expanses of taillight plastic on the rear garnish). The S13 Silvia is a little better - getting closer to R32 shapes. But still....bland. S14? Nope. Don't love it. S15...a little better. Probably a lot better, actually. Benefits from not being like a shrunk in the wash R34 (where the S13 was a shrunk in the wash R32 and the S14 looked like a Pulsar or something else from the stable on Nissan mid 90s horrors). The Z32 was hot as f**k when it came out but hasn't aged as well as the A80. Keep in mind that I think the R33 is the most disgusting looking thing - and out of all the previous cars mentioned is objectively closest to my precious R32. It's just....real bad, almost everywhere you look. And that is down to the majority of what was designed in the 90s being shit. All Nissans from that era look like shit. Most other brands ditto. In that context, the FD absolutely stands out as being by far the best looking car, for reasons already discussed. Going behind the aesthetics, the suspension alone makes it better than almost any other car.  
    • If they just called it the "Mazda Tiffany", it would have been spot on.
    • Yup but for me its the HR ! Cut my teeth on the old holden 6s in the day ! And here's me thinking in the day it was also the 300ZX and the Mitsubishi GT3000 ! All, as well had good lines, but always seemed to need finishing off, style wise.
×
×
  • Create New...