I've been lurking for a while and thought I'd sign up and say hello.

I'm from Indianapolis, and am 2nd on the list at one of our largest dealers to get a Volt. No idea when that will actually be.

By day I'm an attorney for the company that runs the electricity transmission grid for the central United States. That makes me intimately familiar with the macro issues of the electrification of daily driving in the U.S.

On the other hand, I am a drag racer in the NHRA.
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k290/jmattharnish/Launch2.jpg
I run as quick as 8.0 seconds at 171 mph, burning 2.5 gallons of methanol in the process. (about 2/10ths a mile per gallon including driving back to the pits).

My work commute is 30 miles each way, but my company is installing chargers. I hope to drive to work, charge, drive home, charge, and do it all over again - potentially making a 60 mile daily commute without ever using gasoline.

My motivation has 0% to do with the environment and 100% to do with my aversion to dependence on foreign oil.

Just thought I'd say hello!!

How could someone feel zero responsibility for the environment (golden rule - respect yourself, others, environment)?

Anyway, no matter the reason, the more EVs we have on our roads the better. Pick one of the many reasons and enjoy your Volt!

For the weekend drag racer I can imagine the low "fuel" cost for a run using an EV would be hard to ignore compared to that expensive methanol. The main thing to get over is the lack of roar.

How could someone feel zero responsibility for the environment (golden rule - respect yourself, others, environment)?

Anyway, no matter the reason, the more EVs we have on our roads the better. Pick one of the many reasons and enjoy your Volt!

For the weekend drag racer I can imagine the low "fuel" cost for a run using an EV would be hard to ignore compared to that expensive methanol. The main thing to get over is the lack of roar.

I didn't say anything about responsibility for the environment. That's just not my motivation for getting a PEV.

And I'll still be racing with my 588 c.i. alcohol engine. Nothing beats 0-60 in 1.1 seconds. :cool:

And I'll still be racing with my 588 c.i. alcohol engine. Nothing beats 0-60 in 1.1 seconds. :cool:


Not yet! I expect EVs to surpass short distance records this decade. All it will take is the next generation battery and those ICE records are doomed. You can't beat 100% torque at 0 rpm, not to mention full servo control throughout the run. Once those batteries get a higher energy density it's all over.

However, long distance records will still be safe for a while. Gasoline still has an energy density more than 40 times that of the best batteries. Liquid fuels are still king of the hill.

Not yet! I expect EVs to surpass short distance records this decade. All it will take is the next generation battery and those ICE records are doomed. You can't beat 100% torque at 0 rpm, not to mention full servo control throughout the run. Once those batteries get a higher energy density it's all over.

However, long distance records will still be safe for a while. Gasoline still has an energy density more than 40 times that of the best batteries. Liquid fuels are still king of the hill.

Perhaps compared to street cars that's possible. But at the higher levels of racing we already have most of the advantages you mention:

1) We launch at 100% torque, and operate in a narrow band for the entire pass. For me that's 6500 rpm launch and 7500 rpm shift.
2) We have ignition control throughout the run and can finely tune power output to track conditions.
3) It's all about power to weight ratio, and I'm not sure batteries can get there for a long time, if ever. My ratio is 2.5 pounds per horsepower. (2500 pounds 1000 hp). The fastest Top Fuel Dragsters are around 4 ounces per horsepower. I just don't see batteries light enough to build a 2,000 pound, 8,000 hp vehicle in the next 10 years.

But who knows the future, right. :confused:

I guess I'm not the 'typical' Volt fan either. I drive a Magnum R/T HEMI. (0-60 in a s-l-o-w 6.1sec).

I'm interested in Volt because of the instant torque available at zero RPMs. I'd like to see a more performance (SS?) version that can utilize all available torque (motors plus engine) if needed, but, can be an economy car for normal commutes.

The fastest Top Fuel Dragsters are around 4 ounces per horsepower.


Yeah, that is crazy powerful.

I'm still hopeful because you must rev up the engine before take-off and that not only burns a lot of fuel but causes the tires to spin more than what might be ideal for maximum grip.

I am also hopeful for a super fast EV dragster because there is no need for a transmission (or shift time) and the motors could be attached almost directly to the wheels (the wheels provide the suspension) and therefore the chassis could be lighter and the weight of the batteries could be placed just where the weight is needed for perfect balance.

Additionally, I'm hopeful due to nanotechnology breakthroughs in both capacitor research as well as using silicon for the electrodes. There is a theoretical possibility to get well over 10 times what is currently the best energy density ever recorded as well as almost instantaneous charge and discharge.

Since the electric motor does not need to rev up prior to the launch and can thus conserve every kWh of energy while also delivering the exact wheel spin needed for maximum grip, etc. I think the records will fall, if the capacitor or battery is ready, even if it can only last 10 recharge cycles (physical strain due to the silicon expansion).

Finally, the control over the power will be much finer than a ICE can handle because of the mass and momentum of the numerous ICE components coupled to the fuel / air control of the system. A servo controller can make minute adjustments far faster than any ICE could physically handle.

Realistically, it will take a long development time to get the race quality components all integrated into a vehicle. Perhaps just a few ICE records will fall in the beginning. This should spur the investment in the expensive and lightweight motors, chassis, battery packs, wires, servo controllers, etc. that would be needed to reach such amazing power-to-weight ratios.

Well - Top Fuel Dragsters don't use transmissions either. It's all done just like an electric motor would be. The adjustments are made with a clutch. So many of the problems you suggest with the ICE simply don't exist. Including - the only suspension on a Top Fuel Dragster is the chassis itself, along with the tires.

But I don't dispute that drag racing and improving dragstrip performance of electric vehicles won't be highly challenging and entertaining. Check out this link to what purports to be the current record quickest street legal electric vehicle: http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/history/2010.php
In dragracing we now have 16v Lithium batteries that weigh less than 10 pounds each. Of course they cost $2000 each as well. But imagine the possibilities...

Also - check this link for all the current electric vehicle 1/4 mile records: http://www.nedra.com/record_holders.html

The quickest dragster is currently 7.956 seconds @ 159.85 mph. It's all pretty cool if you ask me.

My motivation has 0% to do with the environment and 100% to do with my aversion to dependence on foreign oil.


Plug-ins represent a pretty good value proposition for employer too.

Right On J. Matt! I took delivery of my Volt last week (No. 172). You are not so atypical as you think. My Volt may replace my Cadillac STS-V which takes 4.5 seconds to get to 60. As far as garage space goes, the Volt is going to displace either my 64 Chevelle with a 502 or my 69 Camaro with a 350. We will see. And my Prius driving law partners are green with envy.

Well - Top Fuel Dragsters don't use transmissions either. It's all done just like an electric motor would be. The adjustments are made with a clutch. So many of the problems you suggest with the ICE simply don't exist. Including - the only suspension on a Top Fuel Dragster is the chassis itself, along with the tires.

Well, a clutch and a 90 degree gear-set is considered a transmission. Also, how many moving parts are we talking about on a dragster? Include pistons, crankshaft, valves, connecting rods, clutches, gears, bearings, etc. Now compare that to the EV. The EV has one moving part - the shaft where the wheels bolt on (OK, and the bearings). I think we can agree that it would be more than a 90 percent reduction in moving parts.

OK, now I want to build a killer EV dragster. Where are those billionaire investors when you need one? ;)

Right On J. Matt! I took delivery of my Volt last week (No. 172). You are not so atypical as you think. My Volt may replace my Cadillac STS-V which takes 4.5 seconds to get to 60. As far as garage space goes, the Volt is going to displace either my 64 Chevelle with a 502 or my 69 Camaro with a 350. We will see. And my Prius driving law partners are green with envy.
VERY nice! My Volt won't replace anything. My current daily driver is a 2008 Corvette most of the year (20 mpg) which will turn into a weekend driver and "date car" for the wife and me. My Winter driver is a Chevy Avalanche (14 mpg) which will get more utilitarian work and less overall mileage.

As gas prices surge, between charging at home and again at work, I can almost save as much on gas each month as the entire lease payment on a Volt.

I think we can agree that it would be more than a 90 percent reduction in moving parts.

OK, now I want to build a killer EV dragster. Where are those billionaire investors when you need one? ;)

I don't understand the relevance of moving parts? :confused:

And there's been some attempts at electric dragsters - did you check out those links I posted? Pretty cool stuff.

Hello: Cool post! Domestic alcohol, I'll bet! Just got my Volt, love that it runs essentially totally on domestic electric power!

Does your company mix electricity from wind turbines into the grid? There's over 30 GW of installed wind power in the US and at 30% capacity factor, that's about 10 GW average power delivered to the national grid 24/7. Please comment on your company's involvement with wind energy.

M

Hello: Cool post! Domestic alcohol, I'll bet! Just got my Volt, love that it runs essentially totally on domestic electric power!

Does your company mix electricity from wind turbines into the grid? There's over 30 GW of installed wind power in the US and at 30% capacity factor, that's about 10 GW average power delivered to the national grid 24/7. Please comment on your company's involvement with wind energy.

M8.7 GW in our territory now. 51.5 GW in the planning queue.

I am not the typical Volt buyer either. I am a conservative and drove fuel dragsters for a living in the 60s. I am sure that the Volt's go power won't impress me. I really like the idea of using less gasoline acquired from those folks that hate us. I would love to send them back to their tents in the desert. I guess I would be considered a gearhead.

I don't understand the relevance of moving parts? :confused:

And there's been some attempts at electric dragsters - did you check out those links I posted? Pretty cool stuff.

The more moving parts you have, the more friction, momentum, chance of failure, reduction in the ease of balancing, etc. The more friction, the lower the efficiency of that burning alcohol to deliver energy to the wheels. The number a parts in a rotating machine is a huge deal.

Also, the maximum RPM for one of those ICE monsters with those hundreds of parts flopping around is multiple times less than what a well balanced electric motor can accomplish. This might be very important in the final design of the Killadragster.

Oh, I didn't say I wanted to make A fun electric dragster but THE electric dragster. The killer dragster that makes the current fuel-powered guys bow their heads and cry. Big difference. ;)

The more moving parts you have, the more friction, momentum, chance of failure, reduction in the ease of balancing, etc. The more friction, the lower the efficiency of that burning alcohol to deliver energy to the wheels. The number a parts in a rotating machine is a huge deal.No - not really. Not when 8,000 HP is the measured HP at the crank. That already takes into account all the losses you mention.


Also, the maximum RPM for one of those ICE monsters with those hundreds of parts flopping around is multiple times less than what a well balanced electric motor can accomplish. This might be very important in the final design of the Killadragster.Why would you want to spin an electric motor faster than 12,000 rpm, only to have to add the transmission you said wasn't necessary?


Oh, I didn't say I wanted to make A fun electric dragster but THE electric dragster. The killer dragster that makes the current fuel-powered guys bow their heads and cry. Big difference. ;)Well - best of luck to you. I think the physics is impossible. But It'll be interesting to see what people can do. Cheers!!! :)

Here's a video of a 1.8 Mw motor starting up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReHFrI0EClA

You need to fit a 6 Mw motor into your dragster, along with enough batteries to power it for 4 seconds.....

No - not really. Not when 8,000 HP is the measured HP at the crank. That already takes into account all the losses you mention.

Yes, really! You may still get the HP but you must carry that extra energy. The laws of thermodymamics requires it. The less efficient, the more energy needed. Now, I know that liquid fuel is amazing. It is not called black gold for nothing. That is why Peak Oil is going to kick us in the teeth like it was delivered with steel-tipped boots.


Why would you want to spin an electric motor faster than 12,000 rpm, only to have to add the transmission you said wasn't necessary?

That is why I said it MAY be important in the final design. If having a smaller motor that spins at 100,000 rpm makes sense (including the required transmission) then it is nice to know an electric motor can be built for such speeds.


Well - best of luck to you. I think the physics is impossible. But It'll be interesting to see what people can do. Cheers!!! :)

Well, I don't expect a billionaire to send me a private messages ready to cough up the needed funds but thanks. Why do you think the physics are impossible? All is needed is a battery with enough energy density. The physics are not only possible but just a matter of design time and money (excluding the battery technology breakthrough - even though the energy density needed is theoretically possible)


Here's a video of a 1.8 Mw motor starting up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReHFrI0EClAYou need to fit a 6 Mw motor into your dragster, along with enough batteries to power it for 4 seconds.....

Ha! That's like showing us a picture of a 1,200 hp diesel locomotive engine starting up (OK, here you go) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNR8dYzeCkc and claiming that is why you cannot have a diesel powered dragster. Thanks for the laugh on that!

I think everyone here can agree that the last thing engineers where considering when they designed the electric motor in your video was weight! Lol. That motor can run for millions of equivalent miles, be stripped in an hour and rebuilt to run for millions more. It is built like a brick $%^&house for long-term industrial use. Again, thanks for the laugh.

Don't forget that you don't even need much heat sinking because the run is so short. Finally, I'm not sure if people know the difference between nameplate rating and max rating. That motor can generate multiple times more power than than its nameplate ranking for short durations before burning itself out.

The Killadragster would probably have such a design. The motor would be made of very lightweight materials and just enough casing to support the axle and rest of the body. In fact, the motor would be part of the chassis and other parts would be bolted on to it. It might even end up an open frame design that could not be used in a factory environment. Think about it, the motor only needs to last a few seconds, just enough time to break the record.

However, the only concern I have is the energy storage device. The rest is easy, just money and design time. It would be easy to develop a motor so powerful as to rip the outer rubber off the tires with ease. I don't think people realize just how powerful electric motors can be.

Don't worry, this debate will be settled this decade, if the batteries are invented. Engineers start to drool the second a new energy storage system is developed. Look how fast practical EVs were developed once safe lithium-ion batteries were shown. GM engineers couldn't even wait to have fully tested battery technology. They designed the Volt and the battery pack at the same time. Risky but a beautiful result with a huge lead over their competition.

Well - I'll have to bet against you. But goodluck trying! I wonder where you'll get your downforce from at the starting line?

Well - I'll have to bet against you. But goodluck trying! I wonder where you'll get your downforce from at the starting line?


Ah, if you are referring to that downward force from the exhaust, that is not going to make much difference when it takes less than 1 second to reach 60 mph. The inverted wings produce several thousand pounds force, many times what the exhaust ports can produce. The downward force builds exponentially with speed and the weight of the vehicle will be enough to get it moving like it was shot out of a gun.

An almost perfect torque curve will be able to be delivered with a servo controlled electric motor where the only real performance limit being determined by how much juice the storage device can hold. This fine control should more than make up for that blast of wasted energy being ejected from the old-school fire breathing dragster.

An ICE dragster uses almost 3 gallons of racing fuel per run (including the staging, burnout, warm-up, etc.) and that costs about 60 bucks or more! How much for the EV run? Probably a few bucks at most.

I can imagine the Killadragster now. It would have a full suite of sensors including gyroscopes, accelerometers, speed gauges, drive wheel spin, tire temperature, downward force due to the variable pitch wings (oh, yes, a must for this computer driven monster - full fly-by-wire control system). I could even be a bastard by using light sensors to read the tree, but that would be cheating and not needed. I'm also thinking of a rudder system to keep it going down nice and straight, at least during initial design and testing when the driver will be replaced by an equivalent weight of rice or something (rice man). The computer would be used to control the every aspect of the run to ensure the best times.

Imagine controlling the race parameters towards the end of the run where the Killadragster is just about flying to reduce the drag from the control surfaces. Have just enough downward force to produce the needed tire grip yet not too much so as to increase the amount of drag. A perfect balance of forces controlled by a tiny supercomputer, just like our modern fighter jets.

NHRA does not allow any computer controlling. The onboard stuff on a modern fuel dragster is only for gathering data. They look at all that data to make adjustments for the next run. So, if someone did build an electric dragster it would have to be without computer controls. To make these kinds of comparisons you have to use a level playing field. I think the fuel burner would win hands down.

NHRA does not allow any computer controlling. The onboard stuff on a modern fuel dragster is only for gathering data. They look at all that data to make adjustments for the next run. So, if someone did build an electric dragster it would have to be without computer controls. To make these kinds of comparisons you have to use a level playing field. I think the fuel burner would win hands down.


Sounds reasonable. The controls would be used to fine tune the run for minimal times and then will be used to train the human control (hey, it's not only still a computer but the world's most advanced model).

Again, the only factor is if those super researchers come up with an energy storage device that can hold enough charge for a five second run while still being light enough. If it only has a cycle life of 20 or so runs then so what, at least the records will fall.

And fall they will! ;)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you really don't seem to understand the physics involved in moving a vehicle from 0-330 in 3.9 seconds. Even at 200 mph they can't maintain traction without the downforce added from the exhaust. Teams have multiple sets of exhaust set up with multiple different angles of exit in order to tune to track conditions. Your idea won't produce enough downforce in the first 100 feet to even keep the tires on the ground. And you keep mentioning 100% torque right away. So what. We all operate at 100% torque from the instant of launch. And fuel price? Not even relevant. It probably costs $10,000 to make a pass in a Top Fuel Dragster today. Fuel is about $800 - $1,000 of that.

But again - your enthusiasm is admirable. So keep dreaming!

The "unlimited torque" thing is more of a detriment than a benefit. At the initial launch, (zero speed), the only thing producing downforce on a fuel dragster is the exhaust. They do cut the ignition lead in half during the first 2 or 3 seconds to settle the car down. The electric version won't have either of those advantages. Once we have some good speed the wing and downforce generators take over. Hey, if you need an experienced driver, let me know.

^^ clearly knows what he's talking about!

At the initial launch, (zero speed), the only thing producing downforce on a fuel dragster is the exhaust.


Even at 200 mph they can't maintain traction without the downforce added from the exhaust.

JMATT and maynard, sorry guys, and thank you for that condescending remark about me not knowing the physics, but the above two statements are wrong. Let me use physics to prove it.

1) At launch, due to the massive torque, the front wheels are lifted off the ground (or most of the weight is taken off) and thus the entire weight of the dragster is transferred to the rear wheels.

2) The downward force from the wings at full speed can be set to exceed 8,000 lbs, many multiple times what the exhaust generates. After all, the exhaust is not a designed rocket but simply waste heat and the burning of fuel that was not burned in the cylinders. If you put on pipes to divert the exhaust to the sides, I bet the speeds would not be that much less (after wing adjustment and driver training). How much force do you think those pipes generate by the way? It is tiny compared to what the wings can generate. In fact, the only thing that prevents the tires from flattening out at full speed is the centripetal force from the spinning tires.

Come on techno billionaires, don't take that flap from a few grease monkeys, send me a private message and let's get the Killadragster funded! :) Oh, the look on their faces and the leak in their pants when this baby takes off will be priceless.

JMATT and maynard, sorry guys, and thank you for that condescending remark about me not knowing the physics, but the above two statements are wrong. Let me use physics to prove it.

1) At launch, due to the massive torque, the front wheels are lifted off the ground (or most of the weight is taken off) and thus the entire weight of the dragster is transferred to the rear wheels.

2) The downward force from the wings at full speed can be set to exceed 8,000 lbs, many multiple times what the exhaust generates. After all, the exhaust is not a designed rocket but simply waste heat and the burning of fuel that was not burned in the cylinders. If you put on pipes to divert the exhaust to the sides, I bet the speeds would not be that much less (after wing adjustment and driver training). How much force do you think those pipes generate by the way? It is tiny compared to what the wings can generate. In fact, the only thing that prevents the tires from flattening out at full speed is the centripetal force from the spinning tires.

Come on techno billionaires, don't take that flap from a few grease monkeys, send me a private message and let's get the Killadragster funded! :) Oh, the look on their faces and the leak in their pants when this baby takes off will be priceless.

Wow. :) Just stop. Please. LOL. 100% of a Top Fuel dragster's weight at launch (front wheels off the ground) is not enough to keep the tires from spinning. At launch you hit 3.9 G's forward. Tires cannot do that. Once wing downforce comes into play, the clutch starts locking up more and g's increase to about 4.3 G's. 0-60 mph is roughly 0.57 seconds. (data pulled from data logged on my computer)

I'm going out on a limb here: You've never been down a dragstrip in any vehicle at any speed, have you? And no - you clearly do not grasp the physics involved. Sorry. Next thing you'll be arguing a really light battery and a powerful electric motor can launch a vehicle to the moon....

But the ideas are certainly entertaining. Props to you for that!

100% of a Top Fuel dragster's weight at launch (front wheels off the ground) is not enough to keep the tires from spinning. At launch you hit 3.9 G's forward. Tires cannot do that. Once wing downforce comes into play, the clutch starts locking up more and g's increase to about 4.3 G's. 0-60 mph is roughly 0.57 seconds. (data pulled from data logged on my computer)

I'm going out on a limb here: You've never been down a dragstrip in any vehicle at any speed, have you? And no - you clearly do not grasp the physics involved. Sorry. Next thing you'll be arguing a really light battery and a powerful electric motor can launch a vehicle to the moon....

But the ideas are certainly entertaining. Props to you for that!


You two were wrong about the physics before, what makes you believe you are right now? Even after YOU were proven wrong you again say I don't understand the physics. Are you a Republican?! That is just plain illogical. ;)

We have now come to the point where you feel that with an endlessly powerful electric motor and and extremely energy dense energy storage source that it is impossible to break today's top fuel record due to the fact there are is no downward forces from the electric motor at launch? Am I getting that right?

Here are a few assumptions to narrow and define our debate. I will attempt to eventually dispel this false belief so you can finally accept reality, and it will all be based on physics. In a few posts, you will be forced to accept that the downward force from the ICE is not the limiting factor to beat the current Top-Fuel dragster record. It is delivering the proper torque curve throughout the run to achieve the acceleration curve needed to get the mass of the vehicle across the finish line in less time than the current record. Can this be done without the downward force produced by the ICE's exhaust that is currently set at around 68 degrees to produce maximum acceleration? Can the tires and wings alone produce this needed grip over the entire run assuming an ideal electric motor and energy storage device? I say yes.

If we can prove, based on currently known data about the frictional forces generated throughout a given run, then you must accept that your current statement is wrong.

We will then be left with the original argument that to beat the current top-fuel dragster record simply requires a new technology energy storage device developed this decade. Again, that is what I feel is the only thing in question, not the limits of physics. Get me that battery and the record will fall.

Thank you for that analogy using a powerful electric motor and a really light battery for getting into space. This constrains the debate to simply the frictional forces that can be generated by the tires. Let's get started:


Assumptions:
Tires used: Goodyear D2550 (http://www.jegs.com/i/GoodYear/478/D2550/10002/-1?parentProductId=)
Downward force on tires at launch: weight of vehicle (not using the force due to ICE exhaust)
Downward force on tires at finish: 8,000 lbs (due to inverted airfoil)


If we can all agree on this and the above statements, we can continue.

Welcome to the Forums, JMatt. You'll get used to Texas eventually -- isn't it amazing what you can get used to??

Hear hear. Thanks JMatt for an interesting thread! Just ignore Texas.

I ran an errand in my old 2.8L V6 Audi yesterday and it definitely had way more punch. The Volt's performance at the line is just barely "good enough" for me to live with for the 3 year lease period. Then I'm getting back into something higher powered ...

We will then be left with the original argument that to beat the current top-fuel dragster record simply requires a new technology energy storage device developed this decade. Again, that is what I feel is the only thing in question, not the limits of physics. Get me that battery and the record will fall.

Assumptions:
Tires used: Goodyear D2550 (http://www.jegs.com/i/GoodYear/478/D2550/10002/-1?parentProductId=)
Downward force on tires at launch: weight of vehicle (not using the force due to ICE exhaust)
Downward force on tires at finish: 8,000 lbs (due to inverted airfoil)


If we can all agree on this and the above statements, we can continue.
2 of your 3 assumptions are already wrong. You have no clue what you are talking about. A Top Fuel Dragster's pass is already traction limited for virtually the entire run. You propose to provide more power and less downforce. If power was the limiting factor, then we could begin the debate on your magic battery that can use a chemical reaction to produce more power than exploding nitromethane. Step 2, while hilarious - is something we cannot even get to because your step pne premise is so wrong.

Welcome to the Forums, JMatt. You'll get used to Texas eventually -- isn't it amazing what you can get used to??Is he always this way?


Hear hear. Thanks JMatt for an interesting thread! Just ignore Texas.

I ran an errand in my old 2.8L V6 Audi yesterday and it definitely had way more punch. The Volt's performance at the line is just barely "good enough" for me to live with for the 3 year lease period. Then I'm getting back into something higher powered ...
LOL. Should I let him keep up with the debate? Or just move on and ignore him? If this is entertaining the rest of you I can keep him on the line. Otherwise, I'll ditch the thread.

Thanks all!

2 of your 3 assumptions are already wrong. You have no clue what you are talking about. A Top Fuel Dragster's pass is already traction limited for virtually the entire run. You propose to provide more power and less downforce. If power was the limiting factor, then we could begin the debate on your magic battery that can use a chemical reaction to produce more power than exploding nitromethane. Step 2, while hilarious - is something we cannot even get to because your step pne premise is so wrong.

OK, great. I guess that is kind of an agreement that what we are dealing with in this debate is just the traction and not the power.

Just for reference I turn to the work already done by Professor Richard A. Tapia. His following presentation intitled:
Math at Top Speed: Exploring and Breaking Myths in the Drag Racing Folklore

Here is a bit about him:

"With Richard Tapia, University Professor Maxfield-Oshman Professor in Engineering, Department of Computational and Applied Mathematics (CAAM), Rice University November 4, 2010; 7:00pm to 9:00pm @ COSI

For most of his life, Richard Tapia has been involved in some aspect of drag racing. He has witnessed the birth and growth of many myths concerning dragster speed and acceleration. Some of these myths will be explained and validated in this talk, while others will be destroyed. For example, Dr. Tapia will explain why dragster acceleration can be greater than the acceleration due to gravity, an age-old inconsistency, and he will present his Fundamental Theorem of Drag Racing. Part of this talk will be a historical account of the development of drag racing and several lively videos will accompany this discussion. "


You can get the html link here or use Google to download the PowerPoint presentation (much better with needed graphs)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9T5nsKtMNJ4J:www.caam.rice.edu/~rat/presentations/Tapia_Top_Speed/tapia_speed.ppt%3FMODE%3DVIEW%26ID%3D12870+Math+at +Top+Speed:+Exploring+and+Breaking+Myths+in+the+Dr ag+Racing+Folklore&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=th

At least before everyone just gives up and assumes they are right, don't you think checking out the Professor's work would be worth the five minutes? He states that 7g of of acceleration can be generated at the start and does not even mention the downward force from the exhaust. Additionally, he goes through the history where people thought that 1g could never be passed and thus when the first dragster passed that point they thought the clock was broken! lol.

After we are all up to speed, to use the pun, I will then move to the "dip" part of the curve. This is when the wheels stop spinning and another opportunity for acceleration occurs. The speed is now great enough where the wing force is THE greatest force and the exhaust is but a tiny addition. It is here where the extra power from the super battery will do its work of lowering the overall time.

Like the Professor says, you have to spin to win and times are just going to keep going down. He, unlike our poster here, feels that the limits have not yet been reached. I, of course, agree with him.

Oh, who said my super battery had to be chemical? I didn't. what about a nanotube based ultracapacitor? Also, how efficient do you think that burning nitro is in that ICE? You are blowing off tons of it in the exhaust! A ICE is about 40% efficient at delivering power to it's output shaft.

Thus, it already appears my argument has been won. Simply by reasoning that when more powerful nitro engines, lightweight frames, better aerodynamics, etc. come out, the current records will fall, as the Professor says. Thus, it is not just the friction but the proper delivery of power that will do the job. This is logical.

The poster says it is only the traction and thus the current record will not be able to be broken. If a much more powerful and lighter engine was installed the times would not go down. That is what he argues. Thus, he is wrong. Physics, again, proves it.

So, maybe you better just ignore the truth. Ignorance is bliss, they say. ;)

Get me the battery and the records will fall.

The speed is now great enough where the wing force is THE greatest force and the exhaust is but a tiny addition. It is here where the extra power from the super battery will do its work of lowering the overall time.

Like the Professor says, you have to spin to win and times are just going to keep going down. He, unlike our poster here, feels that the limits have not yet been reached. I, of course, agree with him.

Oh, who said my super battery had to be chemical? I didn't. what about a nanotube based ultracapacitor? Also, how efficient do you think that burning nitro is in that ICE? You are blowing off tons of it in the exhaust! A ICE is about 40% efficient at delivering power to it's output shaft.
The poster says it is only the traction and thus the current record will not be able to be broken. If a much more powerful and lighter engine was installed the times would not go down. That is what he argues. Thus, he is wrong. Physics, again, proves it.

So, maybe you better just ignore the truth. Ignorance is bliss, they say. ;)

Get me the battery and the records will fall.

A nanotube based ultracapacitor? Able to produce the equivalent of 8000hp? Within 10 years of today?

Holy crap you are out there, aren't you? Why no just use a flux capacitor and call it a day? LMAO.

Every forum has one. I'm just surprised how easy it was to find the one on this forum.

FACT: Today's TopFuel Dragster has a traction-limited launch. Despite any "theory," they currently cut power in order to achieve the launch.

FACT: Wing's produce zero downforce with zero forward motion (starting line)

FACT: Top Fuel Exhaust produces substantial downforce. Some claim over 1,000 pounds, but let's cut that in half and use 500 pounds.

FACT: Top Fuel Dragster weighs 2,500 pounds, and all of that weight is transferred to the rear tires during launch.

FACT: Without the exhaust, you lose 20% of your maximum starting line acceleration, whether it's 3.9 g's (real world datalogger) or a mathematicians 7.0 g theory.

FACT: I'd put $100,000 in escrow against your $100,000 and collect happily on January 1, 2020.

No one will give you the battery, because it cannot be built with a size/weight that would fit in a 2,500 pound dragster. You get about 700 pounds for your batteries and motor combined.

FACT: You'll respond again, with silly statements after continuing your Google quest for information. It's hard to out-google a guy who already has REAL data on his own computer.

Enjoy the quest!!!

I guess what's funniest is you'd argue how you could drive up a one mile hill at 60 mph and drive down the next one mile so fast you'd average over 120 mph.

But with your nanotubes maybe you can do it. What do you think?

LMAO.

FACT: Today's TopFuel Dragster has a traction-limited launch. Despite any "theory," they currently cut power in order to achieve the launch.

OK, try to keep on the topic. Don't get nervous and no need to attack. I noticed you did not comment on any of the Professor's calculations.

We are first trying to keep the debate on one point at a time. It is often hard to do this because when someone feels threatened, they go broad. So, relax, and hang tight. Traction.

You are saying that without the downward force from the exhaust, it is physically impossible, even with a much more powerful nitro motor (assume more hp, same weight, same exhaust force), to beat the current record. Only if the rocket thrust is increased can the record be beaten, regardless of the amount of power added later in the race.

I just want your yes or no on this point. I think that is the main augment of this debate. Again, no need for another attack on my intelligence or persistence. Just a simple yes or no. It is all good, I am calm, as always, and use science over passion.[/QUOTE]

Tex,
Top fuel cars actually do find it neccessary to reduce power to the wheels at launch, as with the massive amounts of torque they produce, there's just no way to keep it connected to the surface. What they use is a multiple plate centrifugally applied clutch that slips significantly at launch and gradually increases in apply force until locks up down-track. The adjustment of this rate this clutch applies is one of the most critical aspects of top fuel track tuning, and is adjusted run to run depending on track conditions and lane choice.
I too think it will be a LONG while before there's anything electric that will be able to compete in the top-fuel arena.
Probably not in MY life-time anyways...
WOT

You are saying that without the downward force from the exhaust, it is physically impossible, even with a much more powerful nitro motor (assume more hp, same weight, same exhaust force), to beat the current record. Only if the rocket thrust is increased can the record be beaten, regardless of the amount of power added later in the race.
Yes.

Let me add some math:

Current Top fuel Dragster typical run:

330' = 2.14 seconds at 203 mph
660' = 3.07 seconds at 271 mph
1000' = 3.85 seconds at 308 mph
(They only race 1,000 feet now due to speeds)

If you reduce downforce 20% in the first 330' the "electric" dragster can go 330' in:

330' = 2.48 seconds at 172 mph

Texas' argument is with HP alone in the magic battery, he can make up the missing .34 seconds and beat the Top Fuel Dragster to the finish.

To do this the electric dragster must go from 330' to 1000' in 1.37 seconds, starting at 172 mph.
Roughly - the electric dragster must cross the finish line going 488 mph, averaging 330 mph over that final 1.37 seconds.
This is roughly 10.4 G's forward acceleration. Far beyond even the professor's estimate.

Even assuming the G-forces can be achieved, the HP required is roughly 60,000 HP.

So yes Texas - if you can build a battery and motor combo weighing less than 1,000 pounds, generating 60,000 HP and achieving in excess of 10 G's acceleration, then your dragster will MATCH a current Top Fuel Dragster.

I guess I'll check back to this thread in 10 years and see how you did.

And now I think I will stop talking to this particular brick wall. And of course, being a brick wall, he will assume he's "won."

Oh look - Texas is typing a response! I can hardly wait!!!

Originally Posted by Texas
You are saying that without the downward force from the exhaust, it is physically impossible, even with a much more powerful nitro motor (assume more hp, same weight, same exhaust force), to beat the current record. Only if the rocket thrust is increased can the record be beaten, regardless of the amount of power added later in the race.



Yes.... (JMatt precents his calculations above)

So yes Texas - if you can build a battery and motor combo weighing less than 1,000 pounds, generating 60,000 HP and achieving in excess of 10 G's acceleration, then your dragster will MATCH a current Top Fuel Dragster.

LoL! Great job at saying both yes and no in just one post! ;) You answered that "Yes" it is impossible and that "Yes", if I find a powerful enough battery then I can match the current record. So, which is it? LoL.

I guess you also did not admit that the record could be broken, only matched. So, I'll take that as physically impossible.

Of course, if you cared to even look at the Professor's acceleration curves for a modern dragster you would see that the 7g force was only generated at launch and goes down to almost zero by the end of the race (accept for the blip or hump near the beginning when the wheels finally stop spinning. Of course you should realize that in less than one second the dragster is going more than 100 mph and that the downward force from the wing is now much greater than the engine exhaust thrust. By the end of the race over 8,000 lbs of force is generated by those wings. You think it is easy to spin those wheels then? lol.

Of course, if you use the math formulas and acceleration curves from real runs (provided by the Professor) you can simply conclude that it is only a matter of applied power. Thus, thank you for that debate win. Nice try at using that 10 g force to discount the Professor. I enjoyed the attempt.

Now, I would like to make one final comment on just what is this racing aberration we call Top-Fuel Dragsters?

It is not the pure kind of racing like back in the day (check out the Professors presentation for just how many different kinds of vehicles were tried in the attempt to be the fastest).

Today's current system is simply an entertainment for people to hear loud things and see fast and cool vehicles launch down the road.

The actual goal is no longer the reason for the race. Only to make money and to entertain. The current dragsters have to use a given set of tires, given engine size, 90 percent nitro-methane with 10 percent methanol, given chassis and materials, same driver layout (for safety), given wing sizes, etc. All the dragsters are about the same size and configuration. So, you might as well put two similar golf carts on the track and see who is the better driver. Technically, that is what we have.

You see, science has surpassed what use to be impossible with our limited knowledge. Just as in a modern fighter jet, it is the human that is the weakest link. We are now building unmanned fighter jets that will be able to out dogfight any manned aircraft because the human cannot stand much more than 10 g force or so before passing out.

The same can be said for the dragster. To add insult to injury, the modern dragster is actually a hybrid vehicle. As our poster tried to passionately argue that without the artificial exhaust forces, the vehicle will not get those quick times. Thus, I feel that is cheating in every sense of the word. If the goal was to make the fasted wheel-powered vehicle then the Top-fuel dragster is not what we are talking about.

That is why a new race, that is just wheel powered, should be started. People are free to use anything they can, as long as only the wheels are powered to get down to the finish line the quickest. That could be very interesting and would open things up like back in the day.

Finally, I propose my Killadragster hybrid model H1 to take on the Top-Fuel dragsters. Hey, if they get a rocket blast to increase their downward force at launch, so can I! It's only fair, unless they are afraid of getting beat.

I would put a small solid rocket boster on my chassis, pointed down at approximately 68 degrees that would burn for about .5 seconds at the start to generate that 800 - 1000 lbs "cheaters force". Then, the wings take over and the EV motor will crush that weak ICE. lol.

Now, that we all understand the Top-Fuel dragster is a hybrid, we now know that the race is just for fun. If the engineering goal was to get a human down the track at the minimum amount of time then why waste time with that silly engine exhaust?

Our modern technology can easily make the driver the weakest link and generate so much g force that it would damage or at least cause the human to pass out. Better put in that automatic control system!

All that is needed, now that wheel power alone is off the table is to take a solid rocket, bolt on 4 sturdy wheels and a pod for the pilot. The rocket fuel would have to be properly weakened so as not to subject the driver to more than 10 g for too long. Tests on what a human can take are well known by aircraft design companies so that should not be a problem. This vehicle should be able to beat the current times by many seconds and would be an amazing thrill, not just a lot of wasted noise and heat like from that ICE.

Wow! You are as big an idiot as all the PM's I got said you were. I said "yes" you could match a Top Fuel Dragster if you could meet three conditions, each of which is physically impossible. And you declare victory? You're right. You win. You are the dumbest individual I have ever run across on any message board, bar none. You clearly have zero knowledge on racing.

One question for you: What is your quickest time and highest MPH on a sanctioned dragstrip?

Wow! You are as big an idiot as all the PM's I got said you were. You are the dumbest individual I have ever run across on any message board, bar none. You clearly have zero knowledge on racing.

One question for you: What is your quickest time and highest MPH on a sanctioned dragstrip?



heheheh. I hope you don't so easily loose your cool on the track when you are losing. Funny, the winner is never angry. I guess that's the way it always was, always will be.

Just because one has never stood at the top of the Eiffel Tower and dropped an apple doesn't mean they cannot calculate the time it will take to reach the ground.

More importantly, just because a person has dropped an apple from the top doesn't mean they command enough math to calculate that drop time.

You see, man was able to calculate how to reach the moon successfully on the first try, having never been there before. Something you may want to consider the next time you pull out that faulty defense. ;)

No - you are the reason I don't teach special education. I get exasperated when dealing with sheer stupidity. The funny thing is how you fall into the class of people who are so stupid, they have no ability to realize they're stupid. I think that's God's coping method, given to you as a gift, so you don't go through life miserable.

So go on beliveing you "won," believing you're "right," and believing you know anything about physics, racing, or any other topic in this thread. I'm sure you'll have some other witty response. Perhaps a poll is in order: "Is Texas brilliant, or is he an idiot?"

Really guys? C'mon. I know we're a motley mix in here. I don't pretend to know everything about everything, and am always open to hearing another perspective or additional enlightening data. And...my wife actually IS a special ed teacher. I sure as heck couldn't do her job. Imagine wiping drool and @$$es, but on full-grown 18 year-olds.

FWIW, I'm the digital content manager of a group of 11 truck enthusiast sites. As you can imagine, fuel/energy efficiency isn't exactly the first concern of most of our audience.

I've driven the Volt, and it was perky enough for me. I'm coming from a Mazda Protege5, which is hardly a fireball to begin with, and that was a step down from my VW GTI VR6, which was quicker, but nothing close to the cars you guys are talking about.

FWIW, I've already decided my mid-life crisis car is going to be a C6 with an Edelbrock E-Force supercharger on it. But that's a good 5-7 years away yet. Peace. :)

I run as quick as 8.0 seconds at 171 mph, burning 2.5 gallons of methanol in the process. (about 2/10ths a mile per gallon including driving back to the pits).

My work commute is 30 miles each way, but my company is installing chargers. I hope to drive to work, charge, drive home, charge, and do it all over again - potentially making a 60 mile daily commute without ever using gasoline.

My motivation has 0% to do with the environment and 100% to do with my aversion to dependence on foreign oil.

Just thought I'd say hello!!

My ears perked up here.

Big fan of methanol after reading Energy Victory (http://www.energyvictory.net/). Hope you contact your Member of Congress to advocate the Open Fuel Standards Act, which would make FULL flex fuel (including methanol) a standard feature in nearly all new cars sold in America.

I think the environmental benefit is a good bonus and important, but as you say, the key is to break free from oil, since it funds our enemies. The main reason I'm so interested in the Volt is that there's no E85 station near me; I'd love a flex fuel Volt.