even though you listed them in opposite (?) order, i'm assuming that the 10:30pm is the second run you are referring too.

the 10:30 run occurred almost 1.5 hours after the 8:53pm run.

did the outside temp. drop as well or did the ambient air temp stay about the same ?

the 10:30 run ended with better (shorter) 1/4 mile trap time and a higher trap speed. even though it fell on it's face ?

from the posted times for those two run the only places i saw a fall in performance were between the 60' and 330' foot marks (the 10:30 run). and the 1/8 and 1000' marks (8:53 run).

the 8:53 run has a 60' to 330' time of 3.51.
the 10:30 run has a 60' to 330' time of 3.54.

the differences between the two runs (comparing the 60' to 330') is only .03.

the 8:53 run has a 1/8 to 1000' time of 2.47
the 10:30 run has a 1/8 to 1000' time of 2.43

there is a .04 difference between the two.

what type of 'tune' did you get before these runs ? did they do ANY adjustments to the variables labeled 'torque management or contol' ?


if i understand correctly, these next runs are pretune, stock runs ?

yes, the 8:30 run does show something 'huge' occuring at the 60'/330' mark.

the 8:30 run has a 60' to 330' time of 3.78
the 6:26 run has a 60' to 330' time of 3.55

there is a .23 difference between the 6:26 and 8:30 60 to 330' times.

this would seem counter to TM being the reason. if TM holds the car back why wouldn't it (tm) be consistant. shouldn't it have held the car back the same amount during BOTH and or all runs.

the 60' times are identical in both runs but the 330' is different, and hence the rest of the run.

any possibility the 'shift' wasn't as crisp and clean as it was during the first run ?

any possibility you experienced 'knock' during the run and 'timing' got pulled for a second.

i've had timing get pulled while on the 'dyno'.

folks say that TM won't show up on the dyno.

if 'knock' can be experienced on the dyno why can't it be a possibility for the 'tm' feeling.

in your experience, you have achieved better times using a 'preload' type of launch vs. 'smash-n-go'. comparing your 'best' 60' times you picked up .03 simply by changing you launch style. very cool.

 

isn't that what that 'lunar landing sound stage' in burbank is for ? hahahah.. just kidding...i hear what you're saying just having some morning fun.

 

agreed.

if the times were corrected, and thanks by the way for your 1/4 thread, i'm NOT picking on you or it i'm simply using the infomation readily ava. to everyone to make my point, we would then be able to compare launch techniques, tires, etc. etc.

 

Dennis,
No problem, if I lived near a sea level track I would feel the same way. However, it always amuses me that all the good drivers live next to a sea level track.

 

would you mind verifying my last post. it just seems too ironic.

 

Whatever your last post was, I hereby verify it.

Whatever your point is, I missed it.

Definition of irony: the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning.

 

"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
ironic [ahy-ron-ik] Pronunciation Key
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ironic

–adjective
1. containing or exemplifying irony: an ironic novel; an ironic remark.
2. ironical.
3. coincidental; unexpected: It was ironic that I was seated next to my ex-husband at the dinner."

i was simply saying that it was ironic (coincidental/unexpected) that you mentioned

when i did the math on the times posted by tmeyers, the two places he said it felt like it fell on it's face came out to be .03 (3 hundreths) difference.

wow, that's ironic, you said correcting would result in a .03 difference, when i analyzed his to 'post tune' runs, i didn't correct them i simply subracted differences between the reported times. huh, .03 difference. wow, weird.

i just found it ironic, that's all.

when i asked to verify my last post, i was just asking if you would make sure that i had correctly identified the area (2nd and 3rd) shifts as mentioned in his (tmeyers) post.

 

I fund it ironic too, I suppose. (sic)

Maybe the air density changed by 1000 feet between the two runs!! --- he said, ironically.

Wow! How weird!

Maybe the air density changed by 1000 feet right during the middle of the run.

Wow! How weird would that be?

 

whatever..

or his transmission took .03 seconds to complete the shift.

 

anyone have any other techniques or launch methods ?

 

Maybe amusing, maybe ironic, maybe even a bit coincidental but it is what it is, time slips don't lie.

Some are making this altitude/DA thing to be the end all be all for reasons why one car is quicker than another in a different state, sounds almost like a prefabricated or built in excuse if ya ask me.
Even if it is the astronomical factor that some are making it out to be, it still doesn't explain why some of these sixty foots and ETs differ by such large margins...if one car runs over 3/10ths (that's HUGE in drag racing) quicker than an otherwise similar car on the list you cannot attribute ALL of that to simply a DA difference.

 

which leads me to the question of tm. how can there be such a variance if tm is the limiting factor.

what is it that is making such variances possible. launch, run, altittude, etc.

in the mean time, learning and trying new launch techniques are what i'm really interested in.

the tm debate can go on and on but i'd really like to know how everyone is launching their cars.

 

I do not have my data here with me. I am on vacation seeing my son in MN. I drove the vette from OH up here, putting on more miles on this trip then I did since I bought it.

My boy is my racing partner in the summer though, (10 years old). He asked me to bring vette because he missed it and wanted his friends to see it, so I did.

My 60's get faster as the DA gets lower. Just like the rest of my times. I range from around 1.92-2.10 from around 500 feet to 3000.

So I am looking at around .18 variance due to wx conditions.

 

Get back to me after you move to Colorado. You will lose all of your driving skills after you move.

You are right, timeslips don't lie, but you need to have both cars running on the same strip at the same time to really see a comparison.

I just feel sorry for the people running at high altitude or hot tracks, it makes them feel inferior or makes them feel like they must have gotten a pig of a car. The guys that are lucky enough to run on a cold day at ATCO get the feeling that they must have a super car or are great drivers and that's also false. I've heard you can have a NEGATIVE 1000 foot DA at ATCO. Now that would be great!

It is funny though that the only people that don't believe that DA makes a difference are the ones that live next to a sea level track. Remember, no matter what a person believes, the laws of physics still apply to everyone.

 

cool

please don't flame too aggressively, here is an earlier post of mine concerning some of my times;

i haven't gotten around to rummaging through the shed to find my data but i found that i had posted something about time awhile back.

i don't make it a habit to 'try for time' with a full tank of gas, nor do i weight alot (145lbs).

i had read that the curb weight for the coupe is 3179 lbs.

http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/N...100/Act/Specs/

3179+145=3324. gas weights approx. 4lbs. per gallon.

4lbs x 5 gallons =20 lbs.

3324 lbs. + 20 lbs. = 3344 lbs.

 

Sorry ZIG I mis-typed. The 10:30 run was the good run.

Take a look again even though the 8:30 run had a slower 60" it had a faster 330, 1/8 and 1/8 mph. The car is in 2nd gear at the 1/8th. This would argue that something is holding the car back for the 10:30 run. Faster 60 should equate to a faster everything else.

Where the 8:30 run fell on it face was the 2nd to 3rd gear shift. Both the 1000, 1/4 and 1/4 mph faster for the 10:30. As I said the car fell on its face on that shift. I can't explain it.

But numbers IMO don't lie. A slower 60 produced a faster 330.

 

guys, DA is huge, take a look at this thread, bone stock 12.23 @116, same car with muffler and tune only 13.0 @ 110mph....that is a lost of .8sec / 6mph (even with muffler & tune). i am not able to question daren's driving skills that is for sure.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1512329

 

I read through the thread. Does not sound like it was all because of a difference in DA. Some was of course.

I get about 3-4 tenths faster from mid summer to fall. DA changes about 4K feet probably at the most around here.

 

i am not following you. it is the same driver with same car(with 2 additionad mods) at a 4000+ ft track. are you saying the slower time and mhp is driver related? he did posted the fastest et and mph for a stock c6 and even back that up with a least one more run. if you are talking about the track preparation, yeah that would affect et quite a bit...but for the most part mph should be there, and he lost 6mpg, that is like losing 60hp.

 

i don't know why you guys never give us atco guys any credibility? weather you know it or not we are not at sea level. atco has an elevation of 33 feet so are times if corrected are even faster too.