1/4 mile, HP and others calculators

[OdessitPashka]

http://www.tciauto.com/Products/Tech...culators.asp#0

[txaggie]

cool link!

[thewilson]

Hey everyone!
The original link died but heres an updated one
http://www.tciauto.com/Products/Tech...culators.asp#0
same awesome calculators

[evan938]

well according to that, with my xd, weighing 2900lbs, and 160 (crank) hp, it says i should be running a 15.19 at 89.08. it has to go by CHP because if i put in 3000lbs and 140hp, it says 16.06 @ 84, which i am 100% sure is incorrect

[jayupark]

Crank HP eh? I guess it does not take into account reaction times. But Crank HP would be quite inaccurate because the parasitic loss is highly variable from car to car (even among the same make and model).

But the calculator seems consistent with Crank HP. (if you compensate for reaction time).

[evan938]

Crank HP eh? I guess it does not take into account reaction times. But Crank HP would be quite inaccurate because the parasitic loss is highly variable from car to car (even among the same make and model).

But the calculator seems consistent with Crank HP. (if you compensate for reaction time).

reaction time has absolutely nothing to do with ET's. the clock does not start until you do. you can sit at the tree for 30 seconds trying to get your rpms exactly where you want them, run your race and still run a 15 sec 1/4.

[jayupark]

cool, thanks for pointing that out. next time use caps though...

[evan938]

its not a yelling situation that needs caps...i bolded it to make sure you saw it clearly

[jayupark]

thanks. At least now I won't look like a complete idiot when I do talk to ppl at the track (if I ever go).

This is one cool tool though.

[thewilson]

Wow such response. So how would you compensate for the innacuracies?

[SWortham]

I might as well add in my calculator for good measure...
http://www.gldomain.com/accelerationcalc/

[xxxmonoxidechil]

the fact that theres no input for gearing, the calculators cant be taken truly seriousely. so dont be let down if it claims alot faster time then you actually run.

[Cypher]

@ 2700lbs with me in the car and assuming 160bhp = 14.83 @ 91.23. which is right because i know if i had gotten out to the track one more time i'd have done better. especially if i went to a better track.

[Estopatitiana]

i dont know how much my car weighs but lets say its on the heavy side at 2900 lbs and a very conservative crank horsepower guess of 180 i do a 14.60 @ 92.65 hmm who knows if its right

[OdessitPashka]

Thanks for pointing out that original link was dead. I updated first post.

Those calculators are for estimates only. They are not 100% accurate.

[johnnyisonhere]

still pretty cool.

now if only i had 2000 hp...

[red7js]

still pretty cool.

now if only i had 2000 hp...

Here goes being really anal about something mode:

Horsepower only tells half the story, peoples.

What about torque?

Seriously, even if you had, like, 9000hp, it ain't going to be worth nothin' unless you have enough torque to be able to feasibly use it. (that's why hondas are made fun of here... sure, there is hp, BUT WHERE'S THE TORQUE?)

Now, the calc needs to take into account tire condition, wind resistance, gearing, torque at the gears, when turbos spool (if you do happen to use turbos), and so many other variables.

I know I'm being an anal about this. But still, pretty cool.

[faraco3]

In a perfect world...