9sec9

iTrader: (2)

I can't wait Jeremy. At least the testing is being done at about every power and option level. It's going to be interesting to see how they do with your setup. Too bad we didn't get to test them with your older turbo. The we could have had another direct comparison. I think, however, that we'll see the MPH numbers increase with the Hoosiers. How soon?

added: I forgot to say, "Yeah, I'd like to see a 3rd mod and E85 too."

David Buschur

iTrader: (53)

You guys don't attribute any of the improvements in the air being much better now that it was a month+ ago when the stock clutch failed? I know any time we want to set a record Sept/Oct is the best time to do it. When the fall air starts coming in there is no better time to prove a point. What about the car being quicker from a lighter clutch and the stock clutch not holding all the power when it was run last?

What exactly is "a reliability issue" with a 3" exhuast?

Indy Evo

iTrader: (41)

I'll go for the E85, buy why waste 1000.00 on an exhaust when this hot rod runs so well on the stock exhaust

Indy Evo

iTrader: (41)

5/10/09 IRP 12.07 @ 112.35 stock clutch 1.621 60' w/BFG DR's DA 818 ft.
9/10/09 IRP 11.83 @ 114.86 Quarter Master 1.699 60' w/Hoosier DR's DA 2178 ft
9/15/09 IRP 11.84 @ 115.14 Quarter Master 1.713 60' w/Hoosier DR's DA 2065 ft

Actually the mass of a stock flywheel would be better for the launch as stored energy is released, with the lightened flywheel you do not have as much stored energy upon launch with a low HP car.

9sec9

iTrader: (2)

DB, we watch the density altitude, wind direction, temps and other issues pretty closely. The times that have been run were 'Take what we get'. For example, the first night of testing with the tires. Night before, we were at IRP. Warm night with the BFG's. 12.0x at 113.x I believe. VERY next night, Hoosiers at Muncy and 12.00 at 116.58 mph. Now, we've gone back to IRP within a couple of weeks and DA about the same, actually worst in a couple of instances, and were back on the 115 mph runs. As the DA goes down, we'll see improved times for sure. Just like you, and all of us have seen in the past. Make no mistake though. We're not running below sea level in Indianapolis. Every time anyone's posted their numbers, I don't remember seeing that they said 'BUT.....it was low temps, low DA, etc, etc." It's always just the times and mphs. That's what we're comparing against. Lots of Evo's have run the same mods without the same results. Apples to apples. As for the 3" exhaust, my stance is that the times would dramatically improve. I think this just accentuates that if the 2.5 stock exhaust can give these results, imagine what a 3" exhaust that's lighter weight could give. I still would like to see your 2.5" exhaust on the car. Light, less restrictive and more clearance underneath.

brokenRS

iTrader: (21)

Nice work guys, i am returning my so-so modded RS slowly back to stock. Hopefully we can work something out with the 91 ****ty gas

Indy Evo

iTrader: (41)

9sec9 has an awesome 91 octane tune, just ask the guys from Oklahoma that posted in this thread.

David Buschur

iTrader: (53)

I have never seen a heavier flywheel provide better 60 foot times in an EVO, throw that out the window. Also, you should listen to Tom, Indy, there is more to a pass than a 60' time and a lightened part that rotates helps with the entire run. He can explain it to you later.

I don't know what the weather was, I was asking a question. Been reading 41 pages as time as has passed and haven't said anything but I guess I am growing tired of Indy's little comments, so thought I'd finally ask a few questions. I know typically the weather is better in September than it is in June so I asked.

So what is a reliability issue with a 3" exhaust? You also know Tom that there will be no BR parts on that car, we make the lightest 3" exhaust on the market and can make it super quiet, but it's going to get a home brew built as already mentioned.

BTW, the BFG's I think are one of the poorest drag radials on the market, the Nitto's would be the only one that is worse that I have ever tried. Just for reference.

RedIXRS09

iTrader: (12)

tien,

Dont let the fact that 91oct is what you have at your disposal discourage you! I have a pretty stout 91oct tune. It is all about making everything work well together, and finding the right balance! You can have a very quick car on straight 91oct trust me! Just make all the parts you have work well togeter!
9sec9 tunes FTW!!!!

David Buschur

iTrader: (53)

So from this we are to all gather what? That the Hoosier tires are superior to the BFG's? That is a hard sell. It would appear to me though that the lighter flywheel certainly has gained some power up top and so has Tom's further tuning.

The rolling resistance sure isn't so greatly improved that you gained 2.5 mph with that much worse weather conditions. The tire height could certainly play a key roll in that though too based on the cars power band being low and the taller tire dropping the car back further into where it is making power. Interesting to think about it all.

5-10-09, 56 daytime low/66.9 high, 30.12 in
9-10-09, 72 daytime low/82 high, 30.12 in
9-15-09, 73 daytime low/84 high, 30.01 in

I for sure like those temps in May better than September. Not sure of the evening temps when you ran but I found those. Barometer on all days were good.

9sec9

iTrader: (2)

Not nearly as good as the coastal regions get. 30.12 is ok to good for the inner regions. For sea level areas it doesn't even come close to being good. The DA (density altitude) is the telling story. Yes, the May temps and baro numbers resulted in a better DA than when we've been running lately. That's for sure worth a better ET and MPH when Indianapolis finally cools back down to 'best' racing conditions. Like I said earlier, the conditions have not been best recently, but we've run and tested anyway. It's pretty amazing that the ET continues to go lower and the MPH continues to go up, even with the weather conditions not being ideal. Some original comments relating to the 60' being the ONLY thing important doesn't seem to be true any longer (it never was). The lighter weight, the taller tire, the better compound and the better rolling resistence ALL make the tire what it is. The problem with using a 60' only is that it's the ONLY thing being used to measure the quality of the tire and yet, the MPH and the ET keep getting better, while the 60's remain the same. I wonder why? How much do you think the lighter weight is worth. You've already mentioned the taller tire, but the Nitto is the right height, but no grip and way too heavy. The M/T drag radials in an 18 weigh 5lbs more. Based on tons of previous comments concerning how much we had gained using light wheels, surely the lighter weight has got to be acknowledged to be worth something. We've never argued that point. Quite the opposite recently. Like I've said, the COMPLETE tire makes it what it is. Not just one point picked to death. I still have money that bets the tire will eventually be in the 1.4's on someones car. I have a quick question. If Indy's car has run 11.83 and 11.84 at 114.8 to 115.36 mph and is doing it with a 1.7x 60', how much of that is flywheel weight up top and how much of it is tire weight savings? If and when the 60' drops to the 1.60 range, and if the standard reduction of 1.5x the improvement holds true, then isn't it reasonable to expect the 11.83 to just be the beginning of very possibly a high 11.6 run? I think what's being lost in all of the comments is the fact that this is Indy's first season of going back to the track after a LONG lay off. Perfect driving, including the launches, can't be expected with a new tire, new clutch and no where near perfect medical conditions. Still, we/he goes to the track and produces.

David Buschur

iTrader: (53)

Yes, I said the results now are impressive, not a lot better than they were in May as I'd have expected, that's why I took the time to look up the conditions, post them and give kudo's.

Lighter tire and lighter clutch I agree 110% are showing up in ET and MPH for sure, no doubt about it, no arguement from me. 60' times are not producing yet, for whatever reason and I agree, when it goes 1.60's it's going to be an 11.6 car. I think much of the credit for the new times goes to the continues work on the tune (nice job Tom) and the weight of the two products. Jim knocking some rust off isn't hurting either! haha

Early EVO

iTrader: (2)

Geez, try having a Baro of 27.5. I wish, wish we had something in the 29's out here.

Indy Evo

iTrader: (41)

I went to the track tonight and it rained while we were waiting to get in. After a 45 minute delay the track was open. Four passes tonight, the worst being a 12.052 and three 11 second passes, 11.949, 11.908, and the best of 11.866 @ 114.86 in worse conditions then our best run two weeks ago. The quick pass was run with a DA of 2413 ft. I can say one thing for sure, 9sec9's tunes are spot on...period, they have been proven time and time again to be consistant and perform as expected in any condition. The setup was the same, and I almost went home once the rain started, but Tom and I made an agreement to not cherry pick days to run, so we ran. Thanks again Tom, four more passes in the books.

crcain

Nice consistency! But why do you leave out 60's when clearly people would care about them wouldn't they?