Crazykane Posted February 26, 2013 Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 Last Saturday I ran a 3.87 with my 60' 1.52. Track wasn't great, no timing and really fat. Maybe that is why mine don't add up Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowerThanYou Posted February 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 There was a best 300 ft slip of 3.90 @ 80 mph, with a 1.31 60 ft (If I made that out right). Any pass with a 1.31 60ft at 80 mph should be a 3.7 if not 3.6. The slip doesn't make sense to me, unless it was a waaayy crooked, jacked up pass.. At first I thought it was a beam jump, but the reaction time was not way off. If I have a 1.45 or better 60 ft, and hit 80 mph I'm gonna run a 3.90 or better (on Cub.) I've explained this in another post. This was our 1st time on sand. We had the wrong tires, they were borrowed (12 extremes). We crutched the set-up to make it work. We had problems getting the quad to hook up in 3rd & 4th gear, along with getting it to shift. The slips are in order from left to right. 1st 3 passes ever on 300'. This is a well sorted out asphalt quad. I made the 1st pass & I weigh 210+ lbs. The second pass was my buddy at 185 lbs. The 3rd pass was me again. You are correct on the slip numbers. We have since went to a 14 Ripper & solved the down track problems. We gave up a little 60', but improved everywhere else on the track. I went to a best mph of 80 & my buddy went 82 or 83. Not going to get into a keyboard debate. A few members have seen this quad run & commented here on it. It runs well, but doesn't set any records; yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheelman Chassis Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 on gas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheelman Chassis Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 hahah yet lol love it... lets get a tally of all the guys that have been in the 1.3 anything 60' times on a stock or hybrid frame that weights over 280lbs wet. x1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowerThanYou Posted February 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 on gas? LOL! On race gas, stock frame. I still have a hard time believing it, but it does it on both asphalt, sand & different tracks. I hated to see the combo go, but I have the same basic in reserve to the new motor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowerThanYou Posted February 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 hahah yet lol love it... lets get a tally of all the guys that have been in the 1.3 anything 60' times on a stock or hybrid frame that weights over 280lbs wet. x1 Stop feeding me, try 310 lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowerThanYou Posted February 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 BTW, the heat cycles are done on the DMX. I have to wait until the end of Mar. to race. The 1st race is on asphalt in Las Vegas, NV. my home track. It's an NHRA Divisional race & I have to make 6 license passes before racing. This will be a busy weekend trying to license, tune a new motor & race, The the following week we have our 1st race on 300' sand in Bakersfield, CA. It's going to be busy changing set-ups & tuning the new motor for sand. Not hiding anything on where I race, just like in the past. Bigbucks, justwannarace will be there again like last year. John Tabata said he was going to try & make it. No BS on what the new motor will do good or bad. Hoping to keep it alive & at least be competitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Madd Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 Congrats on those times. You'd run 3.4s with a good chassis and jockey on the tracks I've ran at. I'd Never give up 60 ft times, though. Green? Anybody? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Madd Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 Last Saturday I ran a 3.87 with my 60' 1.52.Track wasn't great, no timing and really fat. Maybe that is why mine don't add upSent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Madd Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 You must have ran 88 mph to get that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazykane Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 No 85 really fat on the big end. Motor has ran 90mph in different chassis. I was on a suspended chassis. Only had .040 on the pvl which is less than stock timing. Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n2otoofast4u Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 Congrats on those times. You'd run 3.4s with a good chassis and jockey on the tracks I've ran at. I'd Never give up 60 ft times, though. Green? Anybody? I dont doubt the times, I believe all 3 slips are from Dome, where I have been 4 or 5 times now and it continually turns out tremendous numbers. Bikes REALLY like that place, and by all rights its one of if not the best surfaced track Ive been to. I think for some its hard to see them making those MPH with a tire that by rights is too big for the motor. BUT they are using their clutch setups to go the opposite way most do. Both ways are effective, but far different in their setups. I am curious as to how their theory and their application transfer over to the bigger motor, where I for one think its harder to use the setups they are doing now on bigger motors but with tire technology of today it very well may be fine. Its been several years now since Ive been around the ricans but I know slowerthanyou is teamed up with them so Im assuming that they will be able to help out with early stage setup with the larger motor. If there is one thing that we will ALL agree on, the bigger the motor, the more work you gotta do to make them go fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowerThanYou Posted March 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Congrats on those times. You'd run 3.4s with a good chassis and jockey on the tracks I've ran at. I'd Never give up 60 ft times, though. Green? Anybody? We are pretty new to the 300' stuff. We took our well sorted out asphalt quad. Then went hill shooting & now we found ourselves 300' racing a few times (5). We have done very well at all 3 tracks we have ran at. I dont doubt the times, I believe all 3 slips are from Dome, where I have been 4 or 5 times now and it continually turns out tremendous numbers. Bikes REALLY like that place, and by all rights its one of if not the best surfaced track Ive been to. I think for some its hard to see them making those MPH with a tire that by rights is too big for the motor. BUT they are using their clutch setups to go the opposite way most do. Both ways are effective, but far different in their setups. I am curious as to how their theory and their application transfer over to the bigger motor, where I for one think its harder to use the setups they are doing now on bigger motors but with tire technology of today it very well may be fine. Its been several years now since Ive been around the ricans but I know slowerthanyou is teamed up with them so Im assuming that they will be able to help out with early stage setup with the larger motor. If there is one thing that we will ALL agree on, the bigger the motor, the more work you gotta do to make them go fast. How many times you going to change your screen name? This is N2O2fast4you, then HoneyBooBoo & now196hptriplechin I think. You are correct, the times are no fluke & have been repeated/improved. As for the tires being to big, that seems to be the consensus. We gave up a little 60', but we make it up down track. We do a few other things that are not supposed to work, according to most. I'm a little curious myself about the new motor clutch set-up. I'm not to worried about our theory in bigger motors. We have used the theory on a 18mm DMX & a 535 cheetah. The DMX put down high 1.1 60's & the 535 low 1.3 60's. I'm good friends with 2 Puerto Ricans. They didn't like my set-up when we went to sand. Noel told me it would make for a great 4.50 quad. He quickly changed his mind on that 1st pass & thereafter. Our new DMX, I'm sure will be more work in different areas than the old motor. I/we think we have a pretty good set-up mapped out for the 1st two outings. Will it work out, heck we don't know. Like I said I'll share some of the information good or bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoulde35 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 you say you do alot of R&D on the clutch setups... is lockout the only wat to go with 300ft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Madd Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 You had 1.1 60fts in sand? Surely that's asphalt. I guess you'll see if the same type of setup works with bigger motor. They're a PITA to me. My Cubs would outrun some of my bigger motors for a while, which is completely aggravating. Aside from clutch and chassis setup, it seems that exhaust duration, pipe, and ignition timing changes are magnified with the bigger motors. We lost upwards of 50 hp on the dyno with a 3 degree change in ignition timing; and lost 20 hp or so with 6 degrees of exhaust timing change. Good luck and keep us posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.