We always hear how 1 tenth of improved 60 foot usually translates to 2 tenths of improved Elapsed Time (ET) at the 1/4 mile. Very popular thing people reference when talking about what coulda/woulda/shoulda been.
"I went 11.7 with a 1.9 60’, so if I just had a 1.7 60’ I woulda gone 11.3!’
This dragracing maxim was coined in the days of RWD domestic muscle cars however, for whom launching is a completely different exercise to launching our AWD equipped Audis.
Reality? 1 tenth in 60 foot on an AWD quattro Audi equates to 1 tenth of 1/4 mile Elapsed Time.
Unless your 60 foot time is like 2.5…at that point the run is a complete mess so who knows what will happen. However 95% of quarter mile passes we see from quattro Audi S/RS cars are in the 1.7-2.0 range. We’ve seen time and time again that when people shave a tenth off 60’ time, they also tend to shave a tenth off their 1/4 mile ET. There are certainly exceptions…example shaving a tenth on 60’ does nothing to ET. And vice versa…adding a tenth to 60’ might result in no change in ET. Lots of variables in shifting and the car itself etc. But in general, the 1:1 rule is a good one to keep in mind.
We also see that better ET = worse MPH. I don’t get this one…however it works. For example someone might cut a 1.89 60’ time and run 12.4 @ 113.8, then they cut a 1.75 60’ time and run 12.25 @ 112.5. Or they cut a 1.96 60’ time and run 12.5 @ 114.0.
Anyway, I have compiled the list here so I see TONS of timeslips for these Audis and have noticed this over time. I have also noticed that lots of people erroneously quote this 2 for 1 thing on the 60’ time to extrapolate what they could have run. Certainly not accurate and shouldn’t be relied upon so I thought I would clarify what I see in the data, rather than what people hear through the grapevine.
Here’s a good example of this working from last night. Manual transmission B8 S4 with a good driver. The 60 foot time is going to be the only big variable on the slips as he can shift consistently well and the car is running well. The best time had the best 60 foot. The best ET was about 9 hundredths better than the second best. And the 60 improved by 6 hundredths. Interesting to note that if you look at the farthest to the left timeslip, the 60’ was the same as the second best one…1.93. However the 1/4 mile ET was off abit. If you look at his 330 time you can see he lost some time from 60-330 on the run. At 330 feet the car is going around 70-75 MPH. That means he likely lost some time on the shift from 1-2 or from 2-3. All fo this info jumps off the timeslip.