Sean03S55

Last night was pretty cool out around 17-18C so, I went to the track and ran some pretty good times. This was not on any drag radials just Continentals275/35/18 rubber.

juicee63

WOW!!!

you have just run the 2nd fastest uncorrected time in a 63!!!


12.43@114 , just shy of the 12.41@114 run in SACRAMENTO IN June(on BFG)

excellent, how did you launch, what mode were you in and did you happen to WEIGH the car? How much do you weigh, LOL, Tire pressure? spare or no spare? Details please sir

MidniteBluBenz

Which track did you do this at? Cayuga?

Nice time slip. How many clicks you got on your car?

Sean03S55

In Sport mode it kept shifting early around 62-6300 rpm from first to second and ran 12.6's for the first two runs. Then I tried manual mode using and managed to hit the shift perfectly with a chirp into second and that was the 12.44. About the launch I just barely feathered the throttle while holding the brake until the last yellow and just smoothly stepped onto it. Tire pressure was normal at around 31 psi (OE Continentals only upsized to 275), I had the spare, and I weigh around 185-190 lbs.

Was the guy in Sacramento was on Drag radials?

Sean03S55

No, St.Thomas... Car has 16,500 KM on it.

Sunny55

That's a terrific run Sean! Good job!

Jrocket

Nice run.

Right about now,ol' Juiceee is scrambling to get the corrected numbers done!

rflow306

Very fast times congrats.

MB_Forever

Awsome runs.....

Hope you go to the track again and try some runs without the spare tire and without charcoal filters. You will soon have the FASTEST un-corrected time E63...

juicee63

Yeah Tommy was on BFG and outweighs you by 75 pounds. His run is on drag times make sure you post yours as you are the fastest "stock" 63 in the NORTH AMERICA as of this moment.

You did everything right.

Next time you gotta try DYNO mode to alleviate that early shifting, sounds like you have a potential 12.2 in her. Man this is exciting to see an E63 on stock tires run a 12.4 , really nice man. There is .2 room for improvement on your 60 ft and you can do slightly better through the 1/8th mile. So really a 12.2 is right around the corner.

No need to correct as it looks like favorable temps, whats the elevation of the track and whats temp in F, lol

chiromikey

congrats! it's nice to see the e63's getting into the low 12's and i hope they keep getting better!!!

ProV1

sweeeeeeeeeeeet!!! on stock contis wow.

ya next time remove everything inside the car, rear seat, headrests, floormats, all the crap in the glove box, spare, etc drain the washer fluid, 1/6 tank gas. u might get teh fastest E63 time evAr!!

Sean03S55

Thanks for the replies....

JRAMGV8

Great Runs Sean... keep it up...

juicee63

Any idea of the track elevation, is it sea level, I know St Thomas Dragway is in NHRA sector 3 but my DA calculator only does USA tracks BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I have the temp and humidity, just need elevation. It looks like this could be the best corrected time and 2nd best uncorrected and best STOCK time Yet.

Let me know if you need any other details on the other guys run, I raced him 2x and he ran a 12.41 and then a 12.46 both @114, so you guys are very close

Jrocket

Im not positive but i think its around 700ft.

ChicagoX

Awesome run.

AMGcrazy

Great Run! Especially in a 63!!!

enzom

Very nice run. Those are some great actual numbers.

BTW - I am developing a bit of a concern with the use of the terms "corrected" and "uncorrected" in this context. The implication is that a "corrected" time is, well, right/accurate - and an uncorrected number is somehow wrong or misleading.

Shouldn't we really call times "actual" when they are the actual times, and "altitude-adjusted" when the actual time is adjusted by way of a calculation?

Not trying to get under anyone's skin, but the terms are being used so frequently on this board now that it made sense to me at least to raise it now.

rflow306

I agree.

ChicagoX

Why not just list, as you guys have suggested, the actual slip - along with the DA?

Example:

ChicagoX : 12.27 @ 114.23 DA 2100

Simple, accurate, correct.

juicee63

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.

ChicagoX

As it is a "should run" versus a "will run" I would stick to listing the DA. (which IS important )

juicee63

Its just a comparison, so will run, should run , may run, that is moot. Its all numbers not actual runs on a track it is for information purposes only.

I would rather you list in your sig the corrected time under actual. Hardly anyone knows what DA is or what it translates to.

Now that you list it to me your 12.2@114 is more impressive than I previously thought!!

enzom

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. Those of us who have experience with hand-held weather stations know that DA can change by hundreds of feet from hour to hour. There is just no way that any calculator is going to give you a precise basis for comparisons. Also, I assume that the calculator treats all cars the same. In other words, it makes no adjustment for the fact that N/A cars and FI cars are affected differently by altitude. How precise can it be then?

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.

Some tracks are "faster" than others. Some days are colder than others, and the same car makes more power than it did the day before. That's racing.

I appreciate that these comparisons are "fun". But the point here is that to use the term "corrected" when the time can't possibly be precise is just not "right" in my book. It sends the wrong message, IMO.