So put your money where you month is, it's only a half second away
at National Hot Rod Association's
http://www.nhra.com/stats/natrecord.html Until then you don't mind if I
be Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A** Off! waiting for you, of course
I guess we could always go twelve cylinders. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

c wrote:
>
> Bill,
> Do you know the difference between a rocket car and a jet car? I did not say
> that the jets were banned, in fact I went to see them at the local track
> just a few weeks ago. I do still remember going to watch my first drag race
> at the same track 28 years ago, and the ROCKET car that was there that night
> ran a 4.93 ET at 344 MPH. This was 28 years ago when the Top Fuel cars still
> had the short wings, they shifted gears, and they didn't have the lockup
> clutches like they do now. Also thousands fewer ponies too. I can't say what
> the TF cars were running back then, but I do know that the 4 second barrier
> was not broken until Eddie Hill did it the week after the US Nationals in
> 1988. He broke the 4 second barrier at the Texas Motorplex running a 4.93ET
> if my memory serves me correctly. I was at Indy that year, and Gene Snow and
> I believe Joe Amato were in the finals. Snow had run a 5.002 in the semi
> finals, and said he would get the 4 in the final, but his throttle linkage
> broke right after he launched. Anyway, my point here is that the rocket cars
> had got so fast, and I believe I remember hearing about a run that was over
> 400MPH and in the very low 4 second range, but that I am not sure of. I
> think that was when all of the sanctioning bodies started banning the
> rockets. Also, the Jets do sometimes hit a higher top speed than the TF
> cars, but I haven't seen or heard of a jet that is close to a TF car as far
> as ET is concerned, and ET is what counts. Now, I'm sure if someone built an
> unlimited jet car based on the newest jet technology, it might be a
> different story. I did find this page that only shows the records for a
> particular track.
>
> http://www.mirdrag.com/records.htm
>
> It shows a 3 tenths of a second difference in favor of the TF car. This ET
> difference at 300MPH equates to 132 feet! Not my imagination at all.
>
> Chris

 

c wrote:
> Bill,
> Do you know the difference between a rocket car and a jet car?


Bill can be incredibly difficult to communicate with when you are
saying something that does not agree with what he thinks and he will
drive you nuts if you do not really, really know your stuff. I concede
that in general he knows more about the details of drag racing than I
do, because I have little interest in drag racing, it's just not my
sport. I'm sure it's a fine sport just like curling, jai alai, or
whatever. I just don't really care about those sports, or spectator
sports in general.

What I have figured out is that the current TF or Funny Cars are now
faster than the jets, but the jets had them beat until relatively
recent times, and that all the trhust based cars-jets and rockets-are
slower off the line and build their speed down the track. But that's
apples vs. oranges because you are comparing a bizarre specialized
propulsion system unique to fuel drag racing to a surplus engine sold
for scrap price that is 50+ years old. Any jet engine made by
Westinghouse is every bit of fifty years old, they quit making jet
engines after the Korean War. Now if the Navy released Ottofuel II
torpedo engines surplus and they started appearing drag cars maybe the
solid block Hemis would be obsoleted overnight! In principle jet or
rocket cars could beat even the current wheel driven cars with enough
thrust to weight ratios, but not in 50 feet. Turboshaft engine
dragsters, like the one Don Garlits built for exhibition, which use
wheel driven power might be another matter too. Like the jets they are
also apparently outside the rules.

But even if you spend hours doing the homework, line up the results,
and have it all notarized Bill will just change the subject if it isn't
what he likes to hear. So why bother?

 

c wrote:
> Bill,
> Do you know the difference between a rocket car and a jet car?


Bill can be incredibly difficult to communicate with when you are
saying something that does not agree with what he thinks and he will
drive you nuts if you do not really, really know your stuff. I concede
that in general he knows more about the details of drag racing than I
do, because I have little interest in drag racing, it's just not my
sport. I'm sure it's a fine sport just like curling, jai alai, or
whatever. I just don't really care about those sports, or spectator
sports in general.

What I have figured out is that the current TF or Funny Cars are now
faster than the jets, but the jets had them beat until relatively
recent times, and that all the trhust based cars-jets and rockets-are
slower off the line and build their speed down the track. But that's
apples vs. oranges because you are comparing a bizarre specialized
propulsion system unique to fuel drag racing to a surplus engine sold
for scrap price that is 50+ years old. Any jet engine made by
Westinghouse is every bit of fifty years old, they quit making jet
engines after the Korean War. Now if the Navy released Ottofuel II
torpedo engines surplus and they started appearing drag cars maybe the
solid block Hemis would be obsoleted overnight! In principle jet or
rocket cars could beat even the current wheel driven cars with enough
thrust to weight ratios, but not in 50 feet. Turboshaft engine
dragsters, like the one Don Garlits built for exhibition, which use
wheel driven power might be another matter too. Like the jets they are
also apparently outside the rules.

But even if you spend hours doing the homework, line up the results,
and have it all notarized Bill will just change the subject if it isn't
what he likes to hear. So why bother?

 

c wrote:
> Bill,
> Do you know the difference between a rocket car and a jet car?


Bill can be incredibly difficult to communicate with when you are
saying something that does not agree with what he thinks and he will
drive you nuts if you do not really, really know your stuff. I concede
that in general he knows more about the details of drag racing than I
do, because I have little interest in drag racing, it's just not my
sport. I'm sure it's a fine sport just like curling, jai alai, or
whatever. I just don't really care about those sports, or spectator
sports in general.

What I have figured out is that the current TF or Funny Cars are now
faster than the jets, but the jets had them beat until relatively
recent times, and that all the trhust based cars-jets and rockets-are
slower off the line and build their speed down the track. But that's
apples vs. oranges because you are comparing a bizarre specialized
propulsion system unique to fuel drag racing to a surplus engine sold
for scrap price that is 50+ years old. Any jet engine made by
Westinghouse is every bit of fifty years old, they quit making jet
engines after the Korean War. Now if the Navy released Ottofuel II
torpedo engines surplus and they started appearing drag cars maybe the
solid block Hemis would be obsoleted overnight! In principle jet or
rocket cars could beat even the current wheel driven cars with enough
thrust to weight ratios, but not in 50 feet. Turboshaft engine
dragsters, like the one Don Garlits built for exhibition, which use
wheel driven power might be another matter too. Like the jets they are
also apparently outside the rules.

But even if you spend hours doing the homework, line up the results,
and have it all notarized Bill will just change the subject if it isn't
what he likes to hear. So why bother?

 

c wrote:
> Bill,
> Do you know the difference between a rocket car and a jet car?


Bill can be incredibly difficult to communicate with when you are
saying something that does not agree with what he thinks and he will
drive you nuts if you do not really, really know your stuff. I concede
that in general he knows more about the details of drag racing than I
do, because I have little interest in drag racing, it's just not my
sport. I'm sure it's a fine sport just like curling, jai alai, or
whatever. I just don't really care about those sports, or spectator
sports in general.

What I have figured out is that the current TF or Funny Cars are now
faster than the jets, but the jets had them beat until relatively
recent times, and that all the trhust based cars-jets and rockets-are
slower off the line and build their speed down the track. But that's
apples vs. oranges because you are comparing a bizarre specialized
propulsion system unique to fuel drag racing to a surplus engine sold
for scrap price that is 50+ years old. Any jet engine made by
Westinghouse is every bit of fifty years old, they quit making jet
engines after the Korean War. Now if the Navy released Ottofuel II
torpedo engines surplus and they started appearing drag cars maybe the
solid block Hemis would be obsoleted overnight! In principle jet or
rocket cars could beat even the current wheel driven cars with enough
thrust to weight ratios, but not in 50 feet. Turboshaft engine
dragsters, like the one Don Garlits built for exhibition, which use
wheel driven power might be another matter too. Like the jets they are
also apparently outside the rules.

But even if you spend hours doing the homework, line up the results,
and have it all notarized Bill will just change the subject if it isn't
what he likes to hear. So why bother?

 

Well, I started trying to figure out what you found so humorous, but then I
realized that you haven't figured that out yet either, so when you do, why
don't you share it with the newsgroup? I'm sure we're all here on pins and
needles waiting for this one.

Chris

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42E051B9.17B18C43@***.net...
> So put your money where you month is, it's only a half second away
> at National Hot Rod Association's
> http://www.nhra.com/stats/natrecord.html Until then you don't mind if I
> be Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A** Off! waiting for you, of course
> I guess we could always go twelve cylinders. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> c wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> > Do you know the difference between a rocket car and a jet car? I did not
say
> > that the jets were banned, in fact I went to see them at the local track
> > just a few weeks ago. I do still remember going to watch my first drag
race
> > at the same track 28 years ago, and the ROCKET car that was there that
night
> > ran a 4.93 ET at 344 MPH. This was 28 years ago when the Top Fuel cars
still
> > had the short wings, they shifted gears, and they didn't have the lockup
> > clutches like they do now. Also thousands fewer ponies too. I can't say
what
> > the TF cars were running back then, but I do know that the 4 second
barrier
> > was not broken until Eddie Hill did it the week after the US Nationals
in
> > 1988. He broke the 4 second barrier at the Texas Motorplex running a
4.93ET
> > if my memory serves me correctly. I was at Indy that year, and Gene Snow
and
> > I believe Joe Amato were in the finals. Snow had run a 5.002 in the semi
> > finals, and said he would get the 4 in the final, but his throttle
linkage
> > broke right after he launched. Anyway, my point here is that the rocket
cars
> > had got so fast, and I believe I remember hearing about a run that was
over
> > 400MPH and in the very low 4 second range, but that I am not sure of. I
> > think that was when all of the sanctioning bodies started banning the
> > rockets. Also, the Jets do sometimes hit a higher top speed than the TF
> > cars, but I haven't seen or heard of a jet that is close to a TF car as
far
> > as ET is concerned, and ET is what counts. Now, I'm sure if someone
built an
> > unlimited jet car based on the newest jet technology, it might be a
> > different story. I did find this page that only shows the records for a
> > particular track.
> >
> > http://www.mirdrag.com/records.htm
> >
> > It shows a 3 tenths of a second difference in favor of the TF car. This
ET
> > difference at 300MPH equates to 132 feet! Not my imagination at all.
> >
> > Chris

 

Well, I started trying to figure out what you found so humorous, but then I
realized that you haven't figured that out yet either, so when you do, why
don't you share it with the newsgroup? I'm sure we're all here on pins and
needles waiting for this one.

Chris

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42E051B9.17B18C43@***.net...
> So put your money where you month is, it's only a half second away
> at National Hot Rod Association's
> http://www.nhra.com/stats/natrecord.html Until then you don't mind if I
> be Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A** Off! waiting for you, of course
> I guess we could always go twelve cylinders. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> c wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> > Do you know the difference between a rocket car and a jet car? I did not
say
> > that the jets were banned, in fact I went to see them at the local track
> > just a few weeks ago. I do still remember going to watch my first drag
race
> > at the same track 28 years ago, and the ROCKET car that was there that
night
> > ran a 4.93 ET at 344 MPH. This was 28 years ago when the Top Fuel cars
still
> > had the short wings, they shifted gears, and they didn't have the lockup
> > clutches like they do now. Also thousands fewer ponies too. I can't say
what
> > the TF cars were running back then, but I do know that the 4 second
barrier
> > was not broken until Eddie Hill did it the week after the US Nationals
in
> > 1988. He broke the 4 second barrier at the Texas Motorplex running a
4.93ET
> > if my memory serves me correctly. I was at Indy that year, and Gene Snow
and
> > I believe Joe Amato were in the finals. Snow had run a 5.002 in the semi
> > finals, and said he would get the 4 in the final, but his throttle
linkage
> > broke right after he launched. Anyway, my point here is that the rocket
cars
> > had got so fast, and I believe I remember hearing about a run that was
over
> > 400MPH and in the very low 4 second range, but that I am not sure of. I
> > think that was when all of the sanctioning bodies started banning the
> > rockets. Also, the Jets do sometimes hit a higher top speed than the TF
> > cars, but I haven't seen or heard of a jet that is close to a TF car as
far
> > as ET is concerned, and ET is what counts. Now, I'm sure if someone
built an
> > unlimited jet car based on the newest jet technology, it might be a
> > different story. I did find this page that only shows the records for a
> > particular track.
> >
> > http://www.mirdrag.com/records.htm
> >
> > It shows a 3 tenths of a second difference in favor of the TF car. This
ET
> > difference at 300MPH equates to 132 feet! Not my imagination at all.
> >
> > Chris

 

Well, I started trying to figure out what you found so humorous, but then I
realized that you haven't figured that out yet either, so when you do, why
don't you share it with the newsgroup? I'm sure we're all here on pins and
needles waiting for this one.

Chris

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42E051B9.17B18C43@***.net...
> So put your money where you month is, it's only a half second away
> at National Hot Rod Association's
> http://www.nhra.com/stats/natrecord.html Until then you don't mind if I
> be Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A** Off! waiting for you, of course
> I guess we could always go twelve cylinders. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> c wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> > Do you know the difference between a rocket car and a jet car? I did not
say
> > that the jets were banned, in fact I went to see them at the local track
> > just a few weeks ago. I do still remember going to watch my first drag
race
> > at the same track 28 years ago, and the ROCKET car that was there that
night
> > ran a 4.93 ET at 344 MPH. This was 28 years ago when the Top Fuel cars
still
> > had the short wings, they shifted gears, and they didn't have the lockup
> > clutches like they do now. Also thousands fewer ponies too. I can't say
what
> > the TF cars were running back then, but I do know that the 4 second
barrier
> > was not broken until Eddie Hill did it the week after the US Nationals
in
> > 1988. He broke the 4 second barrier at the Texas Motorplex running a
4.93ET
> > if my memory serves me correctly. I was at Indy that year, and Gene Snow
and
> > I believe Joe Amato were in the finals. Snow had run a 5.002 in the semi
> > finals, and said he would get the 4 in the final, but his throttle
linkage
> > broke right after he launched. Anyway, my point here is that the rocket
cars
> > had got so fast, and I believe I remember hearing about a run that was
over
> > 400MPH and in the very low 4 second range, but that I am not sure of. I
> > think that was when all of the sanctioning bodies started banning the
> > rockets. Also, the Jets do sometimes hit a higher top speed than the TF
> > cars, but I haven't seen or heard of a jet that is close to a TF car as
far
> > as ET is concerned, and ET is what counts. Now, I'm sure if someone
built an
> > unlimited jet car based on the newest jet technology, it might be a
> > different story. I did find this page that only shows the records for a
> > particular track.
> >
> > http://www.mirdrag.com/records.htm
> >
> > It shows a 3 tenths of a second difference in favor of the TF car. This
ET
> > difference at 300MPH equates to 132 feet! Not my imagination at all.
> >
> > Chris

 

Well, I started trying to figure out what you found so humorous, but then I
realized that you haven't figured that out yet either, so when you do, why
don't you share it with the newsgroup? I'm sure we're all here on pins and
needles waiting for this one.

Chris

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42E051B9.17B18C43@***.net...
> So put your money where you month is, it's only a half second away
> at National Hot Rod Association's
> http://www.nhra.com/stats/natrecord.html Until then you don't mind if I
> be Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A** Off! waiting for you, of course
> I guess we could always go twelve cylinders. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> c wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> > Do you know the difference between a rocket car and a jet car? I did not
say
> > that the jets were banned, in fact I went to see them at the local track
> > just a few weeks ago. I do still remember going to watch my first drag
race
> > at the same track 28 years ago, and the ROCKET car that was there that
night
> > ran a 4.93 ET at 344 MPH. This was 28 years ago when the Top Fuel cars
still
> > had the short wings, they shifted gears, and they didn't have the lockup
> > clutches like they do now. Also thousands fewer ponies too. I can't say
what
> > the TF cars were running back then, but I do know that the 4 second
barrier
> > was not broken until Eddie Hill did it the week after the US Nationals
in
> > 1988. He broke the 4 second barrier at the Texas Motorplex running a
4.93ET
> > if my memory serves me correctly. I was at Indy that year, and Gene Snow
and
> > I believe Joe Amato were in the finals. Snow had run a 5.002 in the semi
> > finals, and said he would get the 4 in the final, but his throttle
linkage
> > broke right after he launched. Anyway, my point here is that the rocket
cars
> > had got so fast, and I believe I remember hearing about a run that was
over
> > 400MPH and in the very low 4 second range, but that I am not sure of. I
> > think that was when all of the sanctioning bodies started banning the
> > rockets. Also, the Jets do sometimes hit a higher top speed than the TF
> > cars, but I haven't seen or heard of a jet that is close to a TF car as
far
> > as ET is concerned, and ET is what counts. Now, I'm sure if someone
built an
> > unlimited jet car based on the newest jet technology, it might be a
> > different story. I did find this page that only shows the records for a
> > particular track.
> >
> > http://www.mirdrag.com/records.htm
> >
> > It shows a 3 tenths of a second difference in favor of the TF car. This
ET
> > difference at 300MPH equates to 132 feet! Not my imagination at all.
> >
> > Chris

 

<calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121997496.373032.246860@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
<snip>
>
> But even if you spend hours doing the homework, line up the results,
> and have it all notarized Bill will just change the subject if it isn't
> what he likes to hear. So why bother?
>

I have realized this long ago, but sometimes I forget. We all know what
happens after that. ;)

Chris