E16S/Pulsar NX track times

fastpakr · Jun 20th, 2003, 11:15 PM

Went to the local 1/8 track tonight with a few friends - my first time, so the reaction times were horrible. Anyway, my best trap speed was 54.61, best ET was 12.476 but that was with a 1.262 reaction. If I substituted my best reaction the ET would come down to around 11.9, which really isn't that bad. Using some calculators I found on various webpages, that estimates to:

1/4 mile time: 18.42 seconds. @ 73.453
Equals 70.43 HP at the wheels
91.56 HP at the flywheel.

I entered 2227 for weight - I've never seen an official weight for the Pulsar, but I guessed 1950, added 42lb's for fuel and 235lb's for me... The flywheel hp estimate seem's seriously optimistic - there's no way you're losing 30% in a FWD 5 speed. However, a 70hp wheel estimate sounds pretty good for a car rated at 69hp at the flywheel from the factory and now with 182K miles on it.

Jun 25th, 2003, 02:25 PM

I just wanted to state that reaction time doesn't work that way. Your first time at the track it's a little confusing but you cannot take that extra delay in reaction off your ET, the ET time doesn't start till after the reaction time. That's going to throw all your calculations off, sorry.

fastpakr · Jun 25th, 2003, 02:30 PM

I assure you that they were not subtracting the reaction time from ET. That may be the case at higher level tracks, but here's why I'm sure it didn't work that way: The first run I made, I wasn't on the line properly. The person on the line signaled me to move back slightly, and I wasn't watching the lights. I was still moving around when the light went green, and there was a delay of a couple of seconds before I actually took off. That run was comfortably over 14 seconds with no significant difference in launch, shifting, etc. - nearly 2 seconds longer. If the reaction time had been sucked out of ET, it would have been very close to the 12.4 run.

Jun 25th, 2003, 02:49 PM

I see. Did you get better by the end of the day. I remember my first day at the track, people waiting a few extra minutes for me to stage

If a vehicle runs consistantly it will have similiar ETs reguardless of reaction time. For instance I could do my usual run in my van by rolling up to the lights, punching it when the light turned green, get a 9.95 ET with a .55 reaction. Then I could run again but the next time just sit there when the light turned green. After a few seconds after the light turned green I punch it so that I end up having a 4.0 reaction and I would still have a 9.95 ET. The reaction time starts when the light turns green and ends when your tires leave the light beams. The ET starts when your tires leave the light beams. In other words the ET starts the precise instant that the reaction ends. Hope this makes sense to you. Hope you hit the track some more and good luck.

fastpakr · Jun 25th, 2003, 03:14 PM

Yes, what you're saying makes perfect sense (and matches what I had expected to see). I don't see how it can be the case with the times I was seeing though. Any ideas?

Jun 25th, 2003, 03:23 PM

Probably just inconsistancies in runs. I noticed when i first started out that I had better ETs when I had better reactions, but quickly realized that it was just becuase that was when i did better all around.

fastpakr · Jun 25th, 2003, 03:27 PM

I could understand that if it were a couple of tenths, but we're talking about two full seconds. No way that's just an inconsistency. The launch was good, no problems shifting, etc... The second run where I missed third gear completely was under 13 seconds.