quote:

Originally posted by 183N:

quote:

Originally posted by sleeper 69:

quote:

Originally posted by jmarkaudio:
How much temp does it gain on track?

Leave the starting line at 150. Run 1/8 mile and drive back to the pits it is 170. Running the fan, moroso electric motor driven, the entire run.

Like the above posters I’d say leave the starting line closer to 170 water temp, that’s where we try to be with our stuff on methanol. You might benefit from leaning the idle a little to help it build heat. We have fan on all the time, gains about 5 degrees on a 1/4 mile run.

We tried leaving at 170 last week. No change in et or mph. It was 92 degrees in the middle of the day with about 55% humidity. The car came back about 195. That is when we went from 150 jets to the 156 that are in it now thinking we were to lean based on the engine temp gained. We saw no difference in et or mph with the jet change either, maybe a little cooler but very little, coming back to the pits. Thus my question is if I have it to rich. The carb came with 150 jets.

How much do all your cars vary on a given day or night? I used to think .003 was good but that won't do it any more.

Thanks for all the advice so far.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:

quote:

Originally posted by 183N:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:
Hopefully Sleeper69 follows logic and not a vote. Sounds to me like he made 7 laps within a thou to the 60 ft and ya'll are suggesting he raise his starting line temp 20 degrees, for what reason?

Because my cars are more consistent that way, simple.

That's a good reason for YOU to run warmer starting line temp.

The OP just made 7 laps within a thou to the 60ft. Throw the 6.58 of the op's out, and it made 7 full pulls within 16 thou.

You're free to give any suggestion you like,it's your right, but I respectfully disagree.

I don’t know how many times you are going to harp on the 60’ being within a thou, but I don’t see that being posted.

Best we can infer is that it moved .008, which is still good and aligns with the spread in 330.

For the record, I like to stage at 170 also.

For each run on the 10th, can you post the time, temp, baro and humidity?
What are your trans temps through the day?
Does stall/flash speed go up in later rounds?
Do you have any data acquisition?

Headwind/tailwinds do affect ET. For example, my brother's car will change one number (.01)in the 1/4 for a 7mph headwind.

Even if you're not tuned perfectly, like 3-5% either rich or lean, performance is typically the same if weather conditions stay reasonably consistent.

Running methanol does not guarantee time slip printing when weather swings are significant. Weather effects are less on methanol than with gas as measured/predicted by HP correction factor (CF).

quote:

Originally posted by Lenny5160:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:

quote:

Originally posted by 183N:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:
Hopefully Sleeper69 follows logic and not a vote. Sounds to me like he made 7 laps within a thou to the 60 ft and ya'll are suggesting he raise his starting line temp 20 degrees, for what reason?

Because my cars are more consistent that way, simple.

That's a good reason for YOU to run warmer starting line temp.

The OP just made 7 laps within a thou to the 60ft. Throw the 6.58 of the op's out, and it made 7 full pulls within 16 thou.

You're free to give any suggestion you like,it's your right, but I respectfully disagree.

I don’t know how many times you are going to harp on the 60’ being within a thou, but I don’t see that being posted.

Best we can infer is that it moved .008, which is still good and aligns with the spread in 330.

For the record, I like to stage at 170 also.

Until someone like yourself comes along and points out the Op's 60's didn't range from 1.477 - 1.478 as I read it, so thank you for that correction.

So let's talk about starting line temp, I have a sbc same as op, methanol carb same as op, my starting line temp is 165 degrees, I run 31 degrees timing.

So why don't I suggest 31 degrees timing and a 165 degree stating line temp? The reason is both are relative my tune.

Now the biggest question is how many turns are the OP's 4 mixture screws now that you've correctly pointed out we're working with 8 thou, not 1 thou.

If the mixture screws are out more than a turn and a half to not stumble at 150 degrees, I'd turn them out a turn and a half annd make 160 - 165 my new starting line temp > see if that cleans up 60ft.

I'd still only move the timing a half degree at a time to finish off the tune though.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike Rietow,

I just think we gotta look at Sleeper69 situation a little different in order to give him a good lending hand.

I have a suspicsion and am leery of these electric fuel pump tuneups.

I think Quick Fuel is probably trying to build a methanol carb as a easy switch from gasoline carb. Basically they're probably saying get X fuel pump, set pressure at X and you can just bolt our Quick fuel methanol carb on your car and make it to the finish line. Which is a good money making idea for Quick Fuel.

So with that being said, I say Sleeper69 is close, lets not steer him off track too far, see how it goes for Sleeper next race, just a few small changes.

If i'm right Sleepers car probably has the same timing he ran on gasoline around 38 degrees and the fuel cell is in the trunk. Which is fine if the car is consistent.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike Rietow,

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:
I just think we gotta look at Sleeper69 situation a little different in order to give him a good lending hand.

I have a suspicsion and am leery of these electric fuel pump tuneups.

I think Quick Fuel is probably trying to build a methanol carb as a easy switch from gasoline carb. Basically they're probably saying get X fuel pump, set pressure at X and you can just bolt our Quick fuel methanol carb on your car and make it to the finish line. Which is a good money making idea for Quick Fuel.

So with that being said, I say Sleeper69 is close, lets not steer him off track too far, see how it goes for Sleeper next race, just a few small changes.

If i'm right Sleepers car probably has the same timing he ran on gasoline around 38 degrees and the fuel cell is in the trunk. Which is fine if the car is consistent.

Pretty close on most things. Timing is 37 degrees but compression is only 9.5. Flat top 468bbc with a set of 840 L78 heads previously run on a stocker. Idle screws in carb are 1 turn out. I have no data acquisition, no oil or trans temp gauges, no grid, nothing but an old 6AL box. Just using what I have to try and help my son race a little.

Just trying to figure out where we lost the extra .015 from the 330 to the 660. The car isn't bad but it is very hard to win today with a .003 spread in et. I raced every weekend from the 70's util about 2000 when I retired. All the electronics today are a bit intimidating to me.

quote:

Originally posted by sleeper 69:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:
I just think we gotta look at Sleeper69 situation a little different in order to give him a good lending hand.

I have a suspicsion and am leery of these electric fuel pump tuneups.

I think Quick Fuel is probably trying to build a methanol carb as a easy switch from gasoline carb. Basically they're probably saying get X fuel pump, set pressure at X and you can just bolt our Quick fuel methanol carb on your car and make it to the finish line. Which is a good money making idea for Quick Fuel.

So with that being said, I say Sleeper69 is close, lets not steer him off track too far, see how it goes for Sleeper next race, just a few small changes.

If i'm right Sleepers car probably has the same timing he ran on gasoline around 38 degrees and the fuel cell is in the trunk. Which is fine if the car is consistent.

Pretty close on most things. Timing is 37 degrees but compression is only 9.5. Flat top 468bbc with a set of 840 L78 heads previously run on a stocker. Idle screws in carb are 1 turn out. I have no data acquisition, no oil or trans temp gauges, no grid, nothing but an old 6AL box. Just using what I have to try and help my son race a little.

Just trying to figure out where we lost the extra .015 from the 330 to the 660. The car isn't bad but it is very hard to win today with a .003 spread in et. I raced every weekend from the 70's util about 2000 when I retired. All the electronics today are a bit intimidating to me.

Nothing wrong with anything ya'll are doing or the parts you have.

015 or better total Super Pro, you can be competitive anywhere you go. Electronics, data acquisition doesn't matter. I never had any.

Jack the timing up 1.5 degrees might finish it off, to remove the one bad timeslip you got last race.

Your close, methanol is finicky I wouldn't do much at a time. Ya never wanna go backwards.

Good Luck!

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:
Your close, methanol is finicky I wouldn't do much at a time. Ya never wanna go backwards.

Good Luck!

Methanol is finicky???? Not hardly...compared to gas it's WAY more forgiving on tuneup and performance. One of the reasons I switched. Granted, if it's not there, you still need to get it close, but it's tuning window is way wider than gas.....

As far as data acquisition goes, you can get by without it, but then you're just guessing at a lot. If you hit it, you're more lucky than good. If you don't need data acquisition, then why are so many racers using it, and why is it helping their programs???

quote:

Originally posted by sleeper 69:

quote:

Originally posted by Coloradoracer:
How consistent are you wanting? If your tune is good, weather is your cause. Alky doesn't like humidity. If it changes a lot during the day, it will affect performance. DA too, temp affects it the least.

If you don't have a weather station I'd consider it.

It need to stay between a 6.550 and a 6.569 in all conditions. We ran 7 runs yesterday. All 7 60 fts were 1.47 to 1.478. All 330 were 4.219 to 4.228. 6 runs were 6.551 to 6.564. Last run the 50 and 330 were the same but went a 6.581. It was later at night and the humidity was 70% or a little more. Will it move more rich or lean in higher humidity?

What Track?

What time of day was the first lap? Last lap?
Can you write down, in order, every 60 foot, 330
ft, and 660ft time?
6 laps within .013 (13 thou) is pretty damn good for a slow door car.
Looked at a lot of KY tracks on 7/10 and they all have the same trend - wind calms down, air gets cooler, GOW goes down and correction factor leans toward a slightly lower ET. You went backwards due to something other than jet size or "a 1/2* timing."
What do your plugs look like? That is your only data acquisition at this point other than doing a water test on your fuel.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick!:

quote:

Originally posted by sleeper 69:

quote:

Originally posted by Coloradoracer:
How consistent are you wanting? If your tune is good, weather is your cause. Alky doesn't like humidity. If it changes a lot during the day, it will affect performance. DA too, temp affects it the least.

If you don't have a weather station I'd consider it.

It need to stay between a 6.550 and a 6.569 in all conditions. We ran 7 runs yesterday. All 7 60 fts were 1.47 to 1.478. All 330 were 4.219 to 4.228. 6 runs were 6.551 to 6.564. Last run the 50 and 330 were the same but went a 6.581. It was later at night and the humidity was 70% or a little more. Will it move more rich or lean in higher humidity?

What Track?

What time of day was the first lap? Last lap?
Can you write down, in order, every 60 foot, 330
ft, and 660ft time?
6 laps within .013 (13 thou) is pretty damn good for a slow door car.
Looked at a lot of KY tracks on 7/10 and they all have the same trend - wind calms down, air gets cooler, GOW goes down and correction factor leans toward a slightly lower ET. You went backwards due to something other than jet size or "a 1/2* timing."
What do your plugs look like? That is your only data acquisition at this point other than doing a water test on your fuel.

Clay City First run was at 6 pm in the evening and last was 11 pm at night. My son has the time slips in the trailer at his house. I agree it went opposite of what experience has taught. If it is rich and the weather cools it should be faster, it's not, that is why I ask. Haven't looked at a plug. We have just started using the alky, what should the plugs look like? I know what they should look like on gas but have no experience with alky.

One thing I learned was to use the car's repeatibility (or in my case lack of it) to and advantage.

For instance I know that on run #3 it's always about 2 hundredths quicker for whatever reason; always has been. So in E1, I'll dial for it and people think I'm holding a couple, I'll run it out the back door while they're still chasing and they break out. Just one example.

Still gotta drive. The car could run dead on every time and you can still be eliminated. that is one of the frustrations of bracket racing. You can wear yourself out trying to make one of these cars run dead on every pass. Just be mindful of the frustration and you'll be fine.

http://www.wallaceracing.com/plug-reading-lm.html

https://www.dragstuff.com/tech...hol-spark-plugs.html
It says blown alcohol but it's 100% applicable to NA alcohol plug reading.

quote:

Originally posted by sleeper 69:


It need to stay between a 6.550 and a 6.569 in all conditions. We ran 7 runs yesterday. All 7 60 fts were 1.47 to 1.478. All 330 were 4.219 to 4.228. 6 runs were 6.551 to 6.564. Last run the 50 and 330 were the same but went a 6.581. It was later at night and the humidity was 70% or a little more. Will it move more rich or lean in higher humidity?

Haven't looked at a plug. We have just started using the alky, what should the plugs look like? I know what they should look like on gas but have no experience with alky.

Sleeper, you should be tuning it so that it consistently changes according to the changes in the humidity, barometer and D/A. For right now you're trying to get the car consistent. I'll say again put 1 to 1.5 degrees timing in it. If you put the timing in it, it'll change the vaporization on the compression stroke, you might lose the poor time slip. It'll lean it out. Once you get it running the number, PM me, I'll tell ya how to track the weather changes on your time-slips.

This is how the ring should look but going 660 isn't far enough. I was running to 1000 ft to get the cadium to burn on the ring.

It's not a matter of rich or lean, it's a matter of it moving consistently with Hum, Bar, DA. Rich or on the lean side, it's whatever it takes.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike Rietow,

as consistent as the 60 and 330 are my guess is late at night fewer cars going down track.something with track changed.

The OP has six timeslips which make perfect sense. One that doesn't.

I'd be looking at it as he is , what do I need to do with the tune to make seven runs that make sense.

The only difference is the OP is looking at it from a gasoline perspective, is it rich or lean? When with methanol because it'll run no matter how much fuel you pour down it's throat, it's not a matter of rich or lean, it's a matter of what it wants to move consistently with hum, bar and DA.

It's close, make a small change Sleeper69. See if it'll make seven runs which make sense.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

That's how I always did it, I never had any gizmo's (data) to tell me where I was at. The timeslip is most accurate anyway.

Timeslip and water temp is how I tune on alcohol.

I too have a 6.40-6.50 car, SBC, PG, 4.56 rear, 28x10 tires. I run a QF 850 alcohol carb and have it jetted with 154's. I have the timing set at 38* and pull 2* in high gear. I run an Enderle "0" pump with -8 fuel line through the whole system and poppet style return. 3 lbs at idle and 7.5-8 lbs going down track.

My starting line temp is 180 (I have to pull the lean out even on hot days) and I gain 5* going down track with just the waterpump on. Temp sender is in the aluminum head.

The car is deadly consistent now but didn't start out that way.The carb was in left field when I got it. I had to go thru everything and changed the emulsion and air bleeds. The drive-ability was horrible and it would blubber in the mid-range driving around the pits. I called QF and talked to a tech guys a couple times, who sent me all the parts I needed but I still had to make small changes to get it where it is today.

I can pull mine apart to see how I staggered the emulsion bleeds and what size I used (not stock) and what size air bleeds are in it now. They do not come ready to run from QF in my experience and need to be tweeked to get them right. (At least mine did) I don't change jets now, only air bleeds when I want to make a change. Summer or winter, I run the same jets.

Just my .02

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:
When with methanol because it'll run no matter how much fuel you pour down it's throat

I thought you said methanol is finicky Mikey??? Is it or isn't it? If it's finicky, then this statement if false....

You can't say one thing then turn around and say something different.....

quote:

Originally posted by Coloradoracer:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:
When with methanol because it'll run no matter how much fuel you pour down it's throat

I thought you said methanol is finicky Mikey??? Is it or isn't it? If it's finicky, then this statement if false....

You can't say one thing then turn around and say something different.....

Your car is a testament to methanol, no matter how much fuel you pour down it's throat, it'll run down track. But your car isn't consistent.

That's what we're talking here, consistency.

Methanol is finicky to make consistent, your car is a testament to this being the case as well.

Get it now?

If you can't follow a long in a conversation concerning performance fundamentals, everything performance fundamental oriented, is gonna seem like a struggle, when applied.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike Rietow,

So you think my car not being consistent is because of the fuel? Wrong......I know why it isn't...and it's not fuel related.....you should stop assuming things you aren't aware of.....

Funny thing is, EVERYBODY I've talked to that made the switch to, or runs methanol, loves it because it's more consistent in performance than gas....contradictory to what you're saying....but of course, you're the ultimate authority on the subject....along with suspension tuning, transmissions, engine building, etc....still wondering why you aren't running a pro team because of your claimed superior knowledge and lack of need for data acquisition...I'm sure you'd have the fastest, most consistent car in racing, and likely would never loose....

Provided you can avoid the cones of course......

We know I can make a car zerox time slips, no data.

We know you can't, with all the data acquisition in the world.

We know I build my own engines, transmissions.

Where's the confusion / argument?

We can argue, but it won't be rational from your end.