Lacr Wednesday Nite
05-11-2007, 02:10 PM
#51
MBWorld Fanatic!
I'm with Blackbenz on this. Posting corrected times seems a bit "strange". I know I am lucky to be living within short drives of Atco and Englishtown. So I fear people may tell me that it is "easy for me to say". But here goes:
I understand the point of corrections, but I think it is imprecise, and subject to much debate. Sort of like taking rear wheel dyno figures and trying to estimate flywheel horsepower. A difference of 2% in assumed drivetrain loss for most E55's can be a difference of 13 hp or more.
Also, while all cars are affected by elevation changes, forced induction cars are affected to a lesser extent. So running the same corrections for N/A and FI cars (if that's what is being done) does not give you an even comparison between two cars on the same day.
Saying I ran a 13.1 at LACR on a 96 degree day says enough to most of us. We know what a crappy track it is. Saying I ran a "corrected" 12.6 @ 114 just begs the question - how "slow" was my actual time? Makes it seem worse than it is.
When I submit a timeslip to dragtimes, I note the track, the temp and if I know it, the DA. People can make whatever adjustments they'd like to it, but the slip can't be questioned for its accuracy.
And if people want to start posting corrected times, it should be very clear that the times are not actual. Believe me, threads and posts will be cross-referenced, and someone will accuse someone of trying to play games if it isn't abundantly clear that the time is corrected. I know when I see an uncorrected dyno sheet on other boards, I can't help but think that the person posting it is hoping to fool people who are too dumb to know that standard corrections would reduce the peak levles considerably.
Keep racing.
I understand the point of corrections, but I think it is imprecise, and subject to much debate. Sort of like taking rear wheel dyno figures and trying to estimate flywheel horsepower. A difference of 2% in assumed drivetrain loss for most E55's can be a difference of 13 hp or more.
Also, while all cars are affected by elevation changes, forced induction cars are affected to a lesser extent. So running the same corrections for N/A and FI cars (if that's what is being done) does not give you an even comparison between two cars on the same day.
Saying I ran a 13.1 at LACR on a 96 degree day says enough to most of us. We know what a crappy track it is. Saying I ran a "corrected" 12.6 @ 114 just begs the question - how "slow" was my actual time? Makes it seem worse than it is.
When I submit a timeslip to dragtimes, I note the track, the temp and if I know it, the DA. People can make whatever adjustments they'd like to it, but the slip can't be questioned for its accuracy.
And if people want to start posting corrected times, it should be very clear that the times are not actual. Believe me, threads and posts will be cross-referenced, and someone will accuse someone of trying to play games if it isn't abundantly clear that the time is corrected. I know when I see an uncorrected dyno sheet on other boards, I can't help but think that the person posting it is hoping to fool people who are too dumb to know that standard corrections would reduce the peak levles considerably.
Keep racing.
Point taken, excellent ! I just saw that the supercharged cars have a different correction. My hope was to expose all the 63's which have N/A motors exposed to the same correction table. In this respect even if they have a standard deviation , we will all be under the same standard. I think you guys should do the .5*DA correction so we can see which cars are producing the most power eliminating altitude and weather. I love the fact that you post a complete slip so we can do corrections and compare your car to a car in Phoenix. Like I have said now in TWO threads I will be certain to POST both actual and the correction on the side. Great point on the turbocharged and supercharged cars! So my post on the 55 times is not correct as I used too aggresive a formula. It seems conditions will compromise a 63's time more than a 55's. So here is yet another very important parameter that people must take into consideration when running the car and attempting tweaks to engine and technique. Enzom ,thanks for the information and clarification.
05-11-2007, 02:21 PM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 E55 Evosport I & II; VRP H/E
I'm with Blackbenz on this. Posting corrected times seems a bit "strange". I know I am lucky to be living within short drives of Atco and Englishtown. So I fear people may tell me that it is "easy for me to say". But here goes:
I understand the point of corrections, but I think it is imprecise, and subject to much debate. Sort of like taking rear wheel dyno figures and trying to estimate flywheel horsepower. A difference of 2% in assumed drivetrain loss for most E55's can be a difference of 13 hp or more.
Also, while all cars are affected by elevation changes, forced induction cars are affected to a lesser extent. So running the same corrections for N/A and FI cars (if that's what is being done) does not give you an even comparison between two cars on the same day.
Saying I ran a 13.1 at LACR on a 96 degree day says enough to most of us. We know what a crappy track it is. Saying I ran a "corrected" 12.6 @ 114 just begs the question - how "slow" was my actual time? Makes it seem worse than it is.
When I submit a timeslip to dragtimes, I note the track, the temp and if I know it, the DA. People can make whatever adjustments they'd like to it, but the slip can't be questioned for its accuracy.
And if people want to start posting corrected times, it should be very clear that the times are not actual. Believe me, threads and posts will be cross-referenced, and someone will accuse someone of trying to play games if it isn't abundantly clear that the time is corrected. I know when I see an uncorrected dyno sheet on other boards, I can't help but think that the person posting it is hoping to fool people who are too dumb to know that standard corrections would reduce the peak levles considerably.
Keep racing.
I understand the point of corrections, but I think it is imprecise, and subject to much debate. Sort of like taking rear wheel dyno figures and trying to estimate flywheel horsepower. A difference of 2% in assumed drivetrain loss for most E55's can be a difference of 13 hp or more.
Also, while all cars are affected by elevation changes, forced induction cars are affected to a lesser extent. So running the same corrections for N/A and FI cars (if that's what is being done) does not give you an even comparison between two cars on the same day.
Saying I ran a 13.1 at LACR on a 96 degree day says enough to most of us. We know what a crappy track it is. Saying I ran a "corrected" 12.6 @ 114 just begs the question - how "slow" was my actual time? Makes it seem worse than it is.
When I submit a timeslip to dragtimes, I note the track, the temp and if I know it, the DA. People can make whatever adjustments they'd like to it, but the slip can't be questioned for its accuracy.
And if people want to start posting corrected times, it should be very clear that the times are not actual. Believe me, threads and posts will be cross-referenced, and someone will accuse someone of trying to play games if it isn't abundantly clear that the time is corrected. I know when I see an uncorrected dyno sheet on other boards, I can't help but think that the person posting it is hoping to fool people who are too dumb to know that standard corrections would reduce the peak levles considerably.
Keep racing.
That bull**** being said, I used this website to convert some of my actual results to "corrected" results: http://www.modulardepot.com/density.php
My thought was that I could use the information not to judge how the car performed, but to judge my performance (meaning that a 12.8 on a hot day yielded a better “corrected” time than a 12.6 on a cooler day) in order to see if whatever I did differently between outings had any impact. The only way that I could figure out to tell if there was any impact from the different things that I was trying was to look at the normalized ("corrected") numbers.
05-11-2007, 02:22 PM
#53
MBWorld Fanatic!
Point taken, excellent ! I just saw that the supercharged cars have a different correction. My hope was to expose all the 63's which have N/A motors exposed to the same correction table. In this respect even if they have a standard deviation , we will all be under the same standard. I think you guys should do the .5*DA correction so we can see which cars are producing the most power eliminating altitude and weather. I love the fact that you post a complete slip so we can do corrections and compare your car to a car in Phoenix. Like I have said now in TWO threads I will be certain to POST both actual and the correction on the side. Great point on the turbocharged and supercharged cars! So my post on the 55 times is not correct as I used too aggresive a formula. It seems conditions will compromise a 63's time more than a 55's. So here is yet another very important parameter that people must take into consideration when running the car and attempting tweaks to engine and technique. Enzom ,thanks for the information and clarification.
05-11-2007, 02:25 PM
#54
MBWorld Fanatic!
My thought was that I could use the information not to judge how the car performed, but to judge my performance (meaning that a 12.8 on a hot day yielded a better “corrected” time than a 12.6 on a cooler day) in order to see if whatever I did differently between outings had any impact. The only way that I could figure out to tell if there was any impact from the different things that I was trying was to look at the normalized ("corrected") numbers.
05-11-2007, 02:41 PM
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
I'm with Blackbenz on this. Posting corrected times seems a bit "strange". I know I am lucky to be living within short drives of Atco and Englishtown. So I fear people may tell me that it is "easy for me to say". But here goes:
I understand the point of corrections, but I think it is imprecise, and subject to much debate. Sort of like taking rear wheel dyno figures and trying to estimate flywheel horsepower. A difference of 2% in assumed drivetrain loss for most E55's can be a difference of 13 hp or more.
Also, while all cars are affected by elevation changes, forced induction cars are affected to a lesser extent. So running the same corrections for N/A and FI cars (if that's what is being done) does not give you an even comparison between two cars on the same day.
Saying I ran a 13.1 at LACR on a 96 degree day says enough to most of us. We know what a crappy track it is. Saying I ran a "corrected" 12.6 @ 114 just begs the question - how "slow" was my actual time? Makes it seem worse than it is.
When I submit a timeslip to dragtimes, I note the track, the temp and if I know it, the DA. People can make whatever adjustments they'd like to it, but the slip can't be questioned for its accuracy.
And if people want to start posting corrected times, it should be very clear that the times are not actual. Believe me, threads and posts will be cross-referenced, and someone will accuse someone of trying to play games if it isn't abundantly clear that the time is corrected. I know when I see an uncorrected dyno sheet on other boards, I can't help but think that the person posting it is hoping to fool people who are too dumb to know that standard corrections would reduce the peak levles considerably.
Keep racing.
I understand the point of corrections, but I think it is imprecise, and subject to much debate. Sort of like taking rear wheel dyno figures and trying to estimate flywheel horsepower. A difference of 2% in assumed drivetrain loss for most E55's can be a difference of 13 hp or more.
Also, while all cars are affected by elevation changes, forced induction cars are affected to a lesser extent. So running the same corrections for N/A and FI cars (if that's what is being done) does not give you an even comparison between two cars on the same day.
Saying I ran a 13.1 at LACR on a 96 degree day says enough to most of us. We know what a crappy track it is. Saying I ran a "corrected" 12.6 @ 114 just begs the question - how "slow" was my actual time? Makes it seem worse than it is.
When I submit a timeslip to dragtimes, I note the track, the temp and if I know it, the DA. People can make whatever adjustments they'd like to it, but the slip can't be questioned for its accuracy.
And if people want to start posting corrected times, it should be very clear that the times are not actual. Believe me, threads and posts will be cross-referenced, and someone will accuse someone of trying to play games if it isn't abundantly clear that the time is corrected. I know when I see an uncorrected dyno sheet on other boards, I can't help but think that the person posting it is hoping to fool people who are too dumb to know that standard corrections would reduce the peak levles considerably.
Keep racing.
I can see where some of my posts may have been mis-construed(sp). I guess I was overly excited! Now I have a clear understanding of how to use the NHRA corrections. I am going to use them especially for our Nationwide comparison of 63 times, but I will no longer make any suggestion that I ran a certain time but uncorrected it is X. Let me know if this is ok with you. Example below
[B]Ran a 14.01 @ 106.27 5/9/2007 at LACR at 8:57 p.m.
Time NHRA corrected for N/A motors D/A=4209.7
The closest weather results for 05/09/2007 at 08:57 pm
Time recorded 8:53 PM
Temperature °F 73.0
Dew Point °F 24.1
Altimeter Setting 29.92 in Mercury
Density Altitude: 4209.7 feet
Track Elelvation: 2640 feet
UnCorrected ET:
14.01 (sec) @ 106.27 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level: 13.285 (sec) @ 112.119 (MPH
05-11-2007, 02:46 PM
#56
MBWorld Fanatic!
05-11-2007, 02:58 PM
#57
MBWorld Fanatic!
I understand what you are saying. And, at the end of the day, the car does what it does and that is the number that you should look at -- as opposed to the "corrected" numbers rendered from a mathematical model.
That bull**** being said, I used this website to convert some of my actual results to "corrected" results: http://www.modulardepot.com/density.php
My thought was that I could use the information not to judge how the car performed, but to judge my performance (meaning that a 12.8 on a hot day yielded a better “corrected” time than a 12.6 on a cooler day) in order to see if whatever I did differently between outings had any impact. The only way that I could figure out to tell if there was any impact from the different things that I was trying was to look at the normalized ("corrected") numbers.
That bull**** being said, I used this website to convert some of my actual results to "corrected" results: http://www.modulardepot.com/density.php
My thought was that I could use the information not to judge how the car performed, but to judge my performance (meaning that a 12.8 on a hot day yielded a better “corrected” time than a 12.6 on a cooler day) in order to see if whatever I did differently between outings had any impact. The only way that I could figure out to tell if there was any impact from the different things that I was trying was to look at the normalized ("corrected") numbers.
Absolutely what the group of 63 owners are shooting for here!!! We need the calculator to make the State by State , Track by Track comparison. You hit it on the head. It helps you and it helps other drivers understand the environ they are playing in. The guy in the M3 for instance yeah its supercharged so once again I used the wrong correction but he ran an 11.93@123 at LACR. Enzom has an INCREDIBLY fast car, if he lined up the hyper m3 at Englishtown would he win? Fact is under normalized conditions that M3 is going to run LOW 11 at near 130. In looking at his posted time and having no clue about any of this correction stuff the casual observer would think Enzoms E 55 a good match with the M3 hence mis-conception goes both ways. Hell I told the M3 owner an E55 would destroy him LOL. See Im learning guys be patient please. Im gonna run this guy on Sunday what lead should he give me if I run 13.3@106 and he runs 11.93@123, oh yeah he says he has 800 hp now so forget it!
05-11-2007, 03:46 PM
#58
MBWorld Fanatic!
IThat bull**** being said, I used this website to convert some of my actual results to "corrected" results: http://www.modulardepot.com/density.php
I tracked the weather conditions for my 11.85 @ 118.17 mph run and plugged them into that calculator. According to the calculator, my "corrected run" is 11.97 @ 116.99
I ran the same calculations, based on historical weather data, for my 11.901 @ 117.23 run at Atco in November of 2006. The corrected run was 11.82 @ 118.
Seems pretty fishy, no?
05-11-2007, 04:08 PM
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Not at all Enzom, thanks your times differ based on the calculator using TEMPERATURE! My calculator does the altitude and DA correction up to the minute of your run Give me the date and time of each run and I will tell you why they differ , and lets see how accurate they are. In order to do the correction you really need an exact day and time of your run. We can use any slip. To be completely honest the mathematical formula has no VARIANCE .
This will be fun
This will be fun
05-11-2007, 04:21 PM
#60
MBWorld Fanatic!
I tracked the weather conditions for my 11.85 @ 118.17 mph run and plugged them into that calculator. According to the calculator, my "corrected run" is 11.97 @ 116.99
I ran the same calculations, based on historical weather data, for my 11.901 @ 117.23 run at Atco in November of 2006. The corrected run was 11.82 @ 118.
Seems pretty fishy, no?
I ran the same calculations, based on historical weather data, for my 11.901 @ 117.23 run at Atco in November of 2006. The corrected run was 11.82 @ 118.
Seems pretty fishy, no?
Here is the more accurate calc, This is your two runs on MARCH 31st 2007.
RUN #1
The closest weather results for 03/31/2007 at 09:59 am
Time recorded 9:55 AM
Temperature °F 48.2
Dew Point °F 19.4
Altimeter Setting 30.27 in Mercury
Density Altitude: -959 feet Track Elelvation: 86 feet
UnCorrected ET:
11.892 (sec) @ 117.72 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
12.012 (sec) @ 116.506 (MPH)
Run #2
The closest weather results for 03/31/2007 at 09:01 am
Time recorded 8:55 AM
Temperature °F 46.4
Dew Point °F 21.2
Altimeter Setting 30.25 in Mercury
Density Altitude: -1054.7 feet Track Elelvation: 86 feet
UnCorrected ET:
11.850 (sec) @ 118.17 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
11.981 (sec) @ 116.83 (MPH)
So here is precisely why it is important to do the correction. The conditions (weather) (pressure) the density of the air was equal to as if your car was running nearly 1000 feet below sea level. The track you are at is 86 feet above which under standard conditions would lower your time by a hair. However when also factoring in WEATHER! Well you get handicapped because the conditions during your run were better than standard. Temperature , Humidity, dew point all better than standard. You can see as the temperature rises your correction is less. That was a COLD day ! The more negative that DA # is the higher your corrected time is going to be.
Last edited by juicee63; 05-11-2007 at 04:31 PM.
05-11-2007, 04:48 PM
#61
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the more accurate calc, This is your two runs on MARCH 31st 2007.
RUN #1
The closest weather results for 03/31/2007 at 09:59 am
Time recorded 9:55 AM
Temperature °F 48.2
Dew Point °F 19.4
Altimeter Setting 30.27 in Mercury
Density Altitude: -959 feet Track Elelvation: 86 feet
UnCorrected ET:
11.892 (sec) @ 117.72 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
12.012 (sec) @ 116.506 (MPH)
Run #2
The closest weather results for 03/31/2007 at 09:01 am
Time recorded 8:55 AM
Temperature °F 46.4
Dew Point °F 21.2
Altimeter Setting 30.25 in Mercury
Density Altitude: -1054.7 feet Track Elelvation: 86 feet
UnCorrected ET:
11.850 (sec) @ 118.17 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
11.981 (sec) @ 116.83 (MPH)
So here is precisely why it is important to do the correction. The conditions (weather) (pressure) the density of the air was equal to as if your car was running nearly 1000 feet below sea level. The track you are at is 86 feet above which under standard conditions would lower your time by a hair. However when also factoring in WEATHER! Well you get handicapped because the conditions during your run were better than standard. Temperature , Humidity, dew point all better than standard. You can see as the temperature rises your correction is less. That was a COLD day ! The more negative that DA # is the higher your corrected time is going to be.
RUN #1
The closest weather results for 03/31/2007 at 09:59 am
Time recorded 9:55 AM
Temperature °F 48.2
Dew Point °F 19.4
Altimeter Setting 30.27 in Mercury
Density Altitude: -959 feet Track Elelvation: 86 feet
UnCorrected ET:
11.892 (sec) @ 117.72 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
12.012 (sec) @ 116.506 (MPH)
Run #2
The closest weather results for 03/31/2007 at 09:01 am
Time recorded 8:55 AM
Temperature °F 46.4
Dew Point °F 21.2
Altimeter Setting 30.25 in Mercury
Density Altitude: -1054.7 feet Track Elelvation: 86 feet
UnCorrected ET:
11.850 (sec) @ 118.17 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
11.981 (sec) @ 116.83 (MPH)
So here is precisely why it is important to do the correction. The conditions (weather) (pressure) the density of the air was equal to as if your car was running nearly 1000 feet below sea level. The track you are at is 86 feet above which under standard conditions would lower your time by a hair. However when also factoring in WEATHER! Well you get handicapped because the conditions during your run were better than standard. Temperature , Humidity, dew point all better than standard. You can see as the temperature rises your correction is less. That was a COLD day ! The more negative that DA # is the higher your corrected time is going to be.
Oh wow, negative DA's!!!
Man it so unfair comparing a +5000 DA' track to a -1000 DA' track, that makes for a HUGE difference.
05-11-2007, 07:34 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 E55 Evosport I & II; VRP H/E
05-11-2007, 11:47 PM
#63
MBWorld Fanatic!
Here is the more accurate calc, This is your two runs on MARCH 31st 2007.
RUN #1
The closest weather results for 03/31/2007 at 09:59 am
Time recorded 9:55 AM
Temperature °F 48.2
Dew Point °F 19.4
Altimeter Setting 30.27 in Mercury
Density Altitude: -959 feet Track Elelvation: 86 feet
UnCorrected ET:
11.892 (sec) @ 117.72 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
12.012 (sec) @ 116.506 (MPH)
Run #2
The closest weather results for 03/31/2007 at 09:01 am
Time recorded 8:55 AM
Temperature °F 46.4
Dew Point °F 21.2
Altimeter Setting 30.25 in Mercury
Density Altitude: -1054.7 feet Track Elelvation: 86 feet
UnCorrected ET:
11.850 (sec) @ 118.17 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
11.981 (sec) @ 116.83 (MPH)
So here is precisely why it is important to do the correction. The conditions (weather) (pressure) the density of the air was equal to as if your car was running nearly 1000 feet below sea level. The track you are at is 86 feet above which under standard conditions would lower your time by a hair. However when also factoring in WEATHER! Well you get handicapped because the conditions during your run were better than standard. Temperature , Humidity, dew point all better than standard. You can see as the temperature rises your correction is less. That was a COLD day ! The more negative that DA # is the higher your corrected time is going to be.
RUN #1
The closest weather results for 03/31/2007 at 09:59 am
Time recorded 9:55 AM
Temperature °F 48.2
Dew Point °F 19.4
Altimeter Setting 30.27 in Mercury
Density Altitude: -959 feet Track Elelvation: 86 feet
UnCorrected ET:
11.892 (sec) @ 117.72 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
12.012 (sec) @ 116.506 (MPH)
Run #2
The closest weather results for 03/31/2007 at 09:01 am
Time recorded 8:55 AM
Temperature °F 46.4
Dew Point °F 21.2
Altimeter Setting 30.25 in Mercury
Density Altitude: -1054.7 feet Track Elelvation: 86 feet
UnCorrected ET:
11.850 (sec) @ 118.17 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
11.981 (sec) @ 116.83 (MPH)
So here is precisely why it is important to do the correction. The conditions (weather) (pressure) the density of the air was equal to as if your car was running nearly 1000 feet below sea level. The track you are at is 86 feet above which under standard conditions would lower your time by a hair. However when also factoring in WEATHER! Well you get handicapped because the conditions during your run were better than standard. Temperature , Humidity, dew point all better than standard. You can see as the temperature rises your correction is less. That was a COLD day ! The more negative that DA # is the higher your corrected time is going to be.
What is correcting a quarter mile time for weather and altitude intended to do? Is it to show you what your car would have run at sea level with the same temp, humidity, barometric pressure as at the moment of your run? Or is it intended to show how your car would run at sea level at an "ideal" temp, ideal humidity and ideal barometric pressure??
Said otherwise, does it convert your runs at a DA of 5,000 and my runs at a DA of -1000 to runs at 0 DA? If so, why is there still such a variation between corrected times?
Scientists, engineers, track geeks - where are you?
05-11-2007, 11:50 PM
#64
MBWorld Fanatic!
05-12-2007, 03:12 AM
#65
MBWorld Fanatic!
See, this is where I am a bit confused. SAE corrections on dyno graphs are intended to simulate runs under a specific condition, e.g, 70 degrees, sea level, specific humidity (don't quote me on the parameters). The goal is to try to compare dyno runs on an "apples to apples" basis whether the car was run on a dyno in Bismark, ND in January or Miami Beach in August. So even if my E55 in Bismark put down 455 rwhp, and then I drove to Miami where it put down 398 rwhp, the SAE benchmark would adjust each to a point where the "corrected" figure would be very close to the same.
What is correcting a quarter mile time for weather and altitude intended to do? Is it to show you what your car would have run at sea level with the same temp, humidity, barometric pressure as at the moment of your run? Or is it intended to show how your car would run at sea level at an "ideal" temp, ideal humidity and ideal barometric pressure??
Said otherwise, does it convert your runs at a DA of 5,000 and my runs at a DA of -1000 to runs at 0 DA? If so, why is there still such a variation between corrected times?
Scientists, engineers, track geeks - where are you?
What is correcting a quarter mile time for weather and altitude intended to do? Is it to show you what your car would have run at sea level with the same temp, humidity, barometric pressure as at the moment of your run? Or is it intended to show how your car would run at sea level at an "ideal" temp, ideal humidity and ideal barometric pressure??
Said otherwise, does it convert your runs at a DA of 5,000 and my runs at a DA of -1000 to runs at 0 DA? If so, why is there still such a variation between corrected times?
Scientists, engineers, track geeks - where are you?
The variance is likely because MOST people unfortunately just do the NHRA altitude correction,
Yes you are correct the DA calculation places all cars at sea level and a set standard of atmospheric pressure and temperature. So anything better than sea level gets a negative. You can correct your time to absolute sea level and the SAE standards convert to 0 feet. So @ 86 feet you would have a super super tiny correction. However when the correction may help you compare your slips is when you get stuck on this track in 70 plus degrees. Use your corrected times from March 31st and your corrected times from the HOT day and you get apples to apples. I have all the info you asked but it is in a 31 page pdf file and outlines the SAE correction tables that were standardized in 1976 and are used mostly in aviation to help pilots not crash ! So Making the corrections allows you to really get down and compare all your runs at different tracks on different days a 11.9 @ Atco may actually be faster than an 11.78@ the other NJ locale. You would post your BEST TIME but later realize your car was faster because conditions (weather) bogged down the run! So maybe the DYNO mode did work better than the d/s setting and sport suspension. Just imagine using the info to make your runs even faster at the faster of the two tracks. So you can see why You posting your 11.8 and the m3 guy with 800hp posting his uncorrected 11.9 is also a bad bad idea?Whos car is FASTER Enzom? yours? Thanks for at least entertaining the other side of this debate!
05-12-2007, 01:31 PM
#66
MBWorld Fanatic!
The variance is likely because MOST people unfortunately just do the NHRA altitude correction,
Yes you are correct the DA calculation places all cars at sea level and a set standard of atmospheric pressure and temperature. So anything better than sea level gets a negative. You can correct your time to absolute sea level and the SAE standards convert to 0 feet. So @ 86 feet you would have a super super tiny correction. However when the correction may help you compare your slips is when you get stuck on this track in 70 plus degrees. Use your corrected times from March 31st and your corrected times from the HOT day and you get apples to apples. I have all the info you asked but it is in a 31 page pdf file and outlines the SAE correction tables that were standardized in 1976 and are used mostly in aviation to help pilots not crash ! So Making the corrections allows you to really get down and compare all your runs at different tracks on different days a 11.9 @ Atco may actually be faster than an 11.78@ the other NJ locale. You would post your BEST TIME but later realize your car was faster because conditions (weather) bogged down the run! So maybe the DYNO mode did work better than the d/s setting and sport suspension. Just imagine using the info to make your runs even faster at the faster of the two tracks. So you can see why You posting your 11.8 and the m3 guy with 800hp posting his uncorrected 11.9 is also a bad bad idea?Whos car is FASTER Enzom? yours? Thanks for at least entertaining the other side of this debate!
Yes you are correct the DA calculation places all cars at sea level and a set standard of atmospheric pressure and temperature. So anything better than sea level gets a negative. You can correct your time to absolute sea level and the SAE standards convert to 0 feet. So @ 86 feet you would have a super super tiny correction. However when the correction may help you compare your slips is when you get stuck on this track in 70 plus degrees. Use your corrected times from March 31st and your corrected times from the HOT day and you get apples to apples. I have all the info you asked but it is in a 31 page pdf file and outlines the SAE correction tables that were standardized in 1976 and are used mostly in aviation to help pilots not crash ! So Making the corrections allows you to really get down and compare all your runs at different tracks on different days a 11.9 @ Atco may actually be faster than an 11.78@ the other NJ locale. You would post your BEST TIME but later realize your car was faster because conditions (weather) bogged down the run! So maybe the DYNO mode did work better than the d/s setting and sport suspension. Just imagine using the info to make your runs even faster at the faster of the two tracks. So you can see why You posting your 11.8 and the m3 guy with 800hp posting his uncorrected 11.9 is also a bad bad idea?Whos car is FASTER Enzom? yours? Thanks for at least entertaining the other side of this debate!
Does anyone know whether there is in fact a standard correction that is generally accepted that alters your race temp, humidity and barometric pressure along with altitude to give you the equivalent of an "SAE corrected" run? If so, what are the standard conditions for temp, etc.?
My "corrected" time for March 31st is stil a 12.0 at 116.5. Does that mean that if I run at LACR and then "correct" my actual time, it will also show a 12.0 @ 116.5? I pulled an old time slip from Atco where I ran a 12.167 @ 117.36 on an 84 degree day. Corrected it for the recorded atmospheric conditions at the time, and my corrected time was 11.96 @ 119.34. That is where I am really confused.
Another reason to post acutal times and just indictate the track, conditions and DA. There is just too much that doesn't make sense to me.
And I think that M3 would spank me on any track.
EDIT - Just so it is clear, I am not trying to discuss which car is faster, etc. I am really just trying to understand how these corrections are supposed to function and why "corrected" times for the same car vary so much from track to track if the correction is intended to standardize runs. That's all. I am enjoying this discussion and hope to learn something from it.
Last edited by enzom; 05-12-2007 at 01:35 PM.
05-12-2007, 05:26 PM
#67
MBWorld Fanatic!
So I think what I am getting from this is that the calculator (at least the one linked in this thread) is only correcting for altitude?
Does anyone know whether there is in fact a standard correction that is generally accepted that alters your race temp, humidity and barometric pressure along with altitude to give you the equivalent of an "SAE corrected" run? If so, what are the standard conditions for temp, etc.?
My "corrected" time for March 31st is stil a 12.0 at 116.5. Does that mean that if I run at LACR and then "correct" my actual time, it will also show a 12.0 @ 116.5? I pulled an old time slip from Atco where I ran a 12.167 @ 117.36 on an 84 degree day. Corrected it for the recorded atmospheric conditions at the time, and my corrected time was 11.96 @ 119.34. That is where I am really confused.
Another reason to post acutal times and just indictate the track, conditions and DA. There is just too much that doesn't make sense to me.
And I think that M3 would spank me on any track.
EDIT - Just so it is clear, I am not trying to discuss which car is faster, etc. I am really just trying to understand how these corrections are supposed to function and why "corrected" times for the same car vary so much from track to track if the correction is intended to standardize runs. That's all. I am enjoying this discussion and hope to learn something from it.
Does anyone know whether there is in fact a standard correction that is generally accepted that alters your race temp, humidity and barometric pressure along with altitude to give you the equivalent of an "SAE corrected" run? If so, what are the standard conditions for temp, etc.?
My "corrected" time for March 31st is stil a 12.0 at 116.5. Does that mean that if I run at LACR and then "correct" my actual time, it will also show a 12.0 @ 116.5? I pulled an old time slip from Atco where I ran a 12.167 @ 117.36 on an 84 degree day. Corrected it for the recorded atmospheric conditions at the time, and my corrected time was 11.96 @ 119.34. That is where I am really confused.
Another reason to post acutal times and just indictate the track, conditions and DA. There is just too much that doesn't make sense to me.
And I think that M3 would spank me on any track.
EDIT - Just so it is clear, I am not trying to discuss which car is faster, etc. I am really just trying to understand how these corrections are supposed to function and why "corrected" times for the same car vary so much from track to track if the correction is intended to standardize runs. That's all. I am enjoying this discussion and hope to learn something from it.
"corrected" time for March 31st is stil a 12.0 at 116.5. Does that mean that if I run at LACR and then "correct" my actual time, it will also show a 12.0 @ 116.5?"
Yeah! Exactly! Your time at LACR would be let me look it up!
The closest weather results for 03/31/2007 at 12:30 pm
Time recorded 12:53 PM
Temperature °F 78.1
Dew Point °F 25.0
Altimeter Setting 29.97 in Mercury
Density Altitude: 4471.4 feet
Track Elelvation: 2640 feet
UnCorrected ET:
12.7 (sec) @ 110 (MPH)
Corrected ET to Sea Level:
12 (sec) @ 116.457 (MPH)
So you understand now? Your car would run 12.7 @ 110 at lacr and would correct to precisely match the time you ran at ATCO. Its the same car putting down the same power with the same driver. This is EXACTLY why I use the correction using a DA calculation. I am comparing my 13s to everyone elses mid 12s, hardly a fair comparison. Correcting all the times shows who is getting the best runs under the conditions they are presented.
Thanks , I understand it better now too.\\\AMG
There are other factors as you know, but this takes out weather, altitude ! wish they had a traction correction!!!!
Last edited by juicee63; 05-12-2007 at 05:34 PM.
05-22-2007, 03:48 PM
#68
MBWorld Fanatic!
Anyone wanna join me on Wednesday 05/23
[QUOTE=SAMSSONZ;2190819]Lacr Wednesday 05/09, Irwindale 5/10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attention MB owners,
1/4 mile drag , once again at LACR 20.00
www.lacr.net, wed night from 5-10p.m. Hopefully not as windy. It would be great to get some more AMG cars together only 45 minutes North Of LA. For those in the OC will be a longer drive but dam it is fun. E63's Where are you guys? E55's.. We will be there with at least two CLS 63's. PM me with interest . Also if anyone has an M5 or M6 we gotta get this done.
Comon down fellow AMG, MB, Any car or motorcycle can be raced
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attention MB owners,
1/4 mile drag , once again at LACR 20.00
www.lacr.net, wed night from 5-10p.m. Hopefully not as windy. It would be great to get some more AMG cars together only 45 minutes North Of LA. For those in the OC will be a longer drive but dam it is fun. E63's Where are you guys? E55's.. We will be there with at least two CLS 63's. PM me with interest . Also if anyone has an M5 or M6 we gotta get this done.
Comon down fellow AMG, MB, Any car or motorcycle can be raced
05-23-2007, 11:40 AM
#69
MBWorld Fanatic!
From 5-10 tonight
[QUOTE=juicee63;2223874]
From Los Angeles get to the 14 fwy North exit pearblossom follow to Ave T straight ahead on Avenue T for appx 2 miles just past the gravel pit on the right hand side. Take a right into LACR
Lacr Wednesday 05/09, Irwindale 5/10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attention MB owners,
1/4 mile drag , once again at LACR 20.00
www.lacr.net, wed night from 5-10p.m. Hopefully not as windy. It would be great to get some more AMG cars together only 45 minutes North Of LA. For those in the OC will be a longer drive but dam it is fun. E63's Where are you guys? E55's.. We will be there with at least two CLS 63's. PM me with interest . Also if anyone has an M5 or M6 we gotta get this done.
Comon down fellow AMG, MB, Any car or motorcycle can be raced
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attention MB owners,
1/4 mile drag , once again at LACR 20.00
www.lacr.net, wed night from 5-10p.m. Hopefully not as windy. It would be great to get some more AMG cars together only 45 minutes North Of LA. For those in the OC will be a longer drive but dam it is fun. E63's Where are you guys? E55's.. We will be there with at least two CLS 63's. PM me with interest . Also if anyone has an M5 or M6 we gotta get this done.
Comon down fellow AMG, MB, Any car or motorcycle can be raced
05-23-2007, 12:06 PM
#71
MBWorld Fanatic!
They usually run every wed, friday and some sats and sundays. Weekdays from 530-10p and sat and sun 9-4 or 9-2. Friday nights is usually the most crowded as it is HS drag night. Wed is less crowded and you can usually get 10-15 runs in, less or more depending on what you need to work on. Just PM me when you can go and we will try and get a handful to join us.. Cool man, have fun in Miami!! likely no chicas there eh? LOL
05-24-2007, 04:22 AM
#73
MBWorld Fanatic!
WOW , great night tonight. Great temps and no wind!!!
An E55 and E63 joined the fun and ran some good times. Anybody from the forum???Both silver an 06 E55 and an 07 E63. Whoever got the right lane won! thats how close the 2 cars are. Course my CLS had the lowest MB time I think at 13.016. If anyone did better please post your slip.
Thanks.
My 1.699 60 ft time smashed my old 1.92 record. I also bested my 1/4 mile ime by .3
This was a great night lots of Fast cars 997 TT, 2 ZO6, modded camaro, E55, E63, some funny cras. etc. Getting there sucks but the drive home is ez
An E55 and E63 joined the fun and ran some good times. Anybody from the forum???Both silver an 06 E55 and an 07 E63. Whoever got the right lane won! thats how close the 2 cars are. Course my CLS had the lowest MB time I think at 13.016. If anyone did better please post your slip.
Thanks.
My 1.699 60 ft time smashed my old 1.92 record. I also bested my 1/4 mile ime by .3
This was a great night lots of Fast cars 997 TT, 2 ZO6, modded camaro, E55, E63, some funny cras. etc. Getting there sucks but the drive home is ez
05-24-2007, 04:28 AM
#74
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: mymbonline
Posts: 4,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mymbonline
i shoulda just rolled w/ you, i failed my final anyways
ill definitely try to make it out next time, havent ran my 997 in the 1/4 yet.
congrats on the new time, excellent 
ill definitely try to make it out next time, havent ran my 997 in the 1/4 yet.
congrats on the new time, excellent
05-24-2007, 04:39 AM
#75
MBWorld Fanatic!
