Everything you Love and Hate about
09-05-2007, 12:11 AM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
09-05-2007, 08:49 AM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
I think some of you are a little confused what Juice is trying to get the point across, First, The only heads up racing in the NHRA are the pro classes ( Top fuel, Achohol and Prostock). All others race with an index factor provide by the NHRA. This Index is the way to level the playing field for each given class at each track.
Seems all the folks against adjustment reside near a sea level track, hmmm
http://www.mustangforums.com/m_179265/tm.htm
Having a track like Sac within driving range and you guys still wanna quote Da.
09-05-2007, 11:04 AM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Imagine if juice was in the Olympics
I also agree with teds statements
Imagine what would happen if you did a street race and lost then stated that you actually won due to a b c corrections.
I don’t know i could be wrong and if i am I am sorry, but I think most people do not want to look/understand or even want to use this.
Do performance magz use it?
Do 1/4 mile tracks use it on the passes, showing you your speed then your corrected speed?
I think most people only car about what you run that day. If your happy with what you are doing then that’s fine
gl in the coming events 
I also agree with teds statements
Imagine what would happen if you did a street race and lost then stated that you actually won due to a b c corrections.
I don’t know i could be wrong and if i am I am sorry, but I think most people do not want to look/understand or even want to use this.
Do performance magz use it?
Do 1/4 mile tracks use it on the passes, showing you your speed then your corrected speed?
I think most people only car about what you run that day. If your happy with what you are doing then that’s fine
gl in the coming events
09-05-2007, 11:22 AM
#30
Senior Member
The index correction is based on track elevation-Altitude not DA
Your right about the index. But explain how the NHRA then runs all the stock, superstock classes on a national index. It's done by average DA for the event.
They correct their times to the DA to be competive within their classes.
That's because no one follows directions, all of the hand held weather stations sold for drag-racing that I have used clearly state that readings should be taken away from the staging lanes, most mention the top of your race car trailer being the ideal location . I bet any decent hand held weather station will read very close to yours at the top of the trailer.
I thought the same thing a few years ago. Even you mention to put the hand held on the roof of the trailer. That won't help you when a sudden change happends and your in the staging lanes. Hand helds are good for certain classes, But when you race in Supercomp or Super e you need updates all the time.
Seems like the only people for it are people who own e63's on the west coast.
Having a track like Sac within driving range and you guys still wanna quote Da.
Your right about the index. But explain how the NHRA then runs all the stock, superstock classes on a national index. It's done by average DA for the event.
They correct their times to the DA to be competive within their classes.
That's because no one follows directions, all of the hand held weather stations sold for drag-racing that I have used clearly state that readings should be taken away from the staging lanes, most mention the top of your race car trailer being the ideal location . I bet any decent hand held weather station will read very close to yours at the top of the trailer.
I thought the same thing a few years ago. Even you mention to put the hand held on the roof of the trailer. That won't help you when a sudden change happends and your in the staging lanes. Hand helds are good for certain classes, But when you race in Supercomp or Super e you need updates all the time.
Seems like the only people for it are people who own e63's on the west coast.
Having a track like Sac within driving range and you guys still wanna quote Da.
09-05-2007, 11:56 AM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Salt Lake City (but not Morm)
Posts: 7,092
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
9 Posts
2003 E55 & 2014 GL550
The west coast runs NHRA and the eastcoat runs IHRA.
My only input on the DA issue is that I use it more as a tool rather than ET equalizer. Was heading down to Rudyrono's Vegas strip and the blazing heat plus his actual alt made the DA 4300, which is EXACTLY what my altitude was at my track back home. No sense in wasting 4 hour drive to pull the exact same times down there so we called it off.
It does make you feel a little better to use it sometimes when you tank at higher altitudes. I can't tell you how bummed I was when I pulled 12.7 after my K2 with LSD install with DR's. Had guys coming out of the woodwork telling me to use the NHRA calc to see what she would do down at Sacto. You gotta feel for us higher alt guys. NHRA calc can be our only hope sometimes.
It's mainly a west thing as we have these pesky 12-14,000 footers that get in our way sometimes.
09-05-2007, 12:38 PM
#32
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion, and lots of opinions. Here's mine
No matter what, any "corrected run" doesn't have the same validity as a "real run". It's theoretical, and nice for comparison, but you didn't actually do the corrected time, so it's not real.
There are all sorts of problems with corrections. Density Altitude (DA) will give you a very accurate correction factor for your engine's horsepower reading as per SAE. This assumes you have the LOCAL and INSTANT temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure. All three of these can vary significantly over a mile or so, and within an hour.
Let's assume you get the exact parameters to calculate your engines correction factor for hp. Let's say you're down 20 hp because it's 100 deg out. But because it's 100 deg, it's much easier to hook-up and your 60 ft. time will be better. If it's 40 deg out you might be running an extra 20 hp, but you can't get any traction and your 60 ft times suck. Should you correct for the track/tire friction coefficient because of temperature?
As an extreme example look at a sea level track, 100 deg, 29 in Hg, 100% humidity, you have an SAE correction factor of 89.2%. Same track at 40 deg, 0% humidity, 30 in Hg, your correction is 107.6%. That's over an 18% difference in hp, or 90 hp in a 500 hp car!
Bottom line for me is correction factors are useful for general comparisons, but not specific times down to the tenth. The only valid times are the ones you actually run, not the 'theoretical times' created by a correction factor. Find a good track at sea level on a cool dry day and post your numbers from that.
No matter what, any "corrected run" doesn't have the same validity as a "real run". It's theoretical, and nice for comparison, but you didn't actually do the corrected time, so it's not real.
There are all sorts of problems with corrections. Density Altitude (DA) will give you a very accurate correction factor for your engine's horsepower reading as per SAE. This assumes you have the LOCAL and INSTANT temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure. All three of these can vary significantly over a mile or so, and within an hour.
Let's assume you get the exact parameters to calculate your engines correction factor for hp. Let's say you're down 20 hp because it's 100 deg out. But because it's 100 deg, it's much easier to hook-up and your 60 ft. time will be better. If it's 40 deg out you might be running an extra 20 hp, but you can't get any traction and your 60 ft times suck. Should you correct for the track/tire friction coefficient because of temperature?
As an extreme example look at a sea level track, 100 deg, 29 in Hg, 100% humidity, you have an SAE correction factor of 89.2%. Same track at 40 deg, 0% humidity, 30 in Hg, your correction is 107.6%. That's over an 18% difference in hp, or 90 hp in a 500 hp car!
Bottom line for me is correction factors are useful for general comparisons, but not specific times down to the tenth. The only valid times are the ones you actually run, not the 'theoretical times' created by a correction factor. Find a good track at sea level on a cool dry day and post your numbers from that.
09-05-2007, 01:05 PM
#33
Senior Member
Nah dude, I work with the guys at IHRA. NHRA runs coast to coast and IHRA is mainly in the East/Midwest and into Canada. Plans in the works to expand out west in the future though I am sure.
My only input on the DA issue is that I use it more as a tool rather than ET equalizer. Was heading down to Rudyrono's Vegas strip and the blazing heat plus his actual alt made the DA 4300, which is EXACTLY what my altitude was at my track back home. No sense in wasting 4 hour drive to pull the exact same times down there so we called it off.
This why Juice is correcting times nationaly. It levels the field for everyone.
It does make you feel a little better to use it sometimes when you tank at higher altitudes. I can't tell you how bummed I was when I pulled 12.7 after my K2 with LSD install with DR's. Had guys coming out of the woodwork telling me to use the NHRA calc to see what she would do down at Sacto. You gotta feel for us higher alt guys. NHRA calc can be our only hope sometimes.
I'm with you on that one!! Try Mile high in denver you should see there index there..
It's mainly a west thing as we have these pesky 12-14,000 footers that get in our way sometimes.
My only input on the DA issue is that I use it more as a tool rather than ET equalizer. Was heading down to Rudyrono's Vegas strip and the blazing heat plus his actual alt made the DA 4300, which is EXACTLY what my altitude was at my track back home. No sense in wasting 4 hour drive to pull the exact same times down there so we called it off.
This why Juice is correcting times nationaly. It levels the field for everyone.
It does make you feel a little better to use it sometimes when you tank at higher altitudes. I can't tell you how bummed I was when I pulled 12.7 after my K2 with LSD install with DR's. Had guys coming out of the woodwork telling me to use the NHRA calc to see what she would do down at Sacto. You gotta feel for us higher alt guys. NHRA calc can be our only hope sometimes.
I'm with you on that one!! Try Mile high in denver you should see there index there..
It's mainly a west thing as we have these pesky 12-14,000 footers that get in our way sometimes.
09-05-2007, 01:06 PM
#34
Senior Member
Interesting discussion, and lots of opinions. Here's mine
No matter what, any "corrected run" doesn't have the same validity as a "real run". It's theoretical, and nice for comparison, but you didn't actually do the corrected time, so it's not real.
There are all sorts of problems with corrections. Density Altitude (DA) will give you a very accurate correction factor for your engine's horsepower reading as per SAE. This assumes you have the LOCAL and INSTANT temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure. All three of these can vary significantly over a mile or so, and within an hour.
Let's assume you get the exact parameters to calculate your engines correction factor for hp. Let's say you're down 20 hp because it's 100 deg out. But because it's 100 deg, it's much easier to hook-up and your 60 ft. time will be better. If it's 40 deg out you might be running an extra 20 hp, but you can't get any traction and your 60 ft times suck. Should you correct for the track/tire friction coefficient because of temperature?
As an extreme example look at a sea level track, 100 deg, 29 in Hg, 100% humidity, you have an SAE correction factor of 89.2%. Same track at 40 deg, 0% humidity, 30 in Hg, your correction is 107.6%. That's over an 18% difference in hp, or 90 hp in a 500 hp car!
Bottom line for me is correction factors are useful for general comparisons, but not specific times down to the tenth. The only valid times are the ones you actually run, not the 'theoretical times' created by a correction factor. Find a good track at sea level on a cool dry day and post your numbers from that.
No matter what, any "corrected run" doesn't have the same validity as a "real run". It's theoretical, and nice for comparison, but you didn't actually do the corrected time, so it's not real.
There are all sorts of problems with corrections. Density Altitude (DA) will give you a very accurate correction factor for your engine's horsepower reading as per SAE. This assumes you have the LOCAL and INSTANT temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure. All three of these can vary significantly over a mile or so, and within an hour.
Let's assume you get the exact parameters to calculate your engines correction factor for hp. Let's say you're down 20 hp because it's 100 deg out. But because it's 100 deg, it's much easier to hook-up and your 60 ft. time will be better. If it's 40 deg out you might be running an extra 20 hp, but you can't get any traction and your 60 ft times suck. Should you correct for the track/tire friction coefficient because of temperature?
As an extreme example look at a sea level track, 100 deg, 29 in Hg, 100% humidity, you have an SAE correction factor of 89.2%. Same track at 40 deg, 0% humidity, 30 in Hg, your correction is 107.6%. That's over an 18% difference in hp, or 90 hp in a 500 hp car!
Bottom line for me is correction factors are useful for general comparisons, but not specific times down to the tenth. The only valid times are the ones you actually run, not the 'theoretical times' created by a correction factor. Find a good track at sea level on a cool dry day and post your numbers from that.
09-05-2007, 02:22 PM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Juicee -
The point of the link was to correct two misconceptions.
1. Altitude and DA are not the same thing.
2. What you are doing by factoring weather and other atmospheric conditions into the equation is not what the NHRA does. And there is a reason that the NHRA does not do it.
And back to my overall point - "corrected" is not accurate or actual. It is estimated and, by definition, NOT real. So when people rank themselves using a time that a calculator gives them, and refer to them as "corrected", it seems like it is giving these estimated numbers way too much validity.
I guess its all fun so long as the answer to the question "what did you run?" is actually on your timeslip. If the answer is "I ran a corrected 12.217 @ 115.57 mph", then that is just "wrong".
Hopefully, this will all be pointless after the fall when more cars hit the tracks on the East Coast and the unfair comparisons will cease to exist.
The point of the link was to correct two misconceptions.
1. Altitude and DA are not the same thing.
2. What you are doing by factoring weather and other atmospheric conditions into the equation is not what the NHRA does. And there is a reason that the NHRA does not do it.
And back to my overall point - "corrected" is not accurate or actual. It is estimated and, by definition, NOT real. So when people rank themselves using a time that a calculator gives them, and refer to them as "corrected", it seems like it is giving these estimated numbers way too much validity.
I guess its all fun so long as the answer to the question "what did you run?" is actually on your timeslip. If the answer is "I ran a corrected 12.217 @ 115.57 mph", then that is just "wrong".
Hopefully, this will all be pointless after the fall when more cars hit the tracks on the East Coast and the unfair comparisons will cease to exist.
09-05-2007, 02:37 PM
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
All I know is when my car runs slow,I hate it.
Seems more and more 63's are fessing up to having ecu tunes.........and still cant run!
That was mainly for my boy the "juice"
Seems more and more 63's are fessing up to having ecu tunes.........and still cant run!
That was mainly for my boy the "juice"
09-05-2007, 02:42 PM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
09-05-2007, 02:43 PM
#38
Senior Member
My car is still stock except for the filters. My ONE pass in the PHX heat is pretty good compared to other 55's here in phoenix.
09-05-2007, 03:00 PM
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
just using you to get to juicee is all.The fastest pass my car has ever made was at Speedworld out there.
09-05-2007, 04:03 PM
#41
Senior Member
09-05-2007, 04:14 PM
#42
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 and DA factors !!!!
Juicee is not saying that the "corrected" times should be used as a substitute for "actual" times. Actual times are still the most absolute and concrete data. He is simply saying that "corrected" times should be listed in addition to actual times for further analysis (if the run-owner wants to do so of course). I agree with many of you that "corrected" runs merely show that a car that ran a 13.5 second run @ 4500 DA has the potential to run a 12.5 second run in better conditions.
It is also a good way (and perhaps more accurate way) to compare cars that are far away from each other and have little chance of running side by side. For example, lets say the car that ran the 13.5 seconds is located in South Africa and the other car was located here in the U.S. How would someone study and compare runs. Actual times comparison would not help us much in this comparison while a "corrected" or "adjusted" time may give us at least a close approximate of how the two cars would act if ran side by side.
Anyways, I am learning a lot from this thread and would like to thank many of you who provided very informative links. This topic is very interesting and I will definately continue digging deeper.
For my next run, I will actually take a barometer to measure air pressure and a DA meter and will record as much data for you guys to analyze as possible. I will also go to the airport and take data samples and compare it to the national weather data as well as to my hand-held device to see how accurate these hand-held devices are. I am not looking for 100% accuracy, so even if I do get results as low as 95% or 90%, it will help me get an approximate time of what the car can do in better conditions.
It is also a good way (and perhaps more accurate way) to compare cars that are far away from each other and have little chance of running side by side. For example, lets say the car that ran the 13.5 seconds is located in South Africa and the other car was located here in the U.S. How would someone study and compare runs. Actual times comparison would not help us much in this comparison while a "corrected" or "adjusted" time may give us at least a close approximate of how the two cars would act if ran side by side.
Anyways, I am learning a lot from this thread and would like to thank many of you who provided very informative links. This topic is very interesting and I will definately continue digging deeper.
For my next run, I will actually take a barometer to measure air pressure and a DA meter and will record as much data for you guys to analyze as possible. I will also go to the airport and take data samples and compare it to the national weather data as well as to my hand-held device to see how accurate these hand-held devices are. I am not looking for 100% accuracy, so even if I do get results as low as 95% or 90%, it will help me get an approximate time of what the car can do in better conditions.
Last edited by MB_Forever; 09-05-2007 at 05:41 PM.
09-05-2007, 04:26 PM
#43
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juicee is not saying that the "corrected" times should be used as a substitute for "actual" times. Actual times are still the most absolute and concrete data. He is simply saying that "corrected" times should be listed in addition to actual times for further analysis (if the run-owner wants to do so of course). I agree with many of you that "corrected" runs merely show that a car that ran a 13.5 second run @ 4500 DA can potentially run a 12.5 second run in better conditions.
I am learning a lot from this thread and would like to thank many of you who provided very informative links. This topic is very interesting and I will definately continue digging deeper.
For my next run, I will actually take a barometer to measure air pressure and a DA meter and will record as much data for you guys to analyze as possible. I will also go to the airport and take data samples and compare it with the national weather data to see how accurate the hand-held devices are. I am not looking for 100% accuracy, so even if I do get results as low as 95% or 90%, it will help me get an approximate time of what the car can do in better conditions.
I am learning a lot from this thread and would like to thank many of you who provided very informative links. This topic is very interesting and I will definately continue digging deeper.
For my next run, I will actually take a barometer to measure air pressure and a DA meter and will record as much data for you guys to analyze as possible. I will also go to the airport and take data samples and compare it with the national weather data to see how accurate the hand-held devices are. I am not looking for 100% accuracy, so even if I do get results as low as 95% or 90%, it will help me get an approximate time of what the car can do in better conditions.
http://www.wunderground.com/weathers...?ID=KFLMIAMI16
This site will give you all the data; temp, humidity, barometric pressure etc., by HOUR, by ZIPCODE, for any date you want.
09-05-2007, 05:37 PM
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Juicee -
The point of the link was to correct two misconceptions.
1. Altitude and DA are not the same thing.
2. What you are doing by factoring weather and other atmospheric conditions into the equation is not what the NHRA does. And there is a reason that the NHRA does not do it.
And back to my overall point - "corrected" is not accurate or actual. It is estimated and, by definition, NOT real. So when people rank themselves using a time that a calculator gives them, and refer to them as "corrected", it seems like it is giving these estimated numbers way too much validity.
I guess its all fun so long as the answer to the question "what did you run?" is actually on your timeslip. If the answer is "I ran a corrected 12.217 @ 115.57 mph", then that is just "wrong".
Hopefully, this will all be pointless after the fall when more cars hit the tracks on the East Coast and the unfair comparisons will cease to exist.
The point of the link was to correct two misconceptions.
1. Altitude and DA are not the same thing.
2. What you are doing by factoring weather and other atmospheric conditions into the equation is not what the NHRA does. And there is a reason that the NHRA does not do it.
And back to my overall point - "corrected" is not accurate or actual. It is estimated and, by definition, NOT real. So when people rank themselves using a time that a calculator gives them, and refer to them as "corrected", it seems like it is giving these estimated numbers way too much validity.
I guess its all fun so long as the answer to the question "what did you run?" is actually on your timeslip. If the answer is "I ran a corrected 12.217 @ 115.57 mph", then that is just "wrong".
Hopefully, this will all be pointless after the fall when more cars hit the tracks on the East Coast and the unfair comparisons will cease to exist.
DA is ALTITUDE.
Altitude is calculated from measuring Air Pressure, ever heard of an Altimeter?
what you guys fail to see over and over and over and over again is that the correction table provided by NHRA is from SAE and it is based ON DENSITY OF THE ATMOSPHERE AT CERTAIN ALTITUDES. The density of a column of air at sea level is compared to the density of a column of air at altitude and a correction factor assigned to adjust the times.
It is a tool , thats it, nobody ever claimed the cars ran it.
Once again its funny, all the 55's RUNNING at below sea level give way too much credit to thier cars.. Its not your car Enzom, it is the atmospheric pressure at which your car was run that makes it faster.
You guys talking about the Olympics yada yada yada, who cares , you run what you run, and thats posted, If I choose to speculate based on atmospheric condition and the formulas are standardized, Im going to use it!!
You guys keep pointing to an altitude table that is calculated from SAE standard pressure at SEA LEVEL which many folks have pointed out.
I will stop using the corrections in the records thread and will post as much detail as available but I will do the correction for anyone who runs in extreme altitudes whether it is measured with a tape measure from the core of the planet or by using standard air pressure calculations.
09-05-2007, 05:40 PM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
09-05-2007, 05:47 PM
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
My tune did not help my times at all, wonder how many of you guys have run a 1.69 60 ft? what are you gonna do if you lose to me at Speedworld? Ask the other Rocket what happens when you line up the whale, hope you have warranty
09-05-2007, 05:48 PM
#47
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
If you're really getting into it, then you have to checkout this website:
http://www.wunderground.com/weathers...?ID=KFLMIAMI16
This site will give you all the data; temp, humidity, barometric pressure etc., by HOUR, by ZIPCODE, for any date you want.
http://www.wunderground.com/weathers...?ID=KFLMIAMI16
This site will give you all the data; temp, humidity, barometric pressure etc., by HOUR, by ZIPCODE, for any date you want.
09-05-2007, 05:51 PM
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Lunch break is over, seriously no need to fight with me guys , you have been trying to squash my corrections for months , I have learned and respected membership and listened but I will not stop using DA to help me and others squeeze the best out of our cars,
Enzom you are correct man this fall will answer alot of questions.
Thanks for discussing, you too Mr. worlds fastest Benz,
You guys have all been my mentors and I will always respect and read and learn from your posts!!
Enzom you are correct man this fall will answer alot of questions.
Thanks for discussing, you too Mr. worlds fastest Benz,
You guys have all been my mentors and I will always respect and read and learn from your posts!!
09-05-2007, 06:06 PM
#49
MBWorld Fanatic!
Josh, I am going to flash a member's E63 for M.I.R. Just FYI.
09-05-2007, 06:08 PM
#50
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Correcting timeslips for weather, altitude.
No need to jack threads when questioning why I correct everyones 1/4 mile times.
Here is why I do it
1.To put all cars on a level playing feild
2.To speculate on which cars are fastest
3.To properly calculate dial times based on temp and altitude
4.To see if modification has added or subtracted HP
5.To better understand the effects of atmospheric condition on my motor
6. To better know my potential opponet
7. To set the ultimate time and trap for my car
Two very popular FI cars from this forum(and members)and one N/A E63
Jrockets car an E55 runs a 12.429@114.637
enzom's car an E55 runs a 11.912@118.432
Bluemax car an E63 runs a 12.724@113.792
if the cars lined up , same day same track same moment,
and were driven by computer which car would be faster through the 1/4 mile?
Jrockets run was at 4100 ft
Enzoms run was at 1600 ft
Bluemax run at 4100 ft
Altitude corrections are here
http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
see what you guys think.
For those not wishing to use the NHRA witchcraft just explain to me from this small bit of data rank the cars from fastest to slowest
No need to jack threads when questioning why I correct everyones 1/4 mile times.
Here is why I do it
1.To put all cars on a level playing feild
2.To speculate on which cars are fastest
3.To properly calculate dial times based on temp and altitude
4.To see if modification has added or subtracted HP
5.To better understand the effects of atmospheric condition on my motor
6. To better know my potential opponet
7. To set the ultimate time and trap for my car
Two very popular FI cars from this forum(and members)and one N/A E63
Jrockets car an E55 runs a 12.429@114.637
enzom's car an E55 runs a 11.912@118.432
Bluemax car an E63 runs a 12.724@113.792
if the cars lined up , same day same track same moment,
and were driven by computer which car would be faster through the 1/4 mile?
Jrockets run was at 4100 ft
Enzoms run was at 1600 ft
Bluemax run at 4100 ft
Altitude corrections are here
http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
see what you guys think.
For those not wishing to use the NHRA witchcraft just explain to me from this small bit of data rank the cars from fastest to slowest
Guess it requires too much thought.
Is the world round or flat? Sure looks flat, how do we know it is round?
The atmosphere is going to effect all your runs , sometimes good sometimes bad, when would it have no effect?
Instead of throwing out the DA calculation with the dish water how about argue as to why it is folley, unecessary and or useless. Nobnody here claimed they ran a corrected time, just taking the times and putting em at sea level, if everyone does it it will be a very very powerful set of data. If some do and some do not the data will fail, either we have a box of apples or we do not.
