Eddie someone beat your reaction time?
who was in the left lane? or was that just the shadow of your car trying to catch up in the quarter mile?
Well, Yes and no.
That was Hartley in the other lane.
He was staged DEEP -very close to the starting line, so as soon as the car moved- at all- it stopped the "reaction" timer and started the Elapsed time clock. Looks good for "reaction" time, bad for elapsed time because the car is barely moving when the elapsed time clock starts.
I was staged SHALLOW, just as far back-away- from the starting line as is possible and still have both the pre-stage and the stage lights lit. So I get the maximum "rollout" head start before it stops the "reaction" timer and starts the elapsed time clock. Looks bad for "reaction" time, but will yield the best elapsed time because the car is moving faster when the elapsed time clock starts, with that little extra bit of "rollout" or head start.
During the all-important qualifying runs, the drivers that stage shallow have the best chance of the best qualifying position that the car can deliver.
The published "reaction times" have more to do with how the drivers stage the cars, than any real difference the time it takes for each driver to achieve wide open throttle, after seeing the glow begin in the center of the start light bulb.
A much more meaningful and relevant number is the sum of the "reaction" time and the 60 foot time, because that tells you how long each driver and car took, to cover the first 60 feet, after the starting light bulb began to glow in the center.
My time card here is a perfect illustration. Hartley's "reaction" time of .498 added to his 60 foot time of 1.023 equals 1.521 seconds.
My .546 "reaction" time added to my 60 foot time of .844 equals 1.390 second to get to 60 foot. My quicker 60 foot by .131 seconds (sum of my reaction time and 60 foot time) looms large to me, because I have won, and lost, races by .001 second.
Admittedly his car was not performing as well as mine on that run, but he did get to 330 foot in well under 3 seconds, so the majority of his problems were after the 330. I don't think his 60 foot time was off much, so I think this is a valid illustration of the deep vs. shallow staging scenario.
What a wordy answer to such a short question!
Cheers,
Eddie
www.cnet.com
