Has average speed for Speedweek records gone DOWN?

[John Romero]

To be fair, wouldn't this be a reflection of increased activity in lower-displacement classes (partly as a result of minimizing the cost of racing)?

Franklin is not trying to be fair.

Of course, he didnt bother to compare apples to apples (class to class). He cares nothing about the truth, only furthering his own agenda. It's garbage posts like these that make him the butt of most everyones jokes.

In 1973, there was no such thing as a supercharged, normally aspirated, fuel or gas streamliner or lakester. All records were based solely on achieving the maximum speed per cubic inch for a given displacement class.

Yes, we know. You have made that same (obvious) observation in two other threads today alone.

Here ==> http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,4389.msg60543.html#msg60543
and here ==> http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,4533.msg60542.html#msg60542

Of course, none of that has anything to do with my earlier post. Typical.

[McRat]

But going back to the title of the thread, even with more small disp and NA records, the average speed it takes set a record is basically the same.  You just have to do more, with less.

[Ratliff]

But going back to the title of the thread, even with more small disp and NA records, the average speed it takes set a record is basically the same.  You just have to do more, with less.

At the end of 1973, there were only three streamliner records over 300 mph. All of them were set with a V-8 car (four in the case of Challenger I), all of them are now slower than the records set with the Nebulous Theorem car, and all of them have been equaled or exceeded by the fastest motorcycles.

[edweldon]

Mr.Romero:
Please avoid further criticisms of Mr. Ratliff.  His postings are a legitimate discussion topic for Land speed racing.  Most of us would like to see Jon and Nancy enjoy their vacation without this kind of conflict going on in the forum ready to greet them on their return.
Thanks, Ed Weldon (the canoe guy)

[Ratliff]

To be fair, wouldn't this be a reflection of increased activity in lower-displacement classes (partly as a result of minimizing the cost of racing)?

Franklin is not trying to be fair.

Of course, he didnt bother to compare apples to apples (class to class). He cares nothing about the truth, only furthering his own agenda. It's garbage posts like these that make him the butt of most everyones jokes.

In 1973, there was no such thing as a supercharged, normally aspirated, fuel or gas streamliner or lakester. All records were based solely on achieving the maximum speed per cubic inch for a given displacement class.

Yes, we know. You have made that same (obvious) observation in two other threads today alone.

Here ==> http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,4389.msg60543.html#msg60543
and here ==> http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,4533.msg60542.html#msg60542

Of course, none of that has anything to do with my earlier post. Typical.

When streamliners and lakesters were divided into supercharged, normally aspirated, fuel, and gas records that created four records for each displacement class where previously there had been only one. This meant three out of the four records in each streamliner and lakester displacement class no longer had to represent the maximum speed that could be attained per cubic inch.

[sheribuchta]

sorry franklin i didnt realize this was your thread  willie buchta

[Roadsters.com]

In 1973, the fastest H-powered vehicle in the SCTA was 193.167 MPH (H/S streamliner).

In 2008, my H-powered, production-based Honda Civic has a faster record (195.818 MPH), and the H-powered streamliner record is 324.014 MPH.

That really puts things into perspective.

It's this level of refinement that can make alternative forms of racing such as nostalgia drag racing, vintage sports car road racing, and shifter karts look relatively straightforward.

I'm not the only one who's looked at what racers in the league of Chuck Salmen and Ron Jolliffe have accomplished, very briefly contemplated what it would take to go after their records, and then forgotten about it.

For me at least, the problem seems to be that the Sixties are over.

Dave
http://www.roadsters.com/

[John Romero]

Mr.Romero:
Please avoid further criticisms of Mr. Ratliff.  His postings are a legitimate discussion topic for Land speed racing.  Most of us would like to see Jon and Nancy enjoy their vacation without this kind of conflict going on in the forum ready to greet them on their return.
Thanks, Ed Weldon (the canoe guy)

No problem Ed. He's all yours ... I'm going to check out that cool ignore button.

[Carl Johansson]

wait a minute.
What am I missing here mathamatically?  to get a record -  you have to exceed the old record -  correct?  So every record set must be faster than the previous record -  correct.  Now Mr. Ratliff in your infiniter wisdom - somehow you forgot the basic principle of statistics -  as correctly pointed out by roadsters.com - as apples to apples!

You must standardize the data before you could compare -  so the only valid mathmatical comparison was to compare each class - the record in 1971 with the current record in each class.  Seeing as how I do not believe that any new record is slower than a previous record, then your entire premise is bogus and may I humbly add -  idiotic. 

So the correct comparison would be how many new records  as compared to how many stayed the same!  because records don't go down in speed -  unless somehow in Bizzarro ratliff world you wave a magic wand and make em go away!

So as much as you would like to make your claim -  it has no validity -  either mathmatically -  or to anyone with any sort of grasp on reality!

Franklin -  you have been caught trying to manipulate data in a way to try and prove your point -  while this may make you an excellent politician -  it immediately excludes you as a scientist or mathmatian.

You can't seriously think you have a valid point right?  you do understand the concept of "record" correct?  so can I chalk this one up to ratliff is into the liquor cabinet again !
Carl Johansson

[Ratliff]

wait a minute.
What am I missing here mathamatically?  to get a record -  you have to exceed the old record -  correct?  So every record set must be faster than the previous record -  correct.  Now Mr. Ratliff in your infiniter wisdom - somehow you forgot the basic principle of statistics -  as correctly pointed out by roadsters.com - as apples to apples!

You must standardize the data before you could compare -  so the only valid mathmatical comparison was to compare each class - the record in 1971 with the current record in each class.  Seeing as how I do not believe that any new record is slower than a previous record, then your entire premise is bogus and may I humbly add -  idiotic. 

So the correct comparison would be how many new records  as compared to how many stayed the same!  because records don't go down in speed -  unless somehow in Bizzarro ratliff world you wave a magic wand and make em go away!

So as much as you would like to make your claim -  it has no validity -  either mathmatically -  or to anyone with any sort of grasp on reality!

Franklin -  you have been caught trying to manipulate data in a way to try and prove your point -  while this may make you an excellent politician -  it immediately excludes you as a scientist or mathmatian.

You can't seriously think you have a valid point right?  you do understand the concept of "record" correct?  so can I chalk this one up to ratliff is into the liquor cabinet again !
Carl Johansson

There was no "manipulation." You can't manipulate data when it's a straight adding up of all the speeds and dividing by the number of cars. Mathematicians call that averaging, not manipulation.

The common denominator is IT'S STILL PISTON ENGINES. I wasn't comparing piston engine cars to jets or rockets. You have all the same data. You can do the same adding and dividing I did. It's still not going to give the number you want.

It's still STREAMLINERS, LAKESTERS, ROADSTERS, COUPES, and SEDANS.

Piston engines make more horsepower than they did 35 years ago. So how has it happened that 35 years of technical progress has had no influence whatsoever on the average speed of SCTA car records? After 35 years of progress, shouldn't the average have, you know, GONE UP?

[Nortonist 592]

Lemme see if I got this right.  In 1973 a 650cc Triumph runs 136 and in 2008 a 50cc streamliner runs 137 so between 1973 and 2008 the average record speed has only gone up 1 mph.  Right? 

[Ratliff]

Lemme see if I got this right.  In 1973 a 650cc Triumph runs 136 and in 2008 a 50cc streamliner runs 137 so between 1973 and 2008 the average record speed has only gone up 1 mph.  Right? 

We were discussing car records not bike records. However, I suspect if we had the data and did the math, we would discover over the last 35 years the average speed of SCTA bike records has gone up A TON.

[dwarner]

"When I get motivated..."

That the problem here. Get motivated to put something on the race track! Leave the 1973 stuff alone, is that the only rulebook you have? Step up and pay the $10 for a new rulebook and come into this century.

DW

[Peter Jack]

Ratliffe:

To use your own ideas, guys on ordinary salaries can't afford to build expensive racing engines and cars. Therefore a lot more guys and girls who can't afford to go the more expensive route are building for the lower cost classes. Unlike yourself who sits and complains that everyone and everything is against them, these guys and girls are going out and performing at the level that their vehicles are capable of performing thus bringing the overall average down. One thing you might want to note is that these people are having fun and enjoying the comradship of all on the salt instead of being miserable and alienating all those they come in contact with.

Pete

[Rocket123]

"There was no "manipulation." You can't manipulate data when it's a straight adding up of all the speeds and dividing by the number of cars. Mathematicians call that averaging, not manipulation."


Oh but you are. Not going to explain it to ya since you'll just twist it around anyway. Can manipulate data by how much of it you decide to use.

Should close this thread it has no useful data
Rocket