my 11.980 corrects to 11.77 stock tires

 

I don't think that's funny, I think that is AWESOME! Excellent run.

Now drive out to Bandimere Dragstrip in Colorado and run there and you'll find out what everyone is talking about.

 

And it's just as funny how the only ones crying about it all are those running slower (regardless of the reason), goes both ways dude.

 

i knew GM sent all the slow cars to the west cost....that is why i ordered mine from a dealer in the east coast area. but i still couldn't get it to go 12.5 @ 115mph stock....hmmmm, i had it drop ship directly from bowling green...that was my problem......

 

Not only that, but we don't get that -1000 feet air every day, people have still gone quite fast here (and other tracks) in +1500 DA as well.


I know what they're talking about, Dennis's (and my) times would certainly be slower out there, but I still say it will not be as much slower as everyone is saying it would be, especially if the car's tuning was changed to compensate.
We wouldn't suddenly lose our driving skills if we move out there LOL, we would still apply the same exact detailed approach in the areas of car prep, coolant temps and starting line (burnout, launch) attention that we utilize to get these strong results out here and I'd bet that our times would likely still be better than those (with similar cars/mods) crying strictly and solely about DA all of the time.
But you're right, the ONLY way to tell is to run the cars at the same track on the same day which leads to what I've said many times before...EVERYONE is free to come out to Atco/E-town/Cecil and run their cars any time of the year, they don't have a sign at the gates stating that those from CO or NM or CA can't race here.
We in the cold northeast don't complain about the better traction advantages given to those making less power from their inferior DAs or having warmer starting lines because of the sun beating down on their track all the time so I'd appreciate a little of the same courtesy in return.

 

if we can agree and i know some of us don't see it that way, that is fine and i will respect that. i personally think daren (06C6FVR) is one hell of a driver to run a couple 12.2x @ 116mph. if he lost 6mph ecen with a tune and mufflers (bad track preparation will not affect mph as much as ET, if we can all agree to that) in denver, that should say for something. on 2nd thought, if everyone were to correct their et / mph to sea level, wouldn't we find out the truth? thanks

 

No, we likely wouldn't, too many variables, correcting only gets you close to a more common ground.
Didn't Daren say that he was spinning on the higher DA runs, on the launch and with each shift? Now that certainly would cost him that much trap speed all by itself but then again a few thousand feet of DA wouldn't cost him all of that trap speed either...it was very likely a combination of both.

 

No, because NHRA correction is worthless. If you did not run the time, if you time slip does not say so, then you did not do it. Correction is just another excuse, "[i]and if my grandmother had ***** she'd be my grandfather" she does not have *****, therefor she is not my grandfather, end of story.

I live right next to Englishtown NJ, but I know their prep sucks so I drive 50miles south to Atco because I know I would hook better. Granted Co is more then 50 miles from NJ, but the idea is the same.

Are we lucky that we live next to great tracks? Yes. Are others unlucky cause they live at 5000'? Maybe. But an NHRA correction will not help you, in my humble oppinion it only makes you look like a clown who says "but my car can do that" It did not do that, so stop crying.

I could say that my car is capable of 10.3's but its not a 10.30 car untill it runs a 10.30.

 

No, DUDE, it only goes one way, down. You go down in altitude, you get more oxygen, burn more fuel, make more power, run faster. All the fast drivers live near sea level tracks, but so do some pretty slow ones.

 

easy for driver at a 33 ft level track to make these statements. unfortunely daren, from sea level at houston, ran 116mph stock, with tune & muffler at 4000+ track (don't know about the weather, it sure isn't going to hot temp (90 degree+) , he is at 4000+ above sea level) only run 110mph, he might have only trap 109mph if not the tune and mufflers. that would have been 7mph off. i guess you sea level boys are saying all the sudden daren don't know how to drive. we have one sea level driver that drove at high alt. i guess we will wait for some one from denver to track at a sea level track and find out the truth. just curious i used the following link and enter these data 85* / 70% / 33ft / 13 sec / 112 mph it corrected to 114.24mph. now holding everything the same but change the alt to 4000ft, the correct mph is now 122.48 mph that is 8mph correction....hmmmm, daren lost 6mph, probably would have lost 7mph if not for the tune and muffler. for the doubter of correction, i guess this does not prove anything. the only way you will believe it is to run at the high alt track youself. if someone were to do it, i am sure the driver ability might be question again.

http://www.modulardepot.com/density.php

 

if 'correction' is simply an excuse to try to make one feel better why do we 'correct' dyno results ??

what is the difference ?

i proposed we used corrected times, if possible, when we compared the different launch techniques and runs.

i was looking for a way to have a 'common base' from which we could compare.

if we are able to use an accepted common base it will help remove some of the 'excuses' or 'reasons' one method works better than the other.

yes, track prep, etc. are gonna be different but instread of saying;

track prep, weather, altitude all effected the run

by correcting we remove the weather, altitude, etc. from the equation.

after applying a the appropriate correction factor the only thing that is left that can be different that would apply would be track prep.

correcting works when comparing and analyzing runs from two, or more, locations.

no reason to correct if your comparing runs done on the same track at the same time.

but hey, guess some folks don't want to apply industry accept methods of comparing runs, maybe they've already corrected their runs and found that they aren't as good as they could have been. who knows.

regardless of corrected or uncorrected, how are you lauching you car ?

 

when Darren ran he stated himself a minus 1300 da i have never ran a minus usually plus 700 to 2000 i don't like the cold and our humidity is always close to 100 percent, and since Darren had a tune and exhaust that's more power, you could loss a second spinning

 

i would take this to mean that given those parameters (conditions) he would have been traveling 122.48 mph to obtain a 13 sec. run.

 

yes, i agee...

huh ?? aren't they the same ?

it ? as in the 8:30 had a faster 330' ??

isn't the 8:32 run slower to the 330' mark by 0.23

the 6:26 run took 3.55 secs. to get from 60'-330'
the 8:32 run took 3.78 secs. to get from 60'-330'

doesn't the 8:32 run have an 84.11 mph vs. the 6:26 run of 85.74 ??

the 8:32 run is slower by 1.63 mph than the 6:26 run ?

the 6:26 has a 330' to 1/8 time of 2.94
the 8:32 has a 330' to 1/8 time of 2.95

the 6:26 run was 0.01 sec faster between 330' and 1/8

the 6:26 run took 2.47 secs. to go from 1/8 to 1000'
the 8:32 run took 2.52 secs. to go from 1/8 to 1000'

the 6:26 run was .05 secs. faster between the 1/8 to 1000' mark.

so far it appears the two runs are pretty consistent post 330' mark.

the two runs show .04 secs. acceleration difference to the 1000' mark.

the 6:26 took 2.07 secs. to get from 1000' to the 1/4.
the 8:32 took 2.09 secs. to get from 1000' to the 1/4.

the 6:26 run was .02 secs. faster from the 1000' to the 1/4.

ok..

agreed... i was under the impression the 10:32 run was 'post tune', those runs were much more consistent.

any idea what the transmission temps. were ? yes, it does look like something happened at that point.

what are ou doing to get around the effect ?
what have you changed to make it more consistent ?

i would expect tm to cause the same drop in performance each time.


these were the runs i was looking at.

are these the 'pre-tune' runs ?

 

His own words above. Like I said, probably not all due to weather.

I use DA, and I predict my times within .00-.02 very consistantly. So I know how it works.

 

Zig I was talking the 7/28 runs.

It is true that the 5/10 runs had the same 60'. I also said that on the 8:32 pass that is bogged 1st to 2nd. The question is why? I don't have an answer just like I don't have an answer for the 7/28 runs.

If there was any kind of pattern to this maybe I could figure out how to drive around it. As is with an auto the only thing that changes is how I launch the car. Anyway I hope next year to have the HP software and be able to log my passes. This should allow us to see what is really happening.

 

Knowing the DA is important. Primarily for predicting a dial in. As far as posting corrected times, that is in my opinion useless. Post the DA with your actual time is a good idea though.

Corrected times really do not mean anything in my opinion. Corrected dyno's are fine but not correcting an actual run. A dyno is just an estimate of performance so correcting them makes sense. A qtr mile run is an actual race, actual performance.

 

What the dyno sheet reads, that is what the car made.
What the time slip reads, that is what the car ran.

 

i am surprise you would take this position considering you use DA to predict your own time. i am sure you know alt. is part of DA, and around 500 FT of alt. is about 1mph correction, you would have to make that adjustment to your dial in time. so again i am surprise you also think it is DA correction is useless, it almostly seem like you are contradicting yourself.

 

why would someone post the DA with the actual time be a good idea, since it is useless? you meation corrected time is useless, what about corrected trap mph in your opinion? thanks