Took the E63 to the track last night.
09-04-2007, 04:17 PM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
SAE Correction Times
This is not correcting. These are ADJUSTMENTS. That calculator cannot possibly be precise. I don't care who uses it. A weather station located 10 miles from a track, giving you information measured hourly is never going to give you the DA from the track at the time of a run.
There is nothing highly "inaccurate" about comparing time slips - which are exact to the 100th of a second. Nothing at all. Everyone understands that cars run differently under different conditions at different (and even the same) tracks. If I run a 12.25 on an 80 degree day, I am not going to try to "correct" it to an 11.85. It ran what it ran on that given day at that particularly track. Those of us that are racers understand that times will vary from track to track.
By the way, I love your car...... the fastest stock E55 in the country...
Want to trade..... 
09-04-2007, 04:54 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
I am not correcting 55 times...FI cars are only subject to a .50 factor of the SAE correction which is 100% accurate. There is no variable in the calculation except for your inputs which you provide off your time slip. If you are using a DA meter than no need for me to do anything, simply list the DA and I will do the correction for me and anyone else who would like to see the ADJUSTED numbers.
You run what you run , thats great, post it.
But to compare your run with jrockets in Fontana would be *** backwards to not correct both
If you raced Jrocket would your car beat him by 6/10ths?
Is your car the fastest E55? it very well may be. but it is very very unlikely you beat him by 1/4 of a track
You run what you run , thats great, post it.
But to compare your run with jrockets in Fontana would be *** backwards to not correct both
If you raced Jrocket would your car beat him by 6/10ths?
Is your car the fastest E55? it very well may be. but it is very very unlikely you beat him by 1/4 of a track
Last edited by juicee63; 09-04-2007 at 04:59 PM.
09-04-2007, 05:04 PM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
You will never get 100% accurate measurments unless you spend serious money, but you can get close to 95% accuracy with this official NHRA calculator. If the time of the run is close to the weather reading, you will get a very close correction factor. It might not be 100% exact but it is very darn close.
The calculator actually makes different adjustments for N/A vs FI engines.
You are 100% right, but sometimes in order to study and compare runs, you need the data normalized to some kind of standard otherwise the results are meaningless
They are fun but also very informative.
By the way, I love your car...... the fastest stock E55 in the country... Want to trade.....
The calculator actually makes different adjustments for N/A vs FI engines.
You are 100% right, but sometimes in order to study and compare runs, you need the data normalized to some kind of standard otherwise the results are meaningless
They are fun but also very informative.
By the way, I love your car...... the fastest stock E55 in the country...
Want to trade..... I think you made some excellent points. And I understand the concept. (Didn't know about the adjustments for FI cars. I did not recall seeing one when I visited the site Juicee directed people to, but I am getting old.)
But 95% accurate does not make something "correct". And here, we have compounded imprecision. The calculator itself is never going to be exact. Second, the measurements are taken miles away from the track and - I would bet $$ - will result in DA's that are different from the DA at the track during the run. So that 95% precision becomes less than that.
Again - the whole point of what I am trying to say here is that, IMO, people should not use "uncorrected" and "corrected", because it implies that the "uncorrected" time is wrong, and that the "corrected" time is more accurate. That's all.
And I am 1/100th behind Housclass for the #1 spot. I'll live with #2. Ask Housclass for a trade if you really want to be fast.
To the OP who ran that great time, I am sorry for the hijack.
09-04-2007, 05:09 PM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
I have never figured out how to quote in segments, so sorry in advance.
I think you made some excellent points. And I understand the concept. (Didn't know about the adjustments for FI cars. I did not recall seeing one when I visited the site Juicee directed people to, but I am getting old.)
But 95% accurate does not make something "correct". And here, we have compounded imprecision. The calculator itself is never going to be exact. Second, the measurements are taken miles away from the track and - I would bet $$ - will result in DA's that are different from the DA at the track during the run. So that 95% precision becomes less than that.
Again - the whole point of what I am trying to say here is that, IMO, people should not use "uncorrected" and "corrected", because it implies that the "uncorrected" time is wrong, and that the "corrected" time is more accurate. That's all.
And I am 1/100th behind Housclass for the #1 spot. I'll live with #2. Ask Housclass for a trade if you really want to be fast.
To the OP who ran that great time, I am sorry for the hijack.
I think you made some excellent points. And I understand the concept. (Didn't know about the adjustments for FI cars. I did not recall seeing one when I visited the site Juicee directed people to, but I am getting old.)
But 95% accurate does not make something "correct". And here, we have compounded imprecision. The calculator itself is never going to be exact. Second, the measurements are taken miles away from the track and - I would bet $$ - will result in DA's that are different from the DA at the track during the run. So that 95% precision becomes less than that.
Again - the whole point of what I am trying to say here is that, IMO, people should not use "uncorrected" and "corrected", because it implies that the "uncorrected" time is wrong, and that the "corrected" time is more accurate. That's all.
And I am 1/100th behind Housclass for the #1 spot. I'll live with #2. Ask Housclass for a trade if you really want to be fast.
To the OP who ran that great time, I am sorry for the hijack.
I understand now what you are saying...uncorrected is the ACTUAL time.
corrected is the time when the numbers are placed at SAE condition.
I will abide by what you and others suggest and simply list the run and the DA unless the OP asks me to do an adjustment,
Even under adjustment I beleive you were the 2nd fastest soon to be #1.
09-04-2007, 05:39 PM
#30
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E 211
09-04-2007, 06:01 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Altitude of a track is a constant and a non-variable. Temperature, humidity and Barometric pressure is what we need to bring to a constant.
Not correcting leads to highly inaccurate comparisons, actually comparison that cannot and should not ever be made.
Only way to compare cars from across the USA is to correct each and every slip to SAE standard.
If I do not correct Seans time I will not be able to compare it to Toms time. They are within 2/100ths and likely corrected will not change that but if Seans run was at a 1000 ft plus DA , it is the fastest run in a 63. The corrected number is what the car would run if the cars were side by side on the same day on the same track.
Not correcting leads to highly inaccurate comparisons, actually comparison that cannot and should not ever be made.
Only way to compare cars from across the USA is to correct each and every slip to SAE standard.
If I do not correct Seans time I will not be able to compare it to Toms time. They are within 2/100ths and likely corrected will not change that but if Seans run was at a 1000 ft plus DA , it is the fastest run in a 63. The corrected number is what the car would run if the cars were side by side on the same day on the same track.
Racers use the DA to compare their on car under different conditions and different tracks to dial in their own car, by using multiple runs under different conditions they are able to make comparisons to estimate what they should initially dial in at. They don't just plug them into the corresponding nhra track elevation correction and automatically know what they are going to run. To them the da is useless until they build up a data-base of da's at different tracks with the same car.
So to sum it up, correcting for DA is not accurate for two primary reasons #1 It totally ignores the track surface-ie your 60ft. Which is something that can also change throughout the coarse of the day and no formula can predict. #2 It is not constant, using a hand held weather station at the actual track can sometimes yield different da's on different parts of the track let alone a reading from a nearby airport which is sometimes more than 10 miles away.
This is the only correction formula that the nhra allows at these specific tracks, based solely on elevationhttp://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
But hey if correcting for an ever changing da makes you feel better go right ahead, it just not sanctioned by the NHRA.
Last edited by rflow306; 09-04-2007 at 06:06 PM.
09-04-2007, 06:10 PM
#32
Super Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Miami,FL.
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2017 Charger Hellcat
I disagree, using the da to compare or validate different cars at different locations is incorrect not to mention that using the acquired da as the new correction factor is a no-no. The NHRA does not recognize the da in their correction factor only the actual track altitude, this is done for a very simple reason the weather conditions are constantly changing during the coarse of the day, so correcting for da would yield multiple corrections for different times of the day.
Racers use the DA to compare their on car under different conditions and different tracks to dial in their own car, by using multiple runs under different conditions they are able to make comparisons to estimate what they should initially dial in at. They don't just plug them into the corresponding nhra track elevation correction and automatically know what they are going to run. To them the da is useless until they build up a data-base of da's at different tracks with the same car.
So to sum it up, correcting for DA is not accurate for two primary reasons #1 It totally ignores the track surface-ie your 60ft. Which is something that can also change throughout the coarse of the day and no formula can predict. #2 It is not constant, using a hand held weather station at the actual track can sometimes yield different da's on different parts of the track let alone a reading from a nearby airport which is sometimes more than 10 miles away.
This is the only correction formula that the nhra allows at these specific tracks, based solely on elevationhttp://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
But hey if correcting for an ever changing da makes you feel better go right ahead, it just not sanctioned by the NHRA.
Racers use the DA to compare their on car under different conditions and different tracks to dial in their own car, by using multiple runs under different conditions they are able to make comparisons to estimate what they should initially dial in at. They don't just plug them into the corresponding nhra track elevation correction and automatically know what they are going to run. To them the da is useless until they build up a data-base of da's at different tracks with the same car.
So to sum it up, correcting for DA is not accurate for two primary reasons #1 It totally ignores the track surface-ie your 60ft. Which is something that can also change throughout the coarse of the day and no formula can predict. #2 It is not constant, using a hand held weather station at the actual track can sometimes yield different da's on different parts of the track let alone a reading from a nearby airport which is sometimes more than 10 miles away.
This is the only correction formula that the nhra allows at these specific tracks, based solely on elevationhttp://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
But hey if correcting for an ever changing da makes you feel better go right ahead, it just not sanctioned by the NHRA.
09-04-2007, 06:42 PM
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
I disagree, using the da to compare or validate different cars at different locations is incorrect not to mention that using the acquired da as the new correction factor is a no-no. The NHRA does not recognize the da in their correction factor only the actual track altitude, this is done for a very simple reason the weather conditions are constantly changing during the coarse of the day, so correcting for da would yield multiple corrections for different times of the day.
Racers use the DA to compare their on car under different conditions and different tracks to dial in their own car, by using multiple runs under different conditions they are able to make comparisons to estimate what they should initially dial in at. They don't just plug them into the corresponding nhra track elevation correction and automatically know what they are going to run. To them the da is useless until they build up a data-base of da's at different tracks with the same car.
So to sum it up, correcting for DA is not accurate for two primary reasons #1 It totally ignores the track surface-ie your 60ft. Which is something that can also change throughout the coarse of the day and no formula can predict. #2 It is not constant, using a hand held weather station at the actual track can sometimes yield different da's on different parts of the track let alone a reading from a nearby airport which is sometimes more than 10 miles away.
This is the only correction formula that the nhra allows at these specific tracks, based solely on elevationhttp://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
But hey if correcting for an ever changing da makes you feel better go right ahead, it just not sanctioned by the NHRA.
Racers use the DA to compare their on car under different conditions and different tracks to dial in their own car, by using multiple runs under different conditions they are able to make comparisons to estimate what they should initially dial in at. They don't just plug them into the corresponding nhra track elevation correction and automatically know what they are going to run. To them the da is useless until they build up a data-base of da's at different tracks with the same car.
So to sum it up, correcting for DA is not accurate for two primary reasons #1 It totally ignores the track surface-ie your 60ft. Which is something that can also change throughout the coarse of the day and no formula can predict. #2 It is not constant, using a hand held weather station at the actual track can sometimes yield different da's on different parts of the track let alone a reading from a nearby airport which is sometimes more than 10 miles away.
This is the only correction formula that the nhra allows at these specific tracks, based solely on elevationhttp://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
But hey if correcting for an ever changing da makes you feel better go right ahead, it just not sanctioned by the NHRA.
Your post validates why using minute to minute weather calculations is much more accurate than simply adjusting for altitude.
when comparing timeslips you must use the corrected # to make the runs aplles to apples.
Your run in Florida at 90 degrees cannot be compared to enzoms run in New Jersey at 41 degrees, well it can but it would be just as silly as comparing your car run on NOS to a non nos time. You would not do this would you?
We must take both cars and standardize the run to SAE standard temp. This will more accurately portray what car is faster if they lined up on the same track same day. Traction is non standardized as is fuel, weight and other things you mention. Weather can easily be factored out, I say it makes for much better comparison. You are correct NHRA does not supply the weather correction but the DA tables are supported it is up to you to calculate DA and do the correction based on the NHRA use of SAE standard calculation.
Most "real" dragsters do not do corrections because the cars have "electronics" That adjust the air and fuel to compensate for the bad air, increase boost whatever. last time I checked my car had no such device
Read this NHRA most certainly recognizes the "air"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...06/ai_n9240601
All you are doing is putting both cars to PERFECT condition to see which car is faster, takes the temp away.
SAE condition well it is rare but it is the STANDARD and engine builders, pilots, drag racers, everyone uses it
Last edited by juicee63; 09-04-2007 at 06:49 PM.
09-04-2007, 06:50 PM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
09-04-2007, 07:14 PM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
I think to settle this, someone should bring a device to a couple of tracks and start recording how often the DA changes and by how much for how long, etc.... This should give us very accurate correction factors at the time of run....
Is there any device out there that can measure or output a DA value by measuring air temprature, altitude, air pressure, etc.... ? Or do I have to get a device for all these things, then use the DA formula?
Is there any device out there that can measure or output a DA value by measuring air temprature, altitude, air pressure, etc.... ?
Or do I have to get a device for all these things, then use the DA formula?
09-04-2007, 07:16 PM
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
Sorry, I saw your post right after I posted... 
Great run Sean, please let us know who build your engine. Looks like you've got one SOLID 63 engine there...
Great run Sean, please let us know who build your engine. Looks like you've got one SOLID 63 engine there...
09-04-2007, 07:20 PM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
I think to settle this, someone should bring a device to a couple of tracks and start recording how often the DA changes and by how much for how long, etc.... This should give us very accurate correction factors at the time of run....
Is there any device out there that can measure or output a DA value by measuring air temprature, altitude, air pressure, etc.... ? Or do I have to get a device for all these things, then use the DA formula?
Is there any device out there that can measure or output a DA value by measuring air temprature, altitude, air pressure, etc.... ?
Or do I have to get a device for all these things, then use the DA formula? http://www.kestrelmeters.com/Kestrel...tude/index.cat
LOL, sTARTING A NEW THREAD
09-04-2007, 07:31 PM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
they have a hand held DA meter, its awesome
http://www.kestrelmeters.com/Kestrel...tude/index.cat
LOL, sTARTING A NEW THREAD
http://www.kestrelmeters.com/Kestrel...tude/index.cat
LOL, sTARTING A NEW THREAD
09-04-2007, 07:32 PM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Your post validates why using minute to minute weather calculations is much more accurate than simply adjusting for altitude.
when comparing timeslips you must use the corrected # to make the runs aplles to apples.
Your run in Florida at 90 degrees cannot be compared to enzoms run in New Jersey at 41 degrees, well it can but it would be just as silly as comparing your car run on NOS to a non nos time. You would not do this would you?
We must take both cars and standardize the run to SAE standard temp. This will more accurately portray what car is faster if they lined up on the same track same day. Traction is non standardized as is fuel, weight and other things you mention. Weather can easily be factored out, I say it makes for much better comparison. You are correct NHRA does not supply the weather correction but the DA tables are supported it is up to you to calculate DA and do the correction based on the NHRA use of SAE standard calculation.
Most "real" dragsters do not do corrections because the cars have "electronics" That adjust the air and fuel to compensate for the bad air, increase boost whatever. last time I checked my car had no such device
Read this NHRA most certainly recognizes the "air"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...06/ai_n9240601
All you are doing is putting both cars to PERFECT condition to see which car is faster, takes the temp away.
SAE condition well it is rare but it is the STANDARD and engine builders, pilots, drag racers, everyone uses it
when comparing timeslips you must use the corrected # to make the runs aplles to apples.
Your run in Florida at 90 degrees cannot be compared to enzoms run in New Jersey at 41 degrees, well it can but it would be just as silly as comparing your car run on NOS to a non nos time. You would not do this would you?
We must take both cars and standardize the run to SAE standard temp. This will more accurately portray what car is faster if they lined up on the same track same day. Traction is non standardized as is fuel, weight and other things you mention. Weather can easily be factored out, I say it makes for much better comparison. You are correct NHRA does not supply the weather correction but the DA tables are supported it is up to you to calculate DA and do the correction based on the NHRA use of SAE standard calculation.
Most "real" dragsters do not do corrections because the cars have "electronics" That adjust the air and fuel to compensate for the bad air, increase boost whatever. last time I checked my car had no such device
Read this NHRA most certainly recognizes the "air"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...06/ai_n9240601
All you are doing is putting both cars to PERFECT condition to see which car is faster, takes the temp away.
SAE condition well it is rare but it is the STANDARD and engine builders, pilots, drag racers, everyone uses it
Every heads up racing organization only recognizes records as actual times run at a specific venue.
I repeat to you once again, the nhra only recognizes track elevation as a correction factor. No article about a car going faster with better da will ever change that.
No sanctioning body that I know off, and i've been involved in some way or another with many corrects your track times based on DA.
Like I have said if correcting for da makes you feel better go ahead, just don't expect people to agree.
09-04-2007, 08:15 PM
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
DA calculations are very accurate and far from a guess , you cannot have an Altitude table without a DA calculation, the numbers in the table NHRA lists are DENSITY ALTITUDE CONVERSIONS TO SAE condition.
yes you are correct corrected slips does not a record make, but it helps me in many ways
yes you are correct corrected slips does not a record make, but it helps me in many ways
09-05-2007, 12:36 AM
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
awesome run , please go again soon and get down to 12.3@115 WOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOO
you can do it
09-05-2007, 07:45 AM
#42
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 SL550 / 07 E63 AMG
Don't worry about jacking my thread it was kinda quiet anyhow. I think that everyone is under the impression that my car is BONE stock but it actually isn't. I ran with the stock Continental sport tires on but The car has an Evosport chip performed by Adam @ Euroelites.
Who ever asked the engine was built by an Italian named Guido... I can't make out the last name.
If I could only get my 60 ft's down a point or so would get me a better time. I can hit a 1.8 with SL550 and one time did 1.7 with the S55.
Who ever asked the engine was built by an Italian named Guido... I can't make out the last name.
If I could only get my 60 ft's down a point or so would get me a better time. I can hit a 1.8 with SL550 and one time did 1.7 with the S55.
Last edited by Sean03S55; 09-05-2007 at 07:58 AM.
09-05-2007, 08:07 AM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Don't worry about jacking my thread it was kinda quiet anyhow. I think that everyone is under the impression that my car is BONE stock but it actually isn't. I ran with the stock Continental sport tires on but The car has an Evosport chip performed by Adam @ Euroelites.
Who ever asked the engine was built by an Italian named Guido... I can't make out the last name.
If I could only get my 60 ft's down a point or so would get me a better time. I can hit a 1.8 with SL550 and one time did 1.7 with the S55.
Who ever asked the engine was built by an Italian named Guido... I can't make out the last name.
If I could only get my 60 ft's down a point or so would get me a better time. I can hit a 1.8 with SL550 and one time did 1.7 with the S55.
definately get some drag tires.
Thanks for clarifying , I will note the updated ECU.
cool now its
Evotech vs Powerchip
Im gonna adjust my thread accordingly
09-05-2007, 04:11 PM
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
