Update: MHP ECU/TCU Tuning (Throttle Blipping, etc, DONE!)
10-07-2008, 01:28 PM
#1026
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
10-07-2008, 01:31 PM
#1027
MBWorld Fanatic!
I guess you missed the part about the launch being important...
Our 60s suck by comparison, meaning we aren't putting anywhere near the power to the ground that you are during launch (which I think we both agree is the most important aspect of any race?) which is where the trap discrepancy comes into play. After first gear, we don't have an issue since we never fall out of our powerband.
Our 60s suck by comparison, meaning we aren't putting anywhere near the power to the ground that you are during launch (which I think we both agree is the most important aspect of any race?) which is where the trap discrepancy comes into play. After first gear, we don't have an issue since we never fall out of our powerband.
are we on the same page yet???
10-07-2008, 01:40 PM
#1028
MBWorld Fanatic!
I still feel there is more behind the MPH issue than 60' times. Look at Juciees 1.69 60ft compared to his trap speed, it don't get much better than a 1.69 60footer does it? Now compare the trap speed of a 55 with a 1.69 60'. Still a 4-5 mph discrepancy.
10-07-2008, 01:41 PM
#1029
MBWorld Fanatic!
no MIR is @ 80 ASL
I agree with this. The issue arises when people use the programs that get weather data from the nearest NOAA station or airport. This data can horribly skew the data as the weather can be totally different at the actual track site. Unless you are using a professional handheld weather station, i dont put too much faith in the numbers produced "on the net" Just because one car reacts one way under certain weather conditions doesnt mean my car will react the same. I can only speak for my own car, I know how it will react under certain conditions as Ive compiled enough data to do so, and i wont use a computer to guess how someone elses will.
this has been done, but if you want it for your own knowledge, everything you need is on dragtimes.
this has been done, but if you want it for your own knowledge, everything you need is on dragtimes.
10-07-2008, 01:57 PM
#1030
Super Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CL65
I am blessed with East coast tracks because this is where I live. 
Although this is true, you mis understood what I meant. I dont put faith in the correction data, there are too many variables. Its great for conversation, but in my opinion thats about it. No correction factor can accurately predict how my car will run under said conditions.
Although this is true, you mis understood what I meant. I dont put faith in the correction data, there are too many variables. Its great for conversation, but in my opinion thats about it. No correction factor can accurately predict how my car will run under said conditions.Last edited by MarkoCL65; 10-07-2008 at 01:59 PM.
10-07-2008, 02:39 PM
#1031
MBWorld Fanatic!
you're right, there is likely more behind it. i can't comment on josh's 1.69 except that i think it was a fluke. i'm not sure he's been close since but i'm totally speculating as we haven't talked in a while. regardless, i don't think any stock 55's are putting down much diff mph than he is. the few other 55's that have run in the 1.6's for 60ft times are not stock so obviously their mph is going to be higher.
10-07-2008, 02:49 PM
#1032
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
I get what you're saying but overcoming the deficit at launch is a bigger factor than you're letting on. Any kind of bog whatsoever absolutely murders trap speed. We're out of the band for a significant amount of time in first gear, and it kills us.
10-07-2008, 02:53 PM
#1033
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
LOL, come on. That's still 770' better than Norwalk. Not to mention the difference in air quality. It's unusual for us to see under 2000-2500' until October.
Most tracks have weather stations on site and the NHRA correction website www.smokemup.com derives their numbers from said stations. I agree that a portable weather meter is probably the most accurate method, but we don't always have the luxury of using one.
That being said again I don't see how anyone can say corrected numbers are less accurate than actual ones. Anytime you eliminate variables you end up with a more accurate system of measure.
Cool, I had no idea. Just throwing it out there.
Thanks
I agree with this. The issue arises when people use the programs that get weather data from the nearest NOAA station or airport. This data can horribly skew the data as the weather can be totally different at the actual track site. Unless you are using a professional handheld weather station, i dont put too much faith in the numbers produced "on the net" Just because one car reacts one way under certain weather conditions doesnt mean my car will react the same. I can only speak for my own car, I know how it will react under certain conditions as Ive compiled enough data to do so, and i wont use a computer to guess how someone elses will.
That being said again I don't see how anyone can say corrected numbers are less accurate than actual ones. Anytime you eliminate variables you end up with a more accurate system of measure.
this has been done, but if you want it for your own knowledge, everything you need is on dragtimes.
Thanks
10-07-2008, 02:54 PM
#1034
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Case in point. When you have a forced induction car that has the ability to cool the charged air to a temperature significantly below ambient or the ability to produce more boost, the correction formula is inaccurate. I have raced competitively with a turbocharged car with nitrous. That set-up has the ability to inject similar amounts of oxygen into the motor in greatly varying conditions. It ran within a tenth at Bandimere and Atco. The correction formula is most accurate when applied it to NA applications.
10-07-2008, 02:56 PM
#1035
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
At this point I'd like to pat everyone on the back as I think we've gone an entire page without anyone personally insulting anyone else. 
If we could keep the discussion this focused all the time I'm sure we'd all benefit.
If we could keep the discussion this focused all the time I'm sure we'd all benefit.
10-07-2008, 03:07 PM
#1036
MBWorld Fanatic!
LOL, come on. That's still 770' better than Norwalk. Not to mention the difference in air quality. It's unusual for us to see under 2000-2500' until October.
Most tracks have weather stations on site and the NHRA correction website www.smokemup.com derives their numbers from said stations. I agree that a portable weather meter is probably the most accurate method, but we don't always have the luxury of using one.
That being said again I don't see how anyone can say corrected numbers are less accurate than actual ones. Anytime you eliminate variables you end up with a more accurate system of measure.
Cool, I had no idea. Just throwing it out there.
Thanks
Most tracks have weather stations on site and the NHRA correction website www.smokemup.com derives their numbers from said stations. I agree that a portable weather meter is probably the most accurate method, but we don't always have the luxury of using one.
That being said again I don't see how anyone can say corrected numbers are less accurate than actual ones. Anytime you eliminate variables you end up with a more accurate system of measure.
Cool, I had no idea. Just throwing it out there.
Thanks
Come on Andy...think about it. Corrected #'s can have the best of both worlds... a warm track surface for a better launch ...and the ability to mitigate the weather by using a mathematical formula. Did you ever think that there is a point where the cool weather can work against you with the traction surface. It is all speculation until the car actually performs in those conditions. As Marko mentioned, the correction #'s are more accurate for N/A car.
If you are looking for precision...the actual numbers are more accurate...that is why in scientific research they test their theories by actual tests. No matter how good the mathematical models are they need to verify their theory. Yet correction factors are a decent indicator of the potential for a car to run at in certain conditions....but it needs to be tested for that particular model to see if it reacts as expected....or not....
Tom
10-07-2008, 03:25 PM
#1037
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Come on Andy...think about it. Corrected #'s can have the best of both worlds... a warm track surface for a better launch ...and the ability to mitigate the weather by using a mathematical formula. Did you ever think that there is a point where the cool weather can work against you with the traction surface. It is all speculation until the car actually performs in those conditions. As Marko mentioned, the correction #'s are more accurate for N/A car.
If you are looking for precision...the actual numbers are more accurate...that is why in scientific research they test their theories by actual tests. No matter how good the mathematical models are they need to verify their theory. Yet correction factors are a decent indicator of the potential for a car to run at in certain conditions....but it needs to be tested for that particular model to see if it reacts as expected....or not....
Tom
Tom
Last edited by MHP; 10-07-2008 at 03:27 PM.
10-07-2008, 03:37 PM
#1038
Out Of Control!!
My 55 has run an 11.48 @ only 120.5mph
In a -4847585375 DA my car should go 9's, does that make it a 9sec car?
And stop talking about scientists like you guys know what they do. It is impossible to have a true "controlled environment" considering many variables are unkown and noone knows the effects of all the variables!
In a -4847585375 DA my car should go 9's, does that make it a 9sec car?
And stop talking about scientists like you guys know what they do. It is impossible to have a true "controlled environment" considering many variables are unkown and noone knows the effects of all the variables!
Last edited by blackbenzz; 10-07-2008 at 03:41 PM.
10-07-2008, 03:38 PM
#1039
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
10-07-2008, 03:43 PM
#1040
Super Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CL65
10-07-2008, 03:50 PM
#1041
Out Of Control!!
10-07-2008, 04:04 PM
#1043
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CLK 63 Black Series, 2009 S550, 2011 Range Rover Supercharged, BMW F800 GS Anniv Edition
it's too bad andy seems to be of the belief that any attention is good attention. if he had any sense, he'd put your muzzle back on. just because you're used to having his sack in your mouth doesn't give you the right to put words in everyone else's. i never said you have anything to gain by your ignorance. and your quasi credentials don't impress me and don't make your cheer leading any less miserable to witness.
as far as your pointless question is concerned, there plenty that trap what rock typically traps although none have matched his personal best yet (perhaps only because they haven't run under ideal conditions). however impromptu freeway runs don't mean too much because of so many variables so if you think there's any comparison between rocks pr of 124mph and andy's c63 at 117mph you really need to get off the koolaid.
as far as your pointless question is concerned, there plenty that trap what rock typically traps although none have matched his personal best yet (perhaps only because they haven't run under ideal conditions). however impromptu freeway runs don't mean too much because of so many variables so if you think there's any comparison between rocks pr of 124mph and andy's c63 at 117mph you really need to get off the koolaid.
10-07-2008, 04:09 PM
#1044
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Are you saying that scientists don't try to eliminate as many variables as possible when conducting an experiment? Sorry bro, I had O-chem in college (random other bio/chem classes to boot) and that was my personal experience.
10-07-2008, 04:13 PM
#1045
MBWorld Fanatic!
Tom, you do realize that vht works better in the cold (down to 40F) than on a hot surface. I also agreed with Marko reg. N/A v FI, and especially nitrous apps however the fact remains that corrected #s are still the most accurate and precise data obtainable from a track. Again as I said above, they aren't the end all be all, but the data taken at MIR in negative 1500' DA air is even farther from that.
Scientists test their theories in controlled environments Tom, you know that. Controlled environments equate to those with the least amount of variables...And around we go again. Not trying to be a dick but do some reading on what weather correction entails for ETs/Traps and also about why correcting for dyno #s is industry standard.
Scientists test their theories in controlled environments Tom, you know that. Controlled environments equate to those with the least amount of variables...And around we go again. Not trying to be a dick but do some reading on what weather correction entails for ETs/Traps and also about why correcting for dyno #s is industry standard.
Actually dynos are no different with its correction factors. Then again a dyno chart by itself is just an illustration of power output. There are such wide variations in dynos which cause results all over the place.
People should look at it the same way... the 1/4 mile correction factors are a useful tool to determine if a mod made more power...or was it just better weather/air that gave you more trap speed. For instance if you ran an 11.5 @ 121mph in 90 degree heat and high humidity...etc...and re-ran in 65 degrees with low humidity you should expect something in the neighborhood of 11.35 @ 123mph. Now if this car with significant mods ran an 11.45 @ 121.5mph in the cooler weather...the corrections would tell you that the mods aren't working the way you expected them to perform. Once again it helps the user define the potential and create an expectation...but not always an accurate one.
Tom
10-07-2008, 04:15 PM
#1046
MBWorld Fanatic!
Andy....trust me don't challenge Ahmad in this area...you will look very foolish... Tom
10-07-2008, 04:15 PM
#1047
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
People should look at it the same way... the 1/4 mile correction factors are a useful tool to determine if a mod made more power...or was it just better weather/air that gave you more trap speed. For instance if you ran an 11.5 @ 121mph in 90 degree heat and high humidity...etc...and re-ran in 65 degrees with low humidity you should expect something in the neighborhood of 11.35 @ 123mph. Now if this car with significant mods ran an 11.45 @ 121.5mph in the cooler weather...the corrections would tell you that the mods aren't working the way you expected them to perform. Once again it helps the user define the potential and create an expectation...but not always an accurate one.
Tom
10-07-2008, 04:17 PM
#1048
MBWorld Fanatic!
Tom
10-07-2008, 04:17 PM
#1049
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
I made a statement that cannot be disproved (scientists try to eliminate as many variables as possible when conducting an experiment) based on my own personal experience. In no way shape or form did I say I was a scientist, so please don't try to create extra drama for no reason.
Thanks
Andy
