oh, sorry, imo. the 7/28 runs looked pretty consistent. aren't those 'post-tune' runs.

the 5/10 run showed a 'really bad' performance loss. relatively speaking, of course. at the 60'-330' mark.

after the 330' mark the 5/10s run were pretty consistent.





i'm just thinking out loud, but i wonder how the car would do if the 'knock' sensor was unplugged ?

which method do you feel has given the best overall performance ?

 

no et gets corrected too, i like to look at mph as this has less to do with driver skill and track preparation. i am not sure how i got confuse with daren making his high alt. run at 4000+ i guess the minute someone mention high alt. i think of denver. any ways, here is what i did, on his run in lubbock (he said 3100ft alt), using temp he provided 66*, he didn't provide humidity and pressure, so i will use typical # of 70% and 30.15 inch.

entering these data into this link
http://www.modulardepot.com/density.php

temp - 66* provide by daren
humidity - 70% only a guess
alt. - 3100 provide by daren
pressure - 30.15 inch only a guess
ET - 13 sec - provide by daren
mph - 110 provide by daren

well the corrected time and mph is 12.31 @ 115.81mph, i think this is extremely close to his time at houston / sea level of 12.23 @ 116mph. i know there are still non believer in correction / happens to live close to sea level that needs no correction to provide an albi j/k guys, no offense, but we now got a same skill driver that track at sea level and 3100ft track and his time pretty much match up to the correction factor. i understand about if you didn't run a 10.3et you didn't run it...but for those us that needs an albi don't you want to get an idea how you compare? thanks

 

did you forget he has more power now 370 rwhp thats way more than stock. so the correction doesn't work

 

sorry, where did you get this 370rwhp from? he never mention this on his high alt track thread. yes, we all know he has a tune and muffler now...i will give him roughly 1.5mph trap extra comepare to stock....if you can accept that, that mean correction factor is off by 1.5mph, well that is close enough for me. it beat someone claiming, "guys, i forgot how to drive when i race at 3100ft. my driving lost 6 mph, how can i get my driving back". don't you think 1.5 mph is close enough? have you even race at high alt and sea level track like daren? just curious. thanks

 

PM #9
06C6FVR
CF Senior Member





Member Since: Jan 2003
Location: Houston tx


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbrf4i1
daren, you were even spinning the tires in 3rd and 4th? i take it when you shift you never left off the gas pedal? thanks


just barely lift, im a shiftin **** (in case some of you dont know, im on the top of the stock list on the 1/4 mile performance challege...sticky on top of page). Only thing done now is mufflers and a tune, with a dyno of 370 RWHP and 367 RWTQ,

By the way, did i mention the best gas you can get here is 90 octane...that is premium here...regular is 86, plus is 88 and premium is 90...houston, premium is 93, so im sure the car pulled some timing for that as well

Also, the coolant temps were at 199 the whole time, I have had the fans reprogrammed to come on early and run full speed.

Daren

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by 06C6FVR : 09-30-2006 at 02:07 PM.

 

what about the 370 rwhp now and ran 12.36 and closing on the 12.2s but to much tire spin in a negative DA i might add. Daren did a very good job of driving at those ets. but to say you can correct to that time or better remains to be seen even if you are right with the correction that doesn't mean you can drive it to that time. if you have the power i see lots of guys with close to 400 rwhp cant do it so why is there a hand full with less rwhp can the only real way to say you can run that time is to go to sea level and show me and to beat a 000 reaction and a side by side i will concede you are right

 

Your kidding, right. The run at 8:53 has a faster 1/8 by .02 but a slower 1/4 by .1, not to consistent to me. In fact for the night that was the fastest 1/8 by IMO alot. Something happened in the 2nd to 3rd gear shift just like the 1st to 2nd gear shift on the 5/10 run.

Doubt the car would even run. But I always put a gallon or so of 100 octane race gas at the track. We only get 91-92 octane stuff here. Yes it is unleaded.

By far preloading the rear seems to be the most consistant. It is the only method that has got me under 2sec. With the smash a go method I have a .09 variance, with the preload method .03. Now I just need more time at the track to find the perfect launch rpm. On 7/28 the launch rpm was around 1000-1200. I want to try above and below that and see if there is any difference.

 

At least up to a point. If you're comparing your own times from different days, times or tracks for tuning purposes, corrected times can be useful. Comparing corrected times from different cars is not useful.

What's almost impossible to correct for is track conditions. Here in the Baltimore - DC area we have 3 tracks where many drivers race --- Capitol, Cecil, and MIR. Track elevations are similar, but track conditions (read traction) are almost always great at Cecil, good at MIR, average at Capitol. Yet I've heard several guys say that they get the most consistent times at Capitol. Try factoring that into your corrections.

 

A corrected time is useless. What do you use it for? You did not run that time. And there is a good chance you would not run that time. Cold track less traction, wind, track prep, lots of factors. You may not launch as well with the extra HP due to driver technique.

To claim a time or win a race you have to run it, no one gives a **** about what you can correct your time to. I know I don't.

An actual ET with the local wx reading is what you did. It is what happened. It is the time you ran. Anyone wanting to compare their time can look at the wx at the time of the run for comparison.

Why do you post the actual time with the actual weather. Do I really need to answer that.

When someone asks me what my car is running they could care less what it runs at sea level. When I dial my car corrected time is useless. What do you use it for? You did not run that time. And there is a good chance you would not run that time. Cold track less traction, wind, track prep, lots of factors. You may not launch as well with the extra HP due to driver technique.


When you dial in your are not correcting anything, you are predicting actual performance based on different factors, one being your DA.

Quite frankly I can not think of a situation where a corrected ET and mph are used. Can you?


Now if this is something you personally like to keep track of then of course that is fine. But to the rest of the world it is useless.

 

I find it interesting that nobody complains when dyno runs are corrected to a sea level standard day. I guess that's because other than just flooring the car in 4th gear, there is no skill what-so-ever on a dyno pull.

But when it comes to running the 1/4 mile, there really isn't that much talent required as compared to running a Solo 2 event or a track day. So, if any of you guys get out to the Phoenix area, send an email to cbfr or myself and we'll head out to Firebird and have some fun. And if the timing is right, we'll head out to a Solo 2 event and have even more fun.

 

dennis, thanks for point out the 370rwhp, i think you are misunderstanding when i say correction....i only go by corrected mph, i couldn't really care about corrected ET, there are just too many vaiable involved, but mph should still be there, at least for the most part. just like you see others that run a 14 sec @ 110mph....in this case the ET is way off but for the most part mph is there. again, i only paid attention to mph not et, corrected or not. if you run a good et, good for you, if not oh well. i just find the correction factor got pretty close to daren's run (et & mph) and that should be worth considering, do you?

 

shurite44, same answer i give dennis, where did i say anything about corrected ET? i never paid attent to correct et. nor have i stated that any where. mph or correct mph tells the true power to weight ratio and that is what i look for. i just find it funny since you use DA to dial in, and yes i know you can dial in to 0.001-2 of a run, nice job, but is it true at the end of your run there is a mph # / trap speed? alt is part of DA, so, let's just said you were to run at a different track, next week and this track is 1000ft higher, don't you have to enter that # into your calulation of DA? and if you do, it you give you an idea what you should dial in at, right? so at the end of that don't you have a trap speed again, well, that is the # that i look for.

 

here is a quote from daren, it is the same great driver with the same great car that we all have but on a 3300ft track.

i am done, for all you sea level guys, without your good driving ability, sea level or not, you will not run good time / mph. i am sure there are tons of not so skill drivers at your local track that would love to run your time / mph or maybe just have you pilot their car, so they can claim the car ran this.....good night all.

 

Wind conditions...tail wind, head wind, cross wind all of which WILL effect trap speeds, how does one correct for those variables?
I've run 110mph and 112mph in the same car on the same night with no mechanical changes made and I've seen others do the same, simply correcting for DA/air would prove nothing in those cases.

 

thanks for the clarification. i knew, something about it (122 mph for 13 sec.) didn't sound right.

 

ok.. before the horse dies....

if you want to compare timeslips without correcting for 'atmospheric conditions', fine. it really doesn't matter to me.

i simply proposed it as a method that we may be able to use to remove as many of the variance variables from the equation as possible.

let's say we have two drivers from two different locations, denver and salt lake (utah).

both drivers turn in timeslips with identical times.

60', 330' 1000', 1/8, 1/4, trap speed, and trap times, everything the same.

which driver/car 'actually' performed better ?

since we can't seem to agree upon a method to compare runs from different locations, does anyone mind returning to 'launch methods'.

it would be nice to know how everyone is setting up and launching their cars.

tires: run-flats, drag radials, etc.
tire pressure: front/ rear
transmision type: auto/manual
brake-torque vs. flash the convertor, etc.
prelaunch rpms
launch rpm
power application method
slip the brake
slip the clutch
pop the brake
pop the clutch
floor-n-go
smooth accelerator
quick throttle
slow throttle
quick and slow throttle
etc. etc. etc.

 

the reason i said more consistent was a result of the variance between the runs. i was under the impression that the posted runs were the best and worst on that particular day.

yes, the 1-2 shift in may really killed your run.

july runs variances:

0.02 60'
0.03 330'
0.01 1/8'
0.04 1000'
0.08 1/4'

may runs variances:

0 60'
0.23 330'
0.01 1/8'
0.05 1000'
0.02 1/4'

 

were i live at going anywhere is a solo 1 and 2 event every day and any other race but straight 1/4 races are rare in all this traffic. but i also remember when john force and dale earnhardt were tied in championships and dale said he wouldn't get in johns car that he was crazy. of course are cars are not that fast, but 1/4 runs do take some skill exspecally bracket racing

 

Win a bracket race with 150 cars entered sometime. Takes a lot of skill and some luck also.

 

just to jump in...

would you mind defining a 'bracket' race.

careful... it might be a setup.

http://www.nhra.com/basics/index.html

just as a 'bracket' levels the field, so does 'correcting' for 'atmospheric conditions'.

to properly correct you need to use not just d/a but also ambient air temp., etc.

but.. there goes the horse.