Red star hp numbers vs 1/4 mile Are they accurate? purely scientific point of view.

[Jpierro79]

I’ve been hearing crazy hp numbers from people saying red star is the best.

His 1/4 mile mph speeds are considerably lower that rated hp at the wheel output. Starters we’ve seen stock turbo 370whp cars do 117mph. That’s pretty on par especially using the Rob robinette calculator I’ve used forever. It’s spot on with type r calculating weight to hit 117mph. If you add vehicle weight and hp at wheels or crank it will give you an est et and mph. I’ve always had the mph be 99 percent accurate. Per exapmle I had a mk7 gti tuned on Apr stage 2 gti rated at 308whp and I ran a 12.454 at 111.3moh. The rob robinette calculator comes up with 111mph and car weighed in at low 3300s. A golf r stage 2 will hit 114-115 on stage 2 apr tune now we use crank hp to curb weight it calculates 114 mph. Now a 2019 mustang gt stock does 118 mph. The calculator comes in at 118. I know a late model mustang gt does 420whp on a dynojet.
now let’s go higher hp. A hell cat has 707 crank hp. Using the 4450 curb weight and 707 crank horse power. The calculator comes in at 126.7. The actual mph is 127-128mph In a 1/4 mile. Now let’s go even higher up a new mustang gt500.
4225 lbs and 760 hp at the crank and the calculator come up with 132.057 and real world is 132 mph.
Before you say it’s downforce the type r only generate 66lbs. To go from 145 to 132 would require 1000lbs of downforce or higher.
So if this calculator works between low and high hp cars with proven hp ratings either at the wheel or crank what’s happening to red star tunes?
Think about it. How can Red star motoring be losing so much mph. Do not say cause the type r is a track car cause the only reason in stock form it sucks in 1/4 is a 30 series tire on a 20 with no sidewall. It will still go the sane mph regardless of et if you stay in it. Even in roll racing real hp can be seen. A true 400whp type r outruns a c7 on Highway. Also it’s longer wheel base lends it self to traction for acceleration evennwith fwd. it’s got far better traction than a gti. A 650whp civic type r should be doing 145mph not 132. That’s a non gutted curb weight car. The mph is clearly off. After all a red star car that just made over 450whp in a recent dyno only gained 2 mph over a car that has 370whp. It just doesn’t add up. It’s one of two things or both. Either during actual multiple gear pulls power is seriously being lost or there is some deception here.
Honestly the math does not lie. Ive only place pure facts
A stock type r in 70 degree weather will hit 108 mph. With the weight and crank hp again put into the calculator it’s calculating 107.5 mph. So clearly adding power doesnt cause a steep loss in calculations.
This just proves the point that numbers on a dyno aren’t everything.
Can you do 400whp on 93 octane? Yes you can. Will it continually drive at 400whp HELL NO. 375whp is the max consistent power you can create with 93 octane.
So for me until the math adds up I’m not gong to take anything they say for real numbers.
Go back as far as prl prototype turbo on red star made supposedly over 480whp it went
124mph. It should be going 131 mph. That’s a 10 percent loss in mph.

Going all the way back to 2001 built block stock head cam gsr swap Cx hatch 60 trim turbonettics on c16 made just over 500 crank on 28-30 psi At 2300 lbs with driver it ran 10.5 at 141. The calculator said 140 mph.. This proveS Accurate to old and new cars.
Throw any car and correct curb weight and hp you will get 99 percent accurate mph.

he’ll let’s go real big a McLaren p1 makes 903 combined hcrank at 3075 lbs. it’s calculated by the rob robinette calculator to hit 155mph and I’ve found 152.2mph In real world results. At most it’s a 1.9 percent variance even at 900 hp level cars that use electric motor combination. This proves weight and mph are the best calculator of real hp. Electric motor doesn’t aid as much at high speeds so this could account for greater than 1 percent variance in mph.

So to the people talking crap another specific well known tuner his cars hit the mph to his rated hp. I’m talking civic type r civic si Honda Accord ect. New old Honda doesn’t matter. His cars add up. So don’t bash what you don’t know. I’m not bashing I’m stating that red star motors tunes do not add up using scientific data.

From a tuners perspective technically you can get more hp on a dyno but will it stay. No so that’s why I only try to post about repetitive possible numbers. I’ve only heard but haven’t seen in person that to gain the numbers a 13.0 afr is being used. The problem with this lean is it’s only good for a single gear before the piston starts to get too hot along with the cylinder and spark plug get too hot and start to either cause knock or Preignition. So after multiple gears you will lose power considerably. That’s how a certain person I know hit 400whp dynojet one time. I heard that “less cam timing” is being used. Increasing intake cam timing alllows the intake valves to open earlier in a turbo car to allow more time for cylinder to fill with air.This allows for less boost pressure to make more power. Less pressure needed before the cylinder equals cooler cylinder under compressed air. As an example cam timing alterations makes a very big difference on k24 turbo. 30-40whp on pump gas difference. Stock cam timing is always slightly more conservative. It’s emissions based. One last thing. Do not be fooled by egt in datalog. It’s calculated a lot by fuel volume and ignition timing. There is no actual egt sensor on these cars. It’s not accurate. Feel free to chose who you want to tune your car but think how many videos have you heard people make so much whp then lose to a car with considerably less at the same weight on 50mph roll.

please don’t bash people I’m only stating what is facts. I do not claim to know exactly what red star is doing with their tunes only what I’ve heard. I’m going based off their numbers and their times posted on their Instagram. Even a mediocre driver will come close to calculated mph vs hp. Judging from certain videos it isn’t a driver issue.
You do not have to believe what I’ve written.

Sponsored

 

[StanMan]

As someone who has seen Initial D- the Type R will always have an extremely wasteful/inefficient launch no matter how good you are at it. You will simply not see consistent improvement in quarter mile times as you increase power- a huge portion of your possible time gains from increasing the power are going to be eaten up by the crappy launch.

The Type R will demolish any vehicle it has a higher power to weight ratio than in a roll race though.

 

[tinyman392]

Keep in mind that the calculator you’re using kind of assumes an optimal setup with minimal tire slip. When wheel slip occurs it will increase the ¼ mile time on top of decreasing the trap speed by some amount. More slip means more difference in time. The Type R’s setup kind of fights this entirely. The FF setup is deficient for producing traction (related to the weight over the driven axles) since the weight shifts away from the driven axles under hard acceleration. The wing technically works against the Type R as well for straight line speed as it moves more weight to the rear of the car vs the front. Also keep in mind that there will be some variation among Dyno readings based on the time of day, temperatures, etc. This is why people generally give a rough range of expected power output rather than just a flat out number.

Another thing to consider is the fact that traction control with the Type R normally involves limiting torque (and thus power) in the lower gears as to not slip the tires. This will lower the overall power of the car for the first X% of the ¼ mile run which would completely render that calculator inaccurate if it limits higher than the error rate of the calculator. In short, the maximum acceleration a vehicle can muster is uN where u is the coefficient of friction of the tires and N is the normal force on the driven axles. In short, if u is 1, then the maximum acceleration a vehicle can have (before adding downforce) is 1G. On an FF car where the weight distribution hits 0.62/0.38, then the maximum acceleration is going to be 0.62G (unless you start adding downforce to the front). So even if you can build more power to accelerate at say 1.2G, you’ll be limited to 0.62G and the power for said acceleration (physically). Realistically, though, because weight transfer goes backward rather than none, the maximum acceleration of the Type R might be even lower than that and probably closer to 0.55 or 0.5G. Basically, the Type R might actually be producing said power, but it’s not putting it to use since it can’t physically. The calculator most likely makes the assumption that a car can use all of its power over the majority of the ¼ mile run. While this is probably true for a stock Type R on decent rubber, if you increase the power 2-fold, it probably doesn’t hold true anymore. The higher power you go with an FF car, expect diminishing returns.

That said, you list a lot of examples of cars that follow the rule of the calculator, which is great. You list 1 example of an FF car that kind of matches the power of a stock Type R (which has fairly good control of wheel slip as to not really mess up the numbers). The problem is that there is no comparison of another 500+HP FF car that you’ve verified. So there is a little bit of sampling bias going on there.

Minor tidbit about the wing on the Type R. Honda claims 66 lbs of downforce at 120 MPH. It’s not just 66 lbs of downforce as that will vary at different speeds. For example, if maintaining the top speed (169 MPH), the downforce produced by the wing would be about 123 lbs, however at 60 MPH it would only be producing about 15 lbs of downforce (downforce is proportional with the square of the speed).

Not sure where you got the entire it would need 1000 lbs of downforce... Where is the downforce being applied, how is it being applied. Putting 1000 lbs of downforce on the rear of the car would probably decrease the ¼ time and trap speed of the Type R since it might actually end up lifting the front axle (reducing its ability to make traction and accelerate quickly). Putting 1000 lbs over the front axle will help it majorly (it would put it nearly at 1G acceleration with stupid sticky tires). Putting weight over the front axle to allow the car to reach it’s power potential will get it closer to the optimal speed and time that you’re looking for.

Edit: all this being said, it’s good accurate to have a model for stuff (IE the calculator). Knowing how it works, it’s strengths and limitations are equally as important, however. Knowing how and when it breaks is, I’d argue, far more important than just knowing it‘s accurate.

 

[Jpierro79]

First I’ll say o appreciate the response. You are not 100 percent right or wrong. The there is a slight variance in fwd but not to the extent which it’s happening. In this it has mph vs weight if a 2000 hp fwd. you’ll see how close it is.
Gti at 308whp same spieed at 12.8 I110mph. Wheel spin still doesn’t equate to that kind of speed loss. Plus they are running radials. I ran 110mph at 13.2 Same gti. Just street tires. The major thing that charges is mostly is et not mph. Unless your spinning half way down the track you won’t lose that much mph. The 95 civic cx hatch that went 141 spun first second and part of 3rd on slicks. You can clearly tell by the videos he isn’t spinning through first 3 gears. You can’t account for 10 percent lost cause first gear spins some. Unless you do a burn out half way down you don’t lose that much speed. If you look at mph in each section you will see even if you spin more as long as your not doing a straight burn out of break completely loose they the mph at each section of the track remains very close while et is different. Think about it a car that supposedly has an extra 70whp and we only pick up 2 mph. The et was faster than indicating grip. So where’d the power go? You can call upset this beyond 1000hp cars and all the way down to 7 second cars. There’s. No middle ground where it gets that far off.
As far as dyno variance your not going to get a 500whp car to read 650whp on any other dynojet due to the way dynojet works without doing something to the dyno. I’ve seen they use a 4wd dyno with the back roller disconnected. I couldn’t find any dynojet dyno that dies that.
Based on ever car I used for wheel hp the results came from a dynojet reading and nothing else. The industry standard wheel hp dynojet has always been the most accurate.

Down force us directly relates as lbs is very proprtinal at high speeds. . It would take a car over 4150 lbs at 650whp to do 131. Lbs of downforce is very closely related to acceleration vs actual weight. It would have to require the worst aerodynamics one the planet of any recent car made and have the worst drag coeegecient ever. Still the math for red star does not add up. The type r would have to have e the drag coeefecient of a brick suddenly added to lose 10 mph at 131 but zero speed loss at 117mph.
Losing 14mph at 131mmoh while being dead on accurate at 117 but way off is like a 9 time more variance charge. sudden increase 9 times greater. If it was that bad of a domino effect we would easily see and effect of some type even at 108mph stock. It would only be able to do 100 mph or less. At 100 mph stick your hand out the window. You can’t tell me at that speed the aerodynamic has zero effect but at 131 it increases 9 times loss variance. You need to equal out the equations. The type r traction again is better than gti using 18s. Actually in any fwd I’ve been in with this kind of power it has the best traction. My gti spunthrough 1st abd 2bd really bad and didn’t get grip till 60mph at 308whp. The type r gets grip on 380whp at 45mph. If a gti with far worse traction on street tires can run mph to hp accurately so can a type r.

Hers how accurate this calculator is. At supposed 2000hp car the competition clutch drag civic went 215mph it weighs 2300 without driver. Add 150 lbs for a driver and at 2450 it calculates 218mph. Even at 2300 lbs if it were with driver it calculates 223mph. You can’t possibly think at this retarded power level wheel spin isn’t ridiculous. Look how close this is. What’s lost is et. It would be a 6.1 second car in rwd not the far slower 7.4 seconds at 215mph. I believe this clearly brings my point about fwd and spin be mph vs actual hp. All that traction not available causes a n 18 percent slower et but mph still dead on. That’s still closer than red star motoring.using the most ridiculous scenario I could find. Not a single car they have that is high hp is doing the equivelant hp to speed. You can take a square old nova and way worse drag coefficient it will stilll come closer than red star in mph.
So spin and downforce are not enough. The competition clutch car runs a slower et with hp but much faster mph. Mph is not lost in fwd cars.

When prl ran 131mph in si it was nearing 500hp back in 2017 running a gtx 3071 rated at 550 but they alwats makes less wheel ho than turbo is rated for. . MAP broke record after prl in 2019 no nitros 500whp. So the prl si made less than thet at the wheel.in 2017. 500crank hp at 2600 Lbs is 135 mph. That’s more than likely lighter than their actual car weighed but they did 131mph. Still closer than red star calculation. Even if I use 500whp at 2600 lbs its 141 mph. That’s still closer than the 14mph gap red star has abs I know that the prl si didn’t make that. Prl had zero fuel supper at that time so they couldn’t make 500whp. They never tested the car running nitrous so you can’t use the 637whp dyno.
Map si had 500whp. Using curb weight 2889 they did 131mph and calculator said 138. It’s still closer mph than red star. Besides I didn’t believe MAP dyno they don’t use dynojet. The si does t have any advantage over the type r that would allow such a huge change in speed in 1/4 mile.

There a very good reason with the sane exact set up that cars have only made 415whp remote tune. It’s the highest I’ve seen with red star using a true single roller dynojet dyno remote tube. Red star showed a dyno that showed a base map non intercooler car make 348whp 378 torque. I base lined my car in dynojet. 280 whp. Full bolt on basmape only made 338whp. And 340ish torque not 378 like their dyno. Full bolt on I can squeeze a consistent 375whp for multiple runs. So clearly something us wary off at red star. 4 piston racing myself and a another du Joey in Florida all got the same numbers on base maps. That tells the story.
If I have typing errors sorry.

Every dynojet car I can find is within a far closer variance. Civic 1998 hatch. 500whp 2300 lbs actual 144mph calculated 147mph.
Look up all the fwd and even 4wd. Based on the idea traction creates mph theory 4wd should gain mph.youll find it doesn’t matter.

You’ll find 4wd require. Wheel hp due to loss she actually far slower to crank hp. Ficus rs stock only makes like 270whp they never made hp ford claimed. A stock sti can easily run side by side with it. Sti are the sane curb weight.

 

[tinyman392]

First I’ll say o appreciate the response. You are not 100 percent right or wrong. The there is a slight variance in fwd but not to the extent which it’s happening. In this it has mph vs weight if a 2000 hp fwd. you’ll see how close it is.
Gti at 308whp same spieed at 12.8 I110mph. Wheel spin still doesn’t equate to that kind of speed loss. Plus they are running radials. I ran 110mph at 13.2 Same gti. Just street tires. The major thing that charges is mostly is et not mph. Unless your spinning half way down the track you won’t lose that much mph. The 95 civic cx hatch that went 141 spun first second and part of 3rd on slicks. You can clearly tell by the videos he isn’t spinning through first 3 gears. You can’t account for 10 percent lost cause first gear spins some. Unless you do a burn out half way down you don’t lose that much speed. If you look at mph in each section you will see even if you spin more as long as your not doing a straight burn out of break completely loose they the mph at each section of the track remains very close while et is different. Think about it a car that supposedly has an extra 70whp and we only pick up 2 mph. The et was faster than indicating grip. So where’d the power go? You can call upset this beyond 1000hp cars and all the way down to 7 second cars. There’s. No middle ground where it gets that far off.
As far as dyno variance your not going to get a 500whp car to read 650whp on any other dynojet due to the way dynojet works without doing something to the dyno. I’ve seen they use a 4wd dyno with the back roller disconnected. I couldn’t find any dynojet dyno that dies that.
Based on ever car I used for wheel hp the results came from a dynojet reading and nothing else. The industry standard wheel hp dynojet has always been the most accurate.

Down force us directly relates as lbs is very proprtinal at high speeds. . It would take a car over 4150 lbs at 650whp to do 131. Lbs of downforce is very closely related to acceleration vs actual weight. It would have to require the worst aerodynamics one the planet of any recent car made and have the worst drag coeegecient ever. Still the math for red star does not add up. The type r would have to have e the drag coeefecient of a brick suddenly added to lose 10 mph at 131 but zero speed loss at 117mph.
Losing 14mph at 131mmoh while being dead on accurate at 117 but way off is like a 9 time more variance charge. sudden increase 9 times greater. If it was that bad of a domino effect we would easily see and effect of some type even at 108mph stock. It would only be able to do 100 mph or less. At 100 mph stick your hand out the window. You can’t tell me at that speed the aerodynamic has zero effect but at 131 it increases 9 times loss variance. You need to equal out the equations. The type r traction again is better than gti using 18s. Actually in any fwd I’ve been in with this kind of power it has the best traction. My gti spunthrough 1st abd 2bd really bad and didn’t get grip till 60mph at 308whp. The type r gets grip on 380whp at 45mph. If a gti with far worse traction on street tires can run mph to hp accurately so can a type r.

Hers how accurate this calculator is. At supposed 2000hp car the competition clutch drag civic went 215mph it weighs 2300 without driver. Add 150 lbs for a driver and at 2450 it calculates 218mph. Even at 2300 lbs if it were with driver it calculates 223mph. You can’t possibly think at this retarded power level wheel spin isn’t ridiculous. Look how close this is. What’s lost is et. It would be a 6.1 second car in rwd not the far slower 7.4 seconds at 215mph. I believe this clearly brings my point about fwd and spin be mph vs actual hp. All that traction not available causes a n 18 percent slower et but mph still dead on. That’s still closer than red star motoring.using the most ridiculous scenario I could find. Not a single car they have that is high hp is doing the equivelant hp to speed. You can take a square old nova and way worse drag coefficient it will stilll come closer than red star in mph.
So spin and downforce are not enough. The competition clutch car runs a slower et with hp but much faster mph. Mph is not lost in fwd cars.

When prl ran 131mph in si it was nearing 500hp back in 2017 running a gtx 3071 rated at 550 but they alwats makes less wheel ho than turbo is rated for. . MAP broke record after prl in 2019 no nitros 500whp. So the prl si made less than thet at the wheel.in 2017. 500crank hp at 2600 Lbs is 135 mph. That’s more than likely lighter than their actual car weighed but they did 131mph. Still closer than red star calculation. Even if I use 500whp at 2600 lbs its 141 mph. That’s still closer than the 14mph gap red star has abs I know that the prl si didn’t make that. Prl had zero fuel supper at that time so they couldn’t make 500whp. They never tested the car running nitrous so you can’t use the 637whp dyno.
Map si had 500whp. Using curb weight 2889 they did 131mph and calculator said 138. It’s still closer mph than red star. Besides I didn’t believe MAP dyno they don’t use dynojet. The si does t have any advantage over the type r that would allow such a huge change in speed in 1/4 mile.

There a very good reason with the sane exact set up that cars have only made 415whp remote tune. It’s the highest I’ve seen with red star using a true single roller dynojet dyno remote tube. Red star showed a dyno that showed a base map non intercooler car make 348whp 378 torque. I base lined my car in dynojet. 280 whp. Full bolt on basmape only made 338whp. And 340ish torque not 378 like their dyno. Full bolt on I can squeeze a consistent 375whp for multiple runs. So clearly something us wary off at red star. 4 piston racing myself and a another du Joey in Florida all got the same numbers on base maps. That tells the story.
If I have typing errors sorry.

Every dynojet car I can find is within a far closer variance. Civic 1998 hatch. 500whp 2300 lbs actual 144mph calculated 147mph.
Look up all the fwd and even 4wd. Based on the idea traction creates mph theory 4wd should gain mph.youll find it doesn’t matter.

You’ll find 4wd require. Wheel hp due to loss she actually far slower to crank hp. Ficus rs stock only makes like 270whp they never made hp ford claimed. A stock sti can easily run side by side with it. Sti are the sane curb weight.

First, wheel slip will affect final trap speed and total quarter mile time.

Ok, so we have a Type R @650 HP with unknown weight. Keep in mind that they have forged internals and probably a bigger turbo. Also consider driver weight since you're using that above too to make numbers look better. Maybe 3400 lbs overall (including driver weight).

But that 650 is misleading. It peaks at 650, and might produce that in 4th gear, but in gears 1-3 it's probably producing far less, lower the lower the gear (as it would induce wheel slip if not). Let's say first gear it's only able to put down 350 HP (before slipping). 2nd gear is 450. 3rd gear is 600, and 4 gear and above is the full 650. Putting down anymore will induce wheel slip and lower top speed and increase ¼ mile time. Although some people argue how wheel slip impacts the trap speed, we know it had a fast ¼ mile time, so we can assume wheel spin is minimal, and thus we have power limits in each gear. Let's say that it spends 5% of the drag in 1st gear, 10% in 2nd, 20% in 3rd, and the rest of the drag in 4th gear or above (65% of the race). But we can then compute an average power; the average power for the run would be 0.05*350 + 0.1*450 + 0.2*600 + 0.65*650 which is 605 HP over the length of the ¼ mile vs the 650 that is assumed (what the vehicle does at peak).

Plug those into your calculator and we get a 3400 lb car with 605 HP traps at around 132 MPH. Ignore the weight difference (say they broke even at 3115 lbs) and you get a trap speed of 135.

I never said the model/equation was inaccurate. I made a comment about it's limitations and what things it cannot consider, every model has limitations and it's up to the user to know said limitations. Even the models I build on a daily basis or models published in scientific literature (there's typically a whole "Discussion" section for this). For example, traction limits which would need to be accounted for before using said model as these limits affect overall power output. The model as a whole assumes an average power over the course of the run. In many scenarios, this won't matter as peak power typically will be the average power, and even a little wheel slip won't affect the numbers too much. Though even then, if I had a mythical motor that could just output a perfect amount of power the entire time... Say, I had a Tesla that weighs 5000 pounds with 778 HP... It traps 126 MPH when the calculator says it should do 132. The other thing it can't take into consideration is gearing (it probably uses some sort of "average" gearing which will have a low error rate). This model also kind of assumes a sort of average gearing and probably also assumes a linear gain in power with RPM (internally) to do its calculations. This obviously isn't true in the Tesla case. That said, with any model, it's only going to be accurate to some degree, and with all data points, will have outliers that it simply won't be able to accurately predict.

As a thought experiment, if that 650 HP car were to do a full run in 4th gear (no 1-3), it might actually trap that 145 MPH that you want it to (sacrificing the time of course). Alternatively, put a huge front wing on the car and remove the rear wing (and vortex generators) and it might add 5 MPH to the trap speed as it increases the power that the car can put down in 1st through 3rd gear.

Let's calculate the normal stock Type R on stock rubber. Slips in 1st and 2nd, let's assume similar pattern time spent in each gear (5% in 1st and 10% in 2nd, thus 85% of the time it's making peak power). Let's use the 295 figure as that seems close to the WHP that most people are making on the car stock. Say it can only do 250 HP in 1st and 275 in 2nd. So we get 250*0.05 + 275*0.1 + 295*0.85 = 291 HP on average through the run. Add in weight for the driver (3250 lbs total) and you end up with a trap speed of about 110. It traps 108. Let's say you don't account for the power loss or the weight (as you were doing before), then you get 112. One of those numbers is more accurate than the other. But only by a little bit since the wheel slip only last for so little of the race (15% vs 35%).

 

[MadMage]

(there's typically a whole "Discussion" section for this).

Somebody knows their vehicle dynamics

 

[Jpierro79]

First, wheel slip will affect final trap speed and total quarter mile time.

Ok, so we have a Type R @650 HP with unknown weight. Keep in mind that they have forged internals and probably a bigger turbo. Also consider driver weight since you're using that above too to make numbers look better. Maybe 3400 lbs overall (including driver weight).
If

But that 650 is misleading. It peaks at 650, and might produce that in 4th gear, but in gears 1-3 it's probably producing far less, lower the lower the gear (as it would induce wheel slip if not). Let's say first gear it's only able to put down 350 HP (before slipping). 2nd gear is 450. 3rd gear is 600, and 4 gear and above is the full 650. Putting down anymore will induce wheel slip and lower top speed and increase ¼ mile time. Although some people argue how wheel slip impacts the trap speed, we know it had a fast ¼ mile time, so we can assume wheel spin is minimal, and thus we have power limits in each gear. Let's say that it spends 5% of the drag in 1st gear, 10% in 2nd, 20% in 3rd, and the rest of the drag in 4th gear or above (65% of the race). But we can then compute an average power; the average power for the run would be 0.05*350 + 0.1*450 + 0.2*600 + 0.65*650 which is 605 HP over the length of the ¼ mile vs the 650 that is assumed (what the vehicle does at peak).

Plug those into your calculator and we get a 3400 lb car with 605 HP traps at around 132 MPH. Ignore the weight difference (say they broke even at 3115 lbs) and you get a trap speed of 135.

I never said the model/equation was inaccurate. I made a comment about it's limitations and what things it cannot consider, every model has limitations and it's up to the user to know said limitations. Even the models I build on a daily basis or models published in scientific literature (there's typically a whole "Discussion" section for this). For example, traction limits which would need to be accounted for before using said model as these limits affect overall power output. The model as a whole assumes an average power over the course of the run. In many scenarios, this won't matter as peak power typically will be the average power, and even a little wheel slip won't affect the numbers too much. Though even then, if I had a mythical motor that could just output a perfect amount of power the entire time... Say, I had a Tesla that weighs 5000 pounds with 778 HP... It traps 126 MPH when the calculator says it should do 132. The other thing it can't take into consideration is gearing (it probably uses some sort of "average" gearing which will have a low error rate). This model also kind of assumes a sort of average gearing and probably also assumes a linear gain in power with RPM (internally) to do its calculations. This obviously isn't true in the Tesla case. That said, with any model, it's only going to be accurate to some degree, and with all data points, will have outliers that it simply won't be able to accurately predict.

As a thought experiment, if that 650 HP car were to do a full run in 4th gear (no 1-3), it might actually trap that 145 MPH that you want it to (sacrificing the time of course). Alternatively, put a huge front wing on the car and remove the rear wing (and vortex generators) and it might add 5 MPH to the trap speed as it increases the power that the car can put down in 1st through 3rd gear.

Let's calculate the normal stock Type R on stock rubber. Slips in 1st and 2nd, let's assume similar pattern time spent in each gear (5% in 1st and 10% in 2nd, thus 85% of the time it's making peak power). Let's use the 295 figure as that seems close to the WHP that most people are making on the car stock. Say it can only do 250 HP in 1st and 275 in 2nd. So we get 250*0.05 + 275*0.1 + 295*0.85 = 291 HP on average through the run. Add in weight for the driver (3250 lbs total) and you end up with a trap speed of about 110. It traps 108. Let's say you don't account for the power loss or the weight (as you were doing before), then you get 112. One of those numbers is more accurate than the other. But only by a little bit since the wheel slip only last for so little of the race (15% vs 35%).

Talking about spin and power loss.
Your forgetting that when you spin your further back on the track. Therefore more room is left to pick up lost speed. Your talking as if you spin and you still get further down the track even though your going slower. If you spin and then big below power band I could agree. Still to my point. Everyone but red star motor cars are far closer.
Do you honestly thing that competition clutch car puts down 2000 hp at the line??? No way on earth. Yet as long as you maintain a fair amoubt if traction through the 2/3rd of the track even leaving in lower power still equates to mph.

Street outlaw cars leave on 5lbs of boost. They don’t ramp fully up till half way down the 1/8th and they still make the speed vs hp. So again you’d still have to spin half way down the track to lose a large amount of mph. Your also forgetting when you spin and it catches you get sped up much faster than if you stayed in it without slip but end up further behind even at the so when you reach the point you would be at you’ve achieved the same morph. I’m sure you’ve felt in 2nd gear on the street as it catches you get lunged forward.
If I spin in 1st and I don’t get as far down the track which leaves me room to gain mph. It’s just a fact of drag racing. So unless your making stupid power spinning half the track, bogging or letting off your not going to lose that much mph. I seen none of those thing in a particular video from multiple angles. Example hypothetical scenario.
Two cars sane power one gets dead hook launch and gets to 100 feet in 3 seconds at 60mph. The other spins and gets to 60 foot at the sane tine he will still had another 40ft to make up lost speed but loses et. Just like the competition clutch civic that does 215 mph that car back half’s like nobody’s business. Your idea about spin far more effects et than mph.

Grip does not equal lower mph it’s actually the opposite. My worst runs in the gti before I had radials were 108mph. Even the first run on radials was slower from really bad wheel hop abs had to let out. Grip equals more total power to the ground. Therefore more mph.

I’m sorry but every drag car in existence says the opposite of what red star does.
Every single high or low hp car front engine rear engine rear engine hybrid super car or economy car wires with the hp equation except for the fk8 type r?? That’s like saying the car is a 1 in a billion different than every other car.

Here are more examples.

Let’s take an Indy car they create 7000lbs of downforce at 20oh. Weight with driver 1720lbsWith driver hp 641. Actual 1/4 mile 152 mph. Calculated speed using rob robinette calculator. 168 mph. So it took a car that has 5250pbs. lbs if downforce to lose 16moh. . That’s 53 times the Down force to lose 16 mph. Indy cars are the furthest thing from drag cars and they are terrible in the first 60 ft for the weight. Calculating by mph it’s 5250lbs of down force to be exact. So it’s actually about 39 times the downforce.

IndyCar hp also peaks just like your also claiming.

Red star cars show plenty of power band. The ctr drops 1500 rpm between shifts there is easily more than 1500 rpm of power band in those dyno graphs. Do you honestly think the competition clutch civic car has a far better power band. It’s got the peakiest power band out of all of the example I’ve previously mentioned. I’ve looked their power band is from 5600 to 7600 so they won’t fall out of power band when shifting.

So again these different cars disapprove your theories of why the mph is lost. Downforce Indy car proves that. Hp at peak which to be honest I’ve seen way worse but let’s add an all motor Lambo. Those are worse than the power graph ive seen and they have 4wd so it will lose even more power but let’s check that gap in mph.
Curb weight huracan 3424. Hp is 610. Calculated mph 131. Actual mph best is 132 mph while majority are 126 or better. They get way more down force than type r they have a very peaky power band and the diss advantage of 4wd robbing hp but yet still only lost 4 percent on regular person driving. I said I see no issues with particular videos as far as driving and traction that could possibly cause power loss of speed loss. It’s not just theory real world experience with both myself and many other drivers. I went down the sane track as a civic 2 door with far smaller tires than my gti he launched at redline and did 115 mph burning the tires off 1st and part of 2nd he weighed 2600 lbs and he said he dynoed 300whp. Basically doing a burn out in first leaving not a slipping/grip launch on slicks he still only lost 4 mph. Launching on slicks unless you do. A 2nd year launch and literally burn them off in place you will not lose mph.

So now I’ve taken into acount not leaving at full power, traction loss in early gears, downforce and the idea that more traction creates lower mph. If I did the Lambo by whp which is what red star uses its 490whp calculated 128mph add driver 150lbs it’s 126 mph. The exact speed the average driver can do with peaky power band. The Indy car proves how much downforce it takes to slow a car down. That throws downforce out the window.
The competition clutch car proves that getting less power down in the beginning still doesn’t stop mph as long as you can get full power before the end of the track.

So unless you can validate it another way red star basically isn’t making the power they claim when they are at the track.

I’ve used every type of car/race car/drag race car/ street car/ regular tire car/car on slicks/car with stupid downforce/. The only car they lost speed that was significant was the Indy car but required 5200 lbs of downforce to slow it down. So unless the civic type r is a shared like a brick, which it’s not, there is no reason for the mph loss.

Just to throw it out there Indy car 0-60 is 3.8 seconds. A 580 hp zl1 camaro that weighs 4100 lbs can hit 4 seconds. So the indy car spins it’s balls off on launch. I’ve seen Indy car videos trying to do the 1/4 mile. If the spin half way down the track then they lose mph. The only one that does did up as well is a funny car dragster. They claim 8000 hp. They’ve done 330mph. That was before they reduced the distance to 1000ft instead of 1320. 330mph is value at 7000 hp. If you think about it that’s the oat extreme scenario.
At 8000hp the calculated speed is 345 that’s 2320 car with 150lb driver. It took an 8000 hp car to create a 4.5 percent variance.

It’s just boiling down to physics when taking into account the math always add up. If the red star motoring cars leave on 650 whp but lose significant power going down the track that will absolutely create a gap in calculate mph but have a better et time. That makes the most sense as to what’s happening. Remember those cars have weight taken out as well. That further adds to the issue of where the hp is going.
Huge weight reduction doesn’t increase mph as much as increasing hp. That should be eceidrht with Bugatti Veyron vs Ariel atom v8. Sane on to hp if not better for Ariel atom.

I could go on for days with real world examples. The point is the cars I’ve posted about are not theory. They are real and trump any theory.

 

[tinyman392]

Completely disagree regarding the tire spin allows for faster trap speed. Faster acceleration means faster trap speed. Acceleration is limited to uN (described below). If your tires are spinning, then u decreases and thus acceleration decreases. Lower acceleration means lower trap speed. Unless you are able to find a tire that accelerates faster while doing a burn out then when not, you’re typically not going to see a faster trap speed with wheel spin. Variations you see are probably due to the run itself, the human element, and/or chaotic element replicates.

I feel like you keep cramming examples over and over to validate the model. The model is validated and I do trust the model; I never said I didn’t (otherwise I would not use the model and run to a different one for my calculations). My claim is that it has limitations (like all models do). And this particular Type R might just be part of one of the limitations (mainly due to the way that it’s making less power for upwards of ⅓ of its run thus messing up the final calculation). But please do understand that examples don’t “trump” hypothesis, they can only support a hypothesis or not support it. In the event that an example doesn’t support a hypothesis, then the goal is to figure out why and update the hypothesis if needed.

Downforce will help with acceleration iff it is placed in the right spot. For an FF car, that is NOT the rear it IS the front. For an Indy car or any rear wheel drive car that would be the rear. For an AWD car, it doesn’t matter where the downforce is targeted for acceleration. More traction does indeed mean faster trap speed, I never said otherwise. Downforce targeted at the wrong area (for acceleration) shouldn’t have a negative impact on acceleration though (unless it brings weight away from the driven axles; that depends on suspension setup).

The car is likely traction limited in 1st, 2nd, and maybe even 3rd gear (with the power it’s running and the gear ratios it has). In those gears, if the car doesn’t want to slip, it will have to limit power. IE either have the ECU pull power (similar to how Hondata’s TCS works) or the driver themselves pulling back on the throttle. If not, then the car’s wheels will spin because physics (see above concerning maximum acceleration).

This has nothing to do with the power band of the car, I’m not sure why it’s being brought up. Power limiting of the car would only happen in the lower gears. Dyno runs are done in the higher gears (typically 4th gear or higher) so if you were looking at the dyno to see the power limiting, you won’t see it there.

There exists a scenario (with the physics and the math to back it) where it would be making 650HP peak, but won’t do it in the first 3 gears to avoid wheel slip (as they’re going after a ¼ mile time, not a bestest trap speed) which explains why the model fails for the car since the car theoretically isn’t doing 650HP through the entire run, it would probably be averaging around 600. This entire limiting of power thing is done by a stock Type R as well since the ECU is known to limit torque (and thus power) in both 1st and 2nd gear (but to a comparatively lesser degree since the car is far less powerful stock) so it’s not a far fetched hypothesis.

I‘ll be honest, I don’t know whether the car makes 650 HP at peak or not. But there exists at least 1 scenario where it does and provides the numbers the calculator spits out (heavier car + lower average power). On the other hand, it could just be making 605 HP and Red Star is blowing smoke up our behinds (since the numbers would work similarly for 605HP).

The other idea that I never really pushed was that Red Star was posting crank HP numbers instead of WHP. We know that the model says it could be making around 605 HP and be up weight (forged motor, bigger turbo, roll cage, etc.). Maybe it’s only losing 45HP due to power train. That would be an 7.5% loss which isn’t too far fetched for power train loss either. Though a 10% power loss (more typically used for FF cars) would be about 585 HP which would still match numbers up. I originally tossed this out since they weren’t using a hub-based dyno, though it’s still possible to have their dyno spit out BHP instead of WHP and them reporting that number instead (either purposefully or on accident).

The last idea I did push was variance in dynos, calibration, and correction factors. If a stock Type R is typically between 290-320 WHP that would technically be a 10% difference in power measurement is all fair game in the realm of cars (I know initially Hondata dyno’d out a CTR to 295 HP, today their website says it’s 320). Who’s not to say that the 650 is on the high end of measurement and in theory it could actually be anywhere from 585 to 650 HP (same 10% difference). Where the lower end would actually match up with numbers of the calculator, but it did the high number days before? Different day, different power (unless they took the car straight off the dyno and to a drag strip). This is a lot less likely though since it would need the car to produce 650 HP one day and 600 HP another.

The issue is that both of these last two scenarios (dyno variation and crank HP vs WHP) would require the car to do a full pass at 600HP in the lower gears. That really isn’t possible.

It could also be a combination of the dyno variance (less variance) and the power limiting in the lower gears as well. It, however, is definitely not in the realm of impossibility of your original claim.

 

[Jpierro79]

Completely disagree regarding the tire spin allows for faster trap speed. Faster acceleration means faster trap speed. Acceleration is limited to uN (described below). If your tires are spinning, then u decreases and thus acceleration decreases. Lower acceleration means lower trap speed. Unless you are able to find a tire that accelerates faster while doing a burn out then when not, you’re typically not going to see a faster trap speed with wheel spin. Variations you see are probably due to the run itself, the human element, and/or chaotic element replicates.

I feel like you keep cramming examples over and over to validate the model. The model is validated and I do trust the model; I never said I didn’t (otherwise I would not use the model and run to a different one for my calculations). My claim is that it has limitations (like all models do). And this particular Type R might just be part of one of the limitations (mainly due to the way that it’s making less power for upwards of ⅓ of its run thus messing up the final calculation). But please do understand that examples don’t “trump” hypothesis, they can only support a hypothesis or not support it. In the event that an example doesn’t support a hypothesis, then the goal is to figure out why and update the hypothesis if needed.

Downforce will help with acceleration iff it is placed in the right spot. For an FF car, that is NOT the rear it IS the front. For an Indy car or any rear wheel drive car that would be the rear. For an AWD car, it doesn’t matter where the downforce is targeted for acceleration. More traction does indeed mean faster trap speed, I never said otherwise. Downforce targeted at the wrong area (for acceleration) shouldn’t have a negative impact on acceleration though (unless it brings weight away from the driven axles; that depends on suspension setup).

The car is likely traction limited in 1st, 2nd, and maybe even 3rd gear (with the power it’s running and the gear ratios it has). In those gears, if the car doesn’t want to slip, it will have to limit power. IE either have the ECU pull power (similar to how Hondata’s TCS works) or the driver themselves pulling back on the throttle. If not, then the car’s wheels will spin because physics (see above concerning maximum acceleration).

This has nothing to do with the power band of the car, I’m not sure why it’s being brought up. Power limiting of the car would only happen in the lower gears. Dyno runs are done in the higher gears (typically 4th gear or higher) so if you were looking at the dyno to see the power limiting, you won’t see it there.

There exists a scenario (with the physics and the math to back it) where it would be making 650HP peak, but won’t do it in the first 3 gears to avoid wheel slip (as they’re going after a ¼ mile time, not a bestest trap speed) which explains why the model fails for the car since the car theoretically isn’t doing 650HP through the entire run, it would probably be averaging around 600. This entire limiting of power thing is done by a stock Type R as well since the ECU is known to limit torque (and thus power) in both 1st and 2nd gear (but to a comparatively lesser degree since the car is far less powerful stock) so it’s not a far fetched hypothesis.

I‘ll be honest, I don’t know whether the car makes 650 HP at peak or not. But there exists at least 1 scenario where it does and provides the numbers the calculator spits out (heavier car + lower average power). On the other hand, it could just be making 605 HP and Red Star is blowing smoke up our behinds (since the numbers would work similarly for 605HP).

The other idea that I never really pushed was that Red Star was posting crank HP numbers instead of WHP. We know that the model says it could be making around 605 HP and be up weight (forged motor, bigger turbo, roll cage, etc.). Maybe it’s only losing 45HP due to power train. That would be an 7.5% loss which isn’t too far fetched for power train loss either. Though a 10% power loss (more typically used for FF cars) would be about 585 HP which would still match numbers up. I originally tossed this out since they weren’t using a hub-based dyno, though it’s still possible to have their dyno spit out BHP instead of WHP and them reporting that number instead (either purposefully or on accident).

The last idea I did push was variance in dynos, calibration, and correction factors. If a stock Type R is typically between 290-320 WHP that would technically be a 10% difference in power measurement is all fair game in the realm of cars (I know initially Hondata dyno’d out a CTR to 295 HP, today their website says it’s 320). Who’s not to say that the 650 is on the high end of measurement and in theory it could actually be anywhere from 585 to 650 HP (same 10% difference). Where the lower end would actually match up with numbers of the calculator, but it did the high number days before? Different day, different power (unless they took the car straight off the dyno and to a drag strip). This is a lot less likely though since it would need the car to produce 650 HP one day and 600 HP another.

The issue is that both of these last two scenarios (dyno variation and crank HP vs WHP) would require the car to do a full pass at 600HP in the lower gears. That really isn’t possible.

It could also be a combination of the dyno variance (less variance) and the power limiting in the lower gears as well. It, however, is definitely not in the realm of impossibility of your original claim.

I never says tire spin allows for faster acceleration or trap speed. I said when it catches you get a bump in speed compared to your current. Never said beyond. I never once said it was beyond what the hp could do in the 1/4. Reread it. I did NOT say if you blow the tires off it’s faster. I said the opposite. I wrote it specifically different a reason. When you spin provided there is some level of grip and your not doing standing burnout you might be behind but due to the laws of physics by the time you reach the point where you would have been if you hadn’t spun you’ll be going the same mph. Remember not launching like an idiot I’m talking moderate. I’m not talking 1st gear drop clutch at 6000rpm on street tires. Slicks are. Totally different ball game.

Short lived controlled tire spin does allow for faster acceleration on launch cause a dead hook launch boggs a car down or causes a wheelies or just breaks things. Wheelies and dead hooking is bad. Go watch the competition clutch car. It spins way further out than you think. Go watch every single nitro methanol top fuel dragster. Watch every slow motion street outlaws video. They all spin bit on launch. Dead hook equals wheelie. It’s drag racing 101 NO NO.
Wheels going up means your not going forward. Similar scenario applies with fwd except dead hook equals weight transferred to the rear which is slower.

The scenario I used in tire spin if you read it correctly is that when It catches you get a slight jump in speed. We’ve all felt when the car catches tge extra g force. Take a really low hp car. One that can’t burn the tires off. Some wheel spin is helpful. i never once said faster than you could possibly go. Get your self a g meter and you’ll see higher g force when it catches fir a split second. Newton’s law of motion is applied here. here. The tires are still spinning. That’s stored energy. Once it catches the energy is applied to acceleration so you don’t lose mph. I never said it was drastic.
You must get some wheel spin when is launching on slicks or shit just breaks. They are running on slicks. Slicks are a different world. So is drag radials. You either have to slip the clutch or have enough power to spin enough that when it catches you don’t bog.

Do you think when Gary Gardella first got into the 8s when leaving in 2nd gear he dead hooked???it might just require some spin. Don’t you think??? It was an H pattern car regular twin disk. You slip a regular clutch for 60 feet kiss it goodbye.

Your dyno different power different day theory is way off. . You gain 25 percent power on a different day unless your at 70000 ft and go to sea level. Last I checked there isn’t any drag strips at 7000 feet in Mexico. After all your doing 80 percent of the speed at 1/8th mile compare to 1/4mile. Your telling me basI ally some where 10 per was lost legitimately. That would require that for 132 feet they absolutely didnt go anywhere!! That means that form 0ft-132ft or more they did a 1mph burn out essentially.
Only a severe slipping clutch can case such losses but it would have to only slip in the back half. Their clutches don’t slip.

Best example of controlled spin. Oem ecu allows zero spin. Hondata traction allow is a small percentage. It’s considerably quicker with a little bit of spin in 2nd cause you can’t actually put the power down right away but the little bit of wheel spin is stored kinetic energy that gets transferred at a higher percentage where you can get grip. Therefore used properly spin can help speed if used correctly. It’s the exact same principal in a high stall converter. It’s stored energy in a controlled fashion.

 

[Ismael Lafluer]

I’m just here to learn lol
One the the juiciest threads
Lots of interesting info.
keep it going

 

[tinyman392]

I never says tire spin allows for faster acceleration or trap speed. I said when it catches you get a bump in speed compared to your current. Never said beyond. I never once said it was beyond what the hp could do in the 1/4. Reread it. I did NOT say if you blow the tires off it’s faster. I said the opposite. I wrote it specifically different a reason. When you spin provided there is some level of grip and your not doing standing burnout you might be behind but due to the laws of physics by the time you reach the point where you would have been if you hadn’t spun you’ll be going the same mph. Remember not launching like an idiot I’m talking moderate. I’m not talking 1st gear drop clutch at 6000rpm on street tires. Slicks are. Totally different ball game.

Short lived controlled tire spin does allow for faster acceleration on launch cause a dead hook launch boggs a car down or causes a wheelies or just breaks things. Wheelies and dead hooking is bad. Go watch the competition clutch car. It spins way further out than you think. Go watch every single nitro methanol top fuel dragster. Watch every slow motion street outlaws video. They all spin bit on launch. Dead hook equals wheelie. It’s drag racing 101 NO NO.
Wheels going up means your not going forward. Similar scenario applies with fwd except dead hook equals weight transferred to the rear which is slower.

The scenario I used in tire spin if you read it correctly is that when It catches you get a slight jump in speed. We’ve all felt when the car catches tge extra g force. Take a really low hp car. One that can’t burn the tires off. Some wheel spin is helpful. i never once said faster than you could possibly go. Get your self a g meter and you’ll see higher g force when it catches fir a split second. Newton’s law of motion is applied here. here. The tires are still spinning. That’s stored energy. Once it catches the energy is applied to acceleration so you don’t lose mph. I never said it was drastic.
You must get some wheel spin when is launching on slicks or shit just breaks. They are running on slicks. Slicks are a different world. So is drag radials. You either have to slip the clutch or have enough power to spin enough that when it catches you don’t bog.

Do you think when Gary Gardella first got into the 8s when leaving in 2nd gear he dead hooked???it might just require some spin. Don’t you think??? It was an H pattern car regular twin disk. You slip a regular clutch for 60 feet kiss it goodbye.

Your dyno different power different day theory is way off. . You gain 25 percent power on a different day unless your at 70000 ft and go to sea level. Last I checked there isn’t any drag strips at 7000 feet in Mexico. After all your doing 80 percent of the speed at 1/8th mile compare to 1/4mile. Your telling me basI ally some where 10 per was lost legitimately. That would require that for 132 feet they absolutely didnt go anywhere!! That means that form 0ft-132ft or more they did a 1mph burn out essentially.
Only a severe slipping clutch can case such losses but it would have to only slip in the back half. Their clutches don’t slip.

Best example of controlled spin. Oem ecu allows zero spin. Hondata traction allow is a small percentage. It’s considerably quicker with a little bit of spin in 2nd cause you can’t actually put the power down right away but the little bit of wheel spin is stored kinetic energy that gets transferred at a higher percentage where you can get grip. Therefore used properly spin can help speed if used correctly. It’s the exact same principal in a high stall converter. It’s stored energy in a controlled fashion.

Let’s agree to disagree on the wheel spin thing (it’s debated like crazy on the internet to begin with)... I still feel like if you are spinning in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gear you will get a slower trap speed since energy being produced cannot be fully utilized (uN) and thus the remaining energy is lost to friction... That and you go from a static u to a sliding u (sliding u is almost always lower than static).

As I stated, the different day different dyno hypothesis (stop calling everything a theory if you want to be scientific) was extremely unlikely and thus not something I originally pushed; it was an idea that did come to mind. Additionally I quoted a 10% difference, not 25% that you’re claiming (it’s easy to straw man a 25%, far harder to do a 10%). On top of that, we already know the Type R stock can lose upwards of 20-25 WHP if the intercooler is heat soaked (7-8%). So it’s not as far fetched as you claim it is. However, it’s still unlikely to be the only cause.

That said, the leading hypothesis I have is still going to be limited power in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gear due to traction limitations. The entire uN thing I’ve stated twice now... The car simply cannot put down full power in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd gear (even on drag radials) because u only goes so high.

The Dodge Challenger Demon can accelerate at 1.3G. Since the front end actually lifts up during acceleration, I’m going to actually assume there is lift going on and the coefficient of friction is closer to say 1.7-1.8. I originally estimated it at the 1.2 range, but the math still holds using 1.75. Under full acceleration the CTR would only be able to do 0.85-0.96G maximum using u = 1.75. To go any higher would require additional downforce on the front end.

OEM ECU is definitely not set up for 0 wheel spin, I have no clue where you got this from but it’s completely incorrect. You can test it yourself if you floor it in 1st and 2nd you will get the wheels spinning on stock tire setup (TCS will also kick in after the tires break traction to limit the wheel spin, but it’s not aggressive enough to stop it).

But this gives us an idea of limitations of the stock tires in 1st and 2nd gear. Per Continetal’s blog post on their SportContact 6, the minimum u they quote is about 0.92 - 1.18. Say that the Type R can only handle 275 HP in 2nd gear (vs the 300 the motor outputs)... So if u = 0.92 to 1.18 -> 275HP. This means that u = 1.75 -> 407 to 523 HP at peak. This is nowhere near the 650 the motor is outputting, so it would be limited to this number in 2nd gear. I originally just ball-parked The limit in 2nd gear to around 450 HP, that’s smack dab in the middle of the range. That estimate yielded an average 600 HP over the course of the ¼ mile run, when adjusting for driver weight, added weight from the forged motor components, larger turbo, and roll cage, the calculator gave an estimated 130-135 MPH trap speed.

Hondata TCS actually does allow for 0 tire spin if you set it up properly, this allows for probably the most optimal trap speed, but it has to be set up perfect. With varying conditions, that won’t happen, but it’s still suboptimal (which is good enough).

Edit: also keep in mind that this calculator technically says the Civic Type R should be faster than a Focus RS (stock for stock) in the ⅛ and ¼ mile with a higher trap speed. One of those is correct. The rest are far off.

Sponsored