Either way. I am looking forward to the videos

I am pretty sure they come from a Corvette Fever May 2009 artical. It states 85mph. I know all the C generation vettes are somewhere on youtube.

Article...http://www.corvettefever.com/techart...g/viewall.html

The link to graphs does not work.

Here is another one that shows rear lift. The C1 and C2 are the same. I did a lot of research on this 13 years ago.

http://i40.tinypic.com/212aagi.jpg

Also front lift if you care

http://i43.tinypic.com/mmygc6.jpg

Now i have some info.
Lappeenranta airport august 24, 1 mile race.

FWIW, The Ferrari Enzo, which has those massive air ducts underneath, has in the neighborhood of 800 lb downforce, over the entire car, at 200 MPH.


If I did my math right, that is only about 20" of H2O column negative underbody pressure, it doesn't take much

What goes on underneath the car, it more important than what goes on, on top.

Doug

Jim,

Lets look at a couple of things your 62 and a 63 have in common that may just effect rear lift some Vs Six-5 car.

Neither your 62 or 63 used in wind tunnel testing have lower fender vents. Six-5, 65 has lower fender vents to vent some of the underhood air that a C1 and 63 will trap. That lack of vents is a know cause of lift. How much venting air makes on relieving amount of air that exits under the body is unknown. We do know GS was modified to vent air.

When you racked your front end down to help with it's lifting, could doing that not be a cause of your 62's rear end lift at speed? No one knows as there is no known wind tunnel testing in that configuration as well is with lower vents on 65 & UP C2's.

As best as I can tell from picture of Six-5 65, the car's stance is close to level. It does not appear to be racked down as your C1 is. Do the lower fender vents and front air dam let him get away with this as well?

We do know from testing that just opening the headlights on a C2 lower rear lift numbers.

Another thing we don't know about either your C1 or SIX-5's C2 is front to rear balance. I'll bet that your car has a higher percentage of its weight on the front end than SIX-5 car does. If so that could account for your car wanting to spin the rear wheels due to lift. Less weight, easier to lift.

Seems like a well know man linked to Corvette performance understood way back in 55-56 something about lift and what it would take for him to go 150 MPH in a 56 corvette with an engine with way less horsepower than yours. What he did back in the 50s to do that on wet sand is what SIX-5 has done to go 194 MPH on an old air strip. Only 44 MPH faster than that 56 average two way clocked speed.

He understood how to lower lift on a 56 and it not show.:D
Maybe SIX-5 came to the same conclusion Zora did....:D

Realizing that he needed a dramatic achievement to let people know about the Corvette’s new personality, Duntov hit on the idea of a high-speed record run. A figure of 150 mph, he figured, should be within the new car’s reach. Chevrolet boss Ed Cole gave the green light to the scheme.

Duntov used a V8-engined ’54-bodied prototype for initial tests on the banked track at GM’s Milford Proving Grounds to find out what he’d have to do to hit 150 at Daytona Beach, where national attention was focused on high-speed runs in the 1950s. [U]With Jim Premo’s help, he fitted a racing windshield and a full belly pan. Aerodynamic mods in place, Duntov calculated that he needed about an additional 30 horsepower from the 195-bhp mill to hit the mark.

Drawing on his considerable experience with pushrod engines, Duntov designed a new camshaft. Though it had less lift than the factory high-performance cam, it provided a fuller valve-opening curve. Jerry Burton quoted famed racing mechanic Smokey Yunick as saying, “It was just a little better than what we’d call a ‘three-quarter’ cam. It was extremely durable and increased performance without totally destroying the bottom end…you could drive it on the street.”

Because Duntov’s camshaft was unorthodox by GM’s standards, some time elapsed before he was able to get it approved and have a sample sent to GM’s Phoenix Proving Grounds for testing. He and the test mule, now fitted with ’56 bodywork, arrived there in December 1955. The car had been further streamlined with a tonneau cover and a finned headrest. At the track, Duntov blocked off as much of the grille opening as possible, retaining just enough cooling air for the engine to survive the speed runs.

With the new cam installed, the engine ran easily to 6,500 rpm without valve bounce, and powered the Corvette to 163 mph at 6,300 rpm with 3.27:1 rear-axle gears. This, Arkus-Duntov felt, should translate into at least 150 mph on the sand in Florida.

The Chevy crew came to Daytona Beach in late December, but before the record run could commence, they had to wait for the conditions to be just right. “The sand must be a little wet,” Duntov said, “hard-packed, with no tongs of tidewater reaching in, for once you start you cannot deviate.” The stay stretched into January before the combination of wind and sand was acceptable. Under the watchful eye of NASCAR, Duntov climbed into the Corvette, with its side-bolstered driver’s seat and dash cluttered with extra test dials, and set off down the beach. The wind cooperated but the sand was only fair, allowing the tires to slip as much as five percent. Yet Duntov clocked a two-way average speed of 150.583 mph—an impressive accomplishment for a stock-bodied sports car.

Ostensibly, the engine was stock, too. Though it wasn’t actually fitted to any standard-production ’56 Corvette engines, the Duntov cam, as it came to be known, was officially an option in 1956. Dynamometer tests showed that its fitment resulted in 240 horsepower at 5,800 rpm, with a very fat power curve from 5,000 to 6,000 rpm. Maximum torque was 265 lbs-ft at 4,400 rpm.

Though the Daytona Beach speed run was a savvy public-relations stunt, simply getting the redesigned Corvette in the hands of journalists generated plenty of positive ink. The standard manual-gearbox 1956 Corvette staggered road testers with its acceleration, including yours truly. In Sports Cars Illustrated, I wrote that “as second gear takes over from first at around sixty and keeps the seat in your back ’til over a hundred, you learn what this car was made for.” I measured a top speed of 119 mph and a zero to 60 acceleration time of 7.5 seconds.

PS: Just to put SIX-5 MPH in prespective to 1956 Corvettes. Here is a little extra. Look at standing mile MPH...LOL

Corvette was back in Daytona Beach a short time later to take part in the NASCAR-sanctioned Daytona Speed Week. This time three cars were prepared, one each for drivers John Fitch, Betty Skelton and Zora Arkus-Duntov. Zora’s car would compete in the modified class, while the other two would compete in the production class. The results were impressive:

•1st in Flying Mile, Production Class: John Fitch in a 1956 Corvette with a two-way average speed of 145.543 MPH—a new record

•2nd in Flying Mile, Production Class: Betty Skelton in a 1956 Corvette at 137.773 MPH

•1st in Flying Mile, Modified Class: Zora Arkus-Duntov in 1956 Corvette at 147.3 MPH

•3rd in Standing Mile, Production Class: John Fitch in a 1956 Corvette at 86.782 MPH

•1st in Standing Mile, Modified Class: Zora Arkus-Duntov in 1956 Corvette at 89.753 MPH

Lift (or down force-same thing) is not free. It creates a proportional drag (called induced drag) that converts the energy of the moving fluid (air) into a force. Also created is additional "form drag" from whatever apparatus or shape is creating the lift or down force. If you keep the car down, you also slow it down or at least use more power to keep it down at the same speed.
Anybody here know the Cd of a stock C2? We could calculate the HP required to make it go 200.....
Here's a fact- The % of drag rises with the square of the % of increase in speed, and the power required to do that rises as the cube of the increase in speed.
Like this-
If I can go 150 mph on 400 hp and I want to go 200, that is a 35% increase in speed. 35% squared is 82%. That's an 82% increase in drag when you go 50 mph faster. The power increase required to do that is 35% cubed, 146% or 584 hp.

Lets say I'm going 180 on 750 hp and I want to go 205, that's 13% faster which needs 44% more power which is 1080 hp... So what you have to do is REDUCE the drag, not increase it with lot's of downforce.......I'm just sayin.

Something here does just not add up. I remain to be convinced.

So you are saying with the 645hp, before his new engine work, his is good to go for over 200 mph. If the drag created is by aerodynamics and it keeps his car on the ground and gives him traction what doesn't add up?

:cheers:
Tom

Lift (or down force-same thing) is not free. It creates a proportional drag (called induced drag) that converts the energy of the moving fluid (air) into a force. Also created is additional "form drag" from whatever apparatus or shape is creating the lift or down force. If you keep the car down, you also slow it down or at least use more power to keep it down at the same speed.

Well, I think you are missing something. He didn't add an apparatus or shape that increased CF of drag to car to reduce lift.

He added Belly panels that should have decreased drag by smoothing out the underneath of his car allowing air to flow faster underneath it.

Now did adding belly pans underneath increased the already applied drag across top of car causing increased down force?

What if what he did, did not change existing down force coefficient of drag at all are if it did only a little.

What if all the panels did was was reduced lift some allowing existing down force to stabilize car. We know that would increase traction and traction is drag, just good, badly needed drag...:D


SIX-5 has already stated in a previous post that he was going to be increasing the HP output of engine. That seems to be his limiting factor in getting to 200 or above MPH he already achieved.

SIX-65 set a goal. He didn't meet that goal. He then started looking at what he needed to do to make the car more stable as he stated, stability was a problem on first attempt. Second attempt he exceeded his goal a little by focusing on increasing stability. Now he going to try and raise the bar for himself and his 65 again this month.

Who here in the US does anyone know of who has attemped a standing mile run with their C2 and what speed was achieved? Did they attemp to better thier speed or find out how they might increase it if they found C2 to be unstabable as attempted. I've never heard anyone here mention hearing of anyone in US who has done a standing mile run.

I wish him the best of Luck. It's just a shame some here won't except the numbers even if they remain the same, and for sure not if he betters them.

One thing is certain, his speed was clocked and recorded by Finnish sanctioning body. There is no doubt about that. They told him the speed of his car in standing mile. He did not make the number up himself. If you have a problem with numbers, contact them and tell them it can't be done because you own a C2 or C1. That they are liars, or they need to get better equipment that reads what you think top speed for a C2 is. Wonder what their reply would be....:ack:

The Cd of a stock C-2 does not necessarily equal the Cd of one that has aero mods -- good or bad. What the OP has described is a series of underbelly diffusers (one front, one rear, and a belly pan in between. He has stopped some airflow under the car with the airdam (which creates a negative pressure area behind), he has cleaned up the airflow behind the engine, and it sounds like the has built the rest of the underbelly into a diffuser (with strakes) which significantly reduces the drag behind the car. Done properly, this should reduce overall drag, but will not create a lot of downforce (which creates drag). All of this potentially reduces the Cd enough to make the speeds he is attaining quite possible -- with enough horsepower. The danger is that he has created a low drag bullet that balances the lift and downforce, much like a thin, symmetrical airfoil. Drag is minimized and all is well until you change the angle of incidence of the airfoil (the angle of the relative wind to the vector of the "airfoil/car". A big bump, a dip, or a strong wind gust has the potential to launch the symmetrical airfoil -- remember the early GT cars with big belly pans under the nose that did back-flips in the late 60s/early 70s?-- or a perfectly balanced unlimited hydroplane that gets a little too much air under the nose? With regards to a stock C-1 or C-2 lifting the rear at speed, notice that the lower rear panel below the bumpers is a big parachute or air scoop. It needs a flat, upsloping surface (diffuser) to slow the airflow and reduce drag behind the car. Ever notice how a NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide Car seldom loses speed (and somethimes gains some) when the rear bumper cover is torn off? They are not allowed to use a diffuser, so tearing the cover off eliminates the "parachute" and smooths the airflow, with the bottom of the fuel cell acting as the diffuser -- less drag. Based on the videos posted so far, I think we need to give the OP some credit and wish him luck in Aug/Sep. As a side note, Twilight Zone, a relatively stock bodied 69 Daytona Charger (engineered and fabricated by my son) will try to run 300+ (mph - do the math on the horsepower required for grins) next week at Bonneville. Only made 283 out the back door last year with an engine problem.

My $.02 worth.

Pappy

Sky- No, I'm not saying that. I just picked some numbers for illustration.

Poorhouse- The lift issue and the total drag are two independent concerns. Vetrod62 (and others) brought up the terrific lift problem C2's have. My point was that IF the car was modified to minimize lift, it would probably still be a bit more draggy.
I will certainly admit that a properly designed underbody can reduce drag AND, if desired, provide down force.

My personal comments are just based on spending 36 years competing and setting records at top speed events on salt, dirt, and pavement and working on lots of very fast racecars with lots of very tricky aerodynamics.

And a C2 is not a very good aerodynamic example. I'm just saying that there must be more to this than we're seeing here. Maybe the power is underestimated...

So much so wrong. poor house,

First very little of those responding have any experance of trying to exceed 200. All opinion , no real doing it.

Yes, my 62 has no lower fender vents, But it has a large hood cutout for the the injector hat to remove under hood pressure.

The racking down the the front creats a negitive pressure under the car. If you have vacuum under the car holding down the front, that vacuum sould continue the the rear. But what everyone here refuses to reconize is the huge amount of air going down both sides of the car and wrapping around under the rear bumpers, along with the air coming over the car and sucking under the car, lifts the rear end. Does it every time I try it. How about you??

Why do all the modern cars have automatic wings raise when the go over 60 MPH that have simular rear body styles??

Opening the head lights destroys the wind splitter of the front, there by, different readings. But you should have known that. :D

Duhh, my front to rear balance is 48/52.

Duntov did great things all his career, and in 1956. But what does that have to do with today?? His FLying mile is slower than my standing quarter mile. I do not get it ??

According to the chart, 470 RWHP.

http://i44.tinypic.com/zugz6s.jpg

And finally, PH, any down force will increase drag, ask any 330+ top fueler. You guys fight it out, I just do the speed runs. :cheers:

Dont forget he is running 650fwhp plus two stages of nitrous. His filmed run of 174 mph was all motor no juice.

THere should be over 900hp pushing the car at the next attempt. I'm trying to get out of this hospital in time to witness it myself this time. :thumbs: Go Kimmo Go!!!! :cheers:

That chart shows the theoretical rwhp required to hit 200mph, but not in 1 mile.

You wanna go 180+ in a C2 call Gerry. He'll be glad to show you. BTDT, got the T-Shirt. RPM, gear ratios, and tire size don't lie. Just cause you can't do it doesn't mean nobody else can.:D

[QUOTE=vetrod62;1584626236]So much so wrong. poor house,

Your telling me you have gone out and tried to do 190+ MPH at a sanction standing mile event?

You posted you tried to go faster than 150 MPH where you didn't say so maybe the highway, but due to excessive rear wheel spin quit. Talked to some racer friends of don't know what type and they gave you their opinion, and this was 13 years ago. You gave up, I guess because if I can't do it with my engine and car it can't be done. No mention of trying any kind of changes to see if you could go a little faster.

Thought the hat was to supply fresh air to injectors, not vent hot air. But if its works, it works.

Did you think about doing what Zora did, tape up grill to allow only enough air to keep engine cool during runs? That might help. Those NASCAR boys seem to do that too since part of if not all of it exits under the car. The less air in the less that needs to be vented somewhere.

I believe racking down the front creates more down force on it. I'm not sure you can prove you it creates anymore negative pressure due to the small amount it lowered car's nose to ground.

What you need to look at is effect the lowering of front and your raising of the rear has on air flow both over and under car.

Well I'd have to ask you why you think all modern cars with similar rear body styles as a C2 coupe have rear raisable wings. styles. That not true at all. You show me the ones that do, an I'll show you there are more that don't.

Anyway, haven't see any with roof line or rear ends on new cars shaped like a C2. You have to remember the C2 front end design plays into how air flow at rear of car as well as shape of rear end.

Yes some have them, an if you've ever watched the Texas mile runs, they did exactly what your racing buddies said, they slowed and then stopped the cars acceleration dead in it tracks, around 160-180 MPH. They are for handling below that speed not straightaway high speed runs. You will see some disconnect wiring to them just so they can go faster. You ever listen to them talk about wing settings on Le Mans cars. The faster you want to go the less rear wing angle you use. Same with front wings.

Yes I do, but like you, I never thought that it would lower rear lift until I saw the test, just create more drag due to frontal area. Thats why I said you might want to at a raise lip across nose of your car to see if it might work by changing frontal area.

Also what you said matches up with what I said about front end design on most winged rear cars. Changing the front air flow has an effect on rear. It can cause a negative pocket of air behind car causing drag on rear or it might cause over the top air to push down on rear more. Don't know untill you try.

You see those little lip spoilers on trunks of small car just so air comes off them to lessen drag on car rather than flow over and down back end of car causing drag. Maybe a rear lip spoiler would help some. String testing will tell you that.

By the way, have you tried the string test on sides and back of your car to see how air is flowing. Just stick a bunch on car then have a chase car with camera mounted so you can see effect of air passing over and around car effect on direction they blow or lay due to changes in speed. sound a little crude, but it can sure tell you whats happing if you read up on what direction they are blowing or or in some cases hanging means. Might be worth a try and it may be an eye opener... 4 lane highway works best but driving in oncoming traffic lane on a 2 lane can be done to video right hand side of car. That is if there is no on coming traffic at time..LOL

You think SIX-5 coupe might be 51/49. Every little bit of weight shifted to the back couldn't hurt to help with traction. I have one C2 with 51/49 weight distribution and another with 50/50 with no fuel, and with full tank of fuel it weighs 126 more pounds on the rear than front. I forgot to look at what that changed percentage to, but doesn't really matter because unless I run out of fuel it will always be heavier on the rear than in the front.

Maybe thats why along with front air dam my 64 is stable at it's top speed of 154 MPH. Well that an car only has 360 HP At RW so over powering rear tires doesn't seem to be a problem. Can't go any faster. 6600 RPM is all I believe the engine can stand and all the rear gear 3.55 gear will allow.

Guess I was trying to show you that Duntov was smart enough to add belly pan under the 56 to help with drag so it's little engine could get car up to 150 MPH and most likely help with lift.

Thought you might want to take a go at adding belly pan to your car to see if it might help. If your not willing to try something that works for newer cars to see if it might work for you, thats your choice.

Now you know the options out there and has been out there for years. I really didn't, until this thread and doing a little research on my on.

Just trying to help by showing you it was nothing new and it worked for a C1 before. Thought if your serious about trying do 190+ with your 62, it might be worth doing some research on and trying it.

Like they say, don't try if you don't like it. Just live with what your have.

Yes I understand that. But isn't your example of 400 hp and 150 mph I a reasonable example with the right gearing? If so than hp should not be an issue assuming he can get enough traction.

Although controlling air under the car for down force and stability is certainly nothing new I haven't seen it on a Midyear before. I like that he is trying it and wish him luck. :thumbs:

Tom

So you, the great Dontov097, AKA Plastic Pig have driven that speed many times , or at least once???? WTF, I have offered you many times to take your car down the quarter mile to see what it could actually do. You always say no. ???? I did accurately diagnose your engine problem when you spun the #1 rod bearing after everyone missed it in 5 seconds. It is not that I can not do it, I figure that would be really stupid. Mathematically the car should do 220 easily. Mine is a street car and 200MPH zones in NJ are rare.:D

Poorhourse, Never said that, But as the founder of the North Jersey OutLaws, we do not always fall within the local laws. Enough said. Where and when I did my trials is not important.

The my car is what it is and way more than probably anything on this forum. I like it and that is all that matters. Investing money and time into hidden aero stuff makes no sense, when a simple rear wing would do it run 220+ easily. For what ???

As it sits, I will run any of you for top speed if allowed. Bring it to NJ. :cheers:

I've been over 200 probably 10 times. Over 175 probably in the hundreds in my C4's and 5's. I've seen damn near 170 in my '57.

Why would I want to let the KING of broken drive train parts drive my car ? With all the parts you break I'd expect you to be good at diagnosing broken parts.

Mathematically, Mathematically ? If my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle. You can't do it in reality because your balls shrivel up into raisins when the tires spin a little.:rolleyes: :lol::troll

:lurk::woohoo: Go SIX-5 go

I've loved reading this thread ..... it's a bit like if God exists; there are heated arguments for both sides ...... the difference here is Six5 is still with us and will either succeed or fail ..... why not just wait? But in the meantime I'll continue to read this and imagine some of the blue faces as they bash the keys in writing their reply to someone elses opinion.

I have learnt a few things on this thread though about drag and aerodynamics

Good luck on your next run.

P.S. It's a bit like a d#*@ measuring competition ..... it's all about the stretch and how much pain you can endure.
:rock:

The Earth is Flat Society looks at 200mph like it is the sound barrier. There is a 54 Studebaker that hit 225+ mph in the mile. I would think a C2 is more aerodynamic than an old Studebaker, lol.

Attachment 47732493

The rear wing on this Mustang (not my car), adds stability for runs above 150mph. I would think this is a simple fix to add high speed stability for the standing mile. I have not been above 150 mph but Im getting very curious, lol.

I agree:

I have seen a stock 2010 Cobalt SS (2.0 Ecotech turbo) run over 150......... the factory tune limits the car to 156 mph....

http://www.sportycompactcars.com/ima...SS%20Coupe.jpg

power requirements and drag are exponential as speed increases, but as they say in the air force "If you strap a big enough engine to it, a brick will fly"

I wouldn't bet on that...LOL I love the shovel nose 53 & up Studs since I was 14 years old. I like the hartops best, but due to way body is built they have a lot of flex and the long doors droop unless you build a frame under them. If I decide I can afford another Restomod it will be a Shovel Nose Stud Hardtop.

Here's a picture of 53 two door shovel nose Coupe. Looks alot more aerodynamic than a C2....LOL

http://image.streetrodderweb.com/f/1...lite_coupe.jpg

Here is a picture of Gary Hart's 1953 241-249 MPH Studebaker Shovel nose Bonneville Car. Wonder what it's speed would be in a standing mile Vs it's speed run at Bonneville... Notice it doesn't have a rear wing, but does have twin rear Vertical stablizers. My Guess is it wouldn't need them in a standing mile or the small ones across the top either, just on long high speed runs like Bonneville...:rofl:

http://www.diyautotune.com/jwplayer_...ek2006_039.jpg

If you want to read up on Hart's trips to Bonneville with car, just search on " Gary Hart's Studebaker Bonneville Salt Flats Racer ".

Found this interesting tidbit regarding the 53-54 Studes on line --

"Actually, they're less aerodynamic than you might expect, with a drag coefficient of 0.40--the windshield is rather vertical, and the tail is too low--but given that nearly everything else available at the time was shaped like a streamlined brick with bumpers, the Loewys became the car of choice for stock-bodied salt flat speedsters and such."

The previously referenced Corvette Fever article implies that the Cd of a C-2 is around .43. The problem isn't so much the drag, but rather the lift the C-2 generates.

I like the Caveman approach -- kill the lift with whatever aero approach you need (some better than others with respect to drag), then overcome the resulting drag with HORSEPOWER. Reducing drag is beneficial, of course, but is often expensive and complicated. The old Studebakers made great Salt Flat cars, especially if you fixed the drag -- i.e., chop the top. Here is a picture I posted some time back of a retired Salt Flat Stude. It has a plaque on the dash showing 260-something mph at Bonneville in the 70s, I think. It still has the old hemi in it that it used to set that record.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/memb...8-2-150862.jpg

I'm still betting SIX-5 breaks 200. I think he knows exactly what he is doing. Wish him luck.

OK, I have not researched this yet....but is there a fastest Bonneville speed for a C2?....worlds fastest....obviously there is...

From the Corvette Black Book, a '67 with a "competition prepared" L-88 set an A-Gas Grand Touring Salt Flat record of 192.879 mph. I assume that was in or around 1967.

I think those vertical stabilizers act as vortex shedders, to keep the rear end from getting into a to a self reinforcing shimmy shimmy, that becomes uncontrollable.

All the louvers on the rear fenders are interesting, as is the front fender gaps from the body, to vent air from the sides.

Doug

Well done, Kimmo & co., well done.

May I suggest slight upgrading to personal protection ie. full face helmet and some driving suit, just in case.

What's the engine displacement?
It looks like you're using ram air in the new config. If so, how much boost do you figure @ 190 MPH and how much power increase?

At the moment i don`t know the increase of the power, also the power of new setup is unknown.
Last year 1 mile was 179.887 mph, power with NOS was 738 hp.
Last year N/A 157.828 mph 598 hp.
This year 1 mile N/A result was 174.978 mph ???hp.

Ram air gives also cool air, i think that it gives something extra also.

I will take data for the run on august 24 and then i know boost or no boost.

On street i use only about 300-400 hp, mpg is 20.1

I think now i start preps for standing mile.

One week untill 24th. Then We'll have more if Kimmo was able to go over 200mph.. Now lot's of testing and preparing that everything will go smooth. Today cruising night in Finland and just relaxing before next weekends attempt to make it go a little faster. :) :lurk:

4 days left.. Made a little trailer. We'll be posting updates on our facebook page over the weekend. www.facebook.com/fttracing

ALL the best to you in this endeavor SIX-5! BE SAFE!!

Looking forward to a new record.

:thumbs:

Regards,

Jim
In God We Trust!

So it was no 200 mph for me, at this time.

1 N/A run 174.021 mph
3 NOS runs 193.287 mph 195.773 mph 196.395 mph.

This time there is pictures and videos also.
I or someone else will post them here.

About 1 mile

http://kuvaton.com/finnshark/lxi.jpg

After 1 mile.

http://kuvaton.com/finnshark/lxg.jpg

Sorry you didn't hit 200, but I don't believe that, in any way, diminishes the accomplishment of what you have already done. I am sure the naysayers will still find a way to tell you what you have already done is impossible to do, but here is a thumbs up to a great job and an awesome car.:thumbs:

Curious what you think kept you from hitting the mark. More power or aero changes? I am sure you will get there.

Bill

I think that there is 3 reasons.
Wind front left, a bit more hp, small aero change.

200 mph is possible, when it`s happening i don`t know.
Maby someone in the U.S hit it first.

I fully agree with Bill: it's only matter of time when SIX-5 hits 200mph.

Here's a short video showing the fastest run so far. I saw the reading 316 kmh (196.395 mph) in the radar gun with my own eyes. This video was shot quite exactly on the finish line.

https://vimeo.com/73089215

(Sorry for the bad quality of the video. I didn't have tripod for the camera nor time for editing...)

Mika

The C2 coupe profile is rounded on the top and flat on the bottom. Just like an airplane wing! I remember one taking flight in the desert at about 140 mph.

The car somersaulted forward several times, nose/tail/nose/tail/nose/tail etc. When it finally stopped, right side up, the driver unbuckled his belt and got out, a little shaky but unhurt. Sting Ray body construction absorbs quite a bit of energy, good cars to crash in!

AIR one clear advantage of the C3 body is aerodynamics, aren't they more stable at very high speeds?

Here is incar video of that 196.395 run.

How much run up to speed trap ?. 1 mile or more.

It is 1 mile, braking distace is about 0.5 mile.

Awesome:D I could watch those videos all day. Thanks for posting :woohoo:

Not quite 200, but very impressive none-the-less! Nice job. I was impressed with the car's attitude at speed - flat with no signs of lift. I would still like to see a picture of the bottom of the car, if you are inclined to share.

Here you have guys.. Clips from Kimmo's Lappenranta Runs.. Enjoy. :)

:willy::rofl: ;)

[QUOTE Nice job. I was impressed with the car's attitude at speed - flat with no signs of lift. I would still like to see a picture of the bottom of the car, if you are inclined to share.[/QUOTE]

I am also very interested in the underside of your car. Please post some shots so that we may learn from you successful runs. Dave

I am also very interested in the underside of your car. Please post some shots so that we may learn from you successful runs. Dave[/QUOTE]

I think that there is problem to send pictures.

What if??????

Someone make plates under c2 and make little mistake, then go for high speed run, something bad happen, what then?

The plates what i make are designed for my car and i can`t say that they are working on every c2.

Also i want drive 200mph first, after maby.

C1 is another thing, i will make plates on my friend -59.
That is different thing, because it will be experimental for me also.

Would you like to share any of your '59 under body modifications with us?
Both 1963GrayGray and I have C1 cars.

Charles

When i start to make it, then it`s possible.

There is on high speed run positive air pressure on intake.
Horsepower increase don`t know, maby something.

Still engine is running rich, MAP is not yet calibrated on that.

Next time it will be.

This winter there is coming some uppgrades on aerokit, front got too much down force, it means also drag.

Last sunday was Corvette Club Finland's last track day for this year. SIX-5 was on the track running corners and a little drag strip.. some clips of it. Enjoy. :)

thanks for sharing those...... looks like great fun:thumbs:

Corvette of the Week
 

Hello SIX-5!

I wanted to congratulate you for being featured on CorvetteForum as Corvette of the Week! I wrote the feature myself and I hope you enjoy the read because we certainly enjoyed your car.

Be sure to keep us updated!


:woohoo:

:party:

Well done SIX-5 :thumbs: That is one fast C2 you have :thumbs:

I have no doubt that after you have done some fine tuning you will exceed 200 mph :thumbs:

Keep us posted on the progress :thumbs:

The only thing i can think of that can stop you from hitting the 200 mph mark this year is the fact that winter and snow will be here soon

Thank you for writing that.
Updates, yes something are coming next winter.

This year drive for fun, fast next summer.

I try 1/4 mile 2 weeks ago et 11.111 138mph 60ft 1.709
My best 60ft was 1.574

Next year my goal is 10.xxx time.

Amazing!
 

Hello Six-5,

Just today I saw the u-tube video of your 196mph mile run leading me to the forum seeking additional details about your build. What you've accomplished is simply remarkable. Deep congratulations are in order!

By the way, there may be a chance that we're "brothers from another mother" LOL I have a home cooked Brandywine 65 roadster that I just spent 2 years going through a similar process. The goal was to build a C2 true street car, naturally aspirated, stock hood, fenders, bumpers, interior etc that was capable of running 10 seconds in the 1/4 mile without NOS. It's won some car shows and done well at the track. Final tune yielded 700hp at the crank. But more importantly I drive it regularly - and hard. Here's a link with some pictures and a run.

http://sflacarsandcoffee.com/tonygom...graystory.html


We're all looking forward to seeing you crack the 200mph mark! There is no doubt in my mind that you will. Be safe and keep the shiny side up.

Tony

Tony beautiful car and love the color. Amazing performance. You should start a new tread with this youtube of the 10 second run. It will not be seen by many people here who just follow the 200 MPH car. Everyone should see your run and the build.

Tony nice car and color 10+.:cool::cheers:
My goal is also to get N/A 1/4 mile 10.xxx.

I agree that make new topic of your 65.

Hey Kimmo, are you running any kind of instrumentation to determine what downforce you are getting front and rear?

I am fascinated by the work you have done to your car. Outstanding job!

Matt

I am watching (filming) the gap between tyre and fender, there you can see the changes.

No gauges yet.

Yes, I was impressed also!
Nice engineering job SIX-5.

Ah... That works. I have actually used video data in a similar way for flight test before.

Matt

HE DID IT!!!! 200MPH WAS BROKEN TWO MINUTES AGO WITH KIMMO'S AWESOME 1965 CORVETTE COUPE!!! HE STILL HAS FEW RUNS LEFT, BUT HE'S ALREADY PAST THE 200 MPH MARK!!!

You can get live feed to see the times evolve here:

http://www.liy.fi/tulokset/

It's all in Finnish, but you can pick up the relevant info (bikes are on the left and cars on the right column.

Congrats to my (proud to say) good friend for an astonishing achievement! :cheers::cheers::cheers:

An incredible achievement for sure!:thumbs:

Congratulations are in place here to Kimmo :thumbs:

After watching last year videos i never doubted that Kimmo would break the 200 mph :thumbs:

SIX-5 congrats on an incredible engineering and mechanical achievement.

And he backed it up with two almost 200 mph run so its really incredible, :woohoo::woohoo:but we all knew it was coming, didnt we ;)

"the car is full trim & full interior street driven car, it drove to airstrip and back AC blasting"

:rock::rock::thumbs:

Isn't that called a reliability?

Hell, yeah!

Congratulations! Awesome achievement for a street car, indeed.

Congratulations SIX-5! Surprised I'm not seeing the naysayers man up and apologize for being wrong about your accomplishments!

Congratulations Kimmo


:cheers:

Congrats and way to go! :cool:
An amazing achievement in an old brick like a C2, quite an achievement indeed!!! :rock:

:cheers:

Paul

Thanks, it was unreal feeling after run.

For more videos you have to wait for while.

VERY impressive!!

sd

What a great car.... thanks for sharing Kimmo, and congratulations.

Matt

Great Videos
 

Man I can't stop watching those videos of that car going that fast. What a rush.

Kimmo, that is one impressive car.

Now if I could only get a few of those pieces on the bottom side of my '65 maybe just maybe I could go close to that speed.

Congrats again - and if you could update a little on your bottom side I'm sure many would be very grateful.

65-StingRay
Wayne

and power windows too......
:cheers:
Bill

Now a question, is there still someone who do not belive that c2 can go +200 mph?

Just on land or does in the air count?:ack:

Does this count?

:rock: The doubters are really quiet . Congrats Kimo

well played !

I'm gonna say, yes, that counts:D

Congrats - it's a major achievement.

I still wish I could see the under side of that magnificent '65.

65-StingRay
Wayne

:willy::woohoo::rofl:
Where is the hats off smilie???

It was possible when the car was at the National Corvette Museum.

When i pick it up, there was a prepare for race exhibition, i install aerokit
and audience came under the car and take pictures.

I put this here also that you can see it.

Fantastic Kimmo, what a blast! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

:cheers:

Paul

Damn that is incredible!

:woohoo:Way to go!!!!:cheers:

Just found this thread....GREAT STUFF! Congrats, Kimmo....well done! I was reading a lot of the previous posts, and need clarification of a term that is used a lot that I have never heard: 'racking down the front". At first, I thought rack and pinion steering. Then I thought of some kind of rack, fabricated to compress the front suspension. Third, does it mean 'rake', as in 'the car has a rake'? Rake and rack are two different animals, and I am confused, not being a high speed pro!

Dang! I live very close to the Museum. I didn't know the car was there. Sorry I missed it.

:hide: