Thericker

I've been a fan of the sport of Drag Racing for decades (started w/my grandparents) I will be running @ Famoso in Jan, I guess I'll just hold my breath/keyboard until then when Sir Alan can take my unedumacated opinions more seriously.

Look fwd to your record breaking passes @ Famoso Sir Alan I'm eager to see what all your weight reduction plans (seat removal, skinnies up frnt etc) do to your already record times!

ExtremeSpeed5

please don't take this the wrong way: if what you have alledged to is true then u no longer hold the record for fastest no bottle E55 and Hammer no longer holds the record for fastest stock E55 and so on since the equipment at sac raceway is inaccurate, even if by 1/2 a mph, no one can say they have an x mph car without running at a more reliable track showing an x mph slip. i'm not saying you don't want to & infact i understand you tried hard to but the fact still remains sacramento results are unreliable imho. if traps are off, it is possible that ETs maybe off as well (i have seen no indication of this so far) but unless they are off by a big number, people don't like to complain

bassn_07

Anything is possible but so far the ET's have not shown any kind of inaccuracies only the traps. I've spoken with many members here in the bay area that bracket race with some very fast cars and they claim the ET's to be dead on. Both the traps and timing are on independent systems and one has nothing to do with the other. As for Hammer's record it still stands and he has the slip providing the numbers. I just call mine a PB and will look to beat it at the same track. I understand the concerns and people could take it for what it's worth. Like I mentioned earlier I'm not doing it for records but having a accurate trap would preferred.

ExtremeSpeed5

if trap speeds are off, his records do not stand either. i understand (from the link you provided), the inaccuracy is larger for higher trap speeds and smaller for smaller trap speeds. if your speed is off by 4 mph, his may off by 2 mph or even 1.5 mph and if i'm not mistaken this would give the record back to enzom which tracks (excluding sacramento) have u run on? how do they compare? which tracks Hammer Down run on? how do they compare?p.s. you are one honest stand-up guy and for posting this i consider u a true enthusiast to the full extent of the word please keep it up ur data is very interesting

MB_Forever

Just a small correction here.... Sal actually trapped 128 mph on some of his other runs. Also, the gearing is different on both cars and I think there is still a weight difference between the two cars.

I feel this thread is turning into bench racing all over again.... once Alan runs at Famoso in January (hopefully we'll have close to zero DA as we did in November), we'll know for sure how much the descrepencies really amount to. For now, lets only compare ETs at Sacramento and look at traps only for beating personal bests as Alan mentioned.

c32AMG-DTM

Perhaps a bit nitpicky, but your comment is factually inaccurate (the attached slip is 130.1). 128.8-131.4 would be your +/- 1% range... unless I misunderstood your point, which is possible.

Regardless, this thread's info is interesting - didn't realize that so many experienced racers (from various platforms) have observed trap inaccuracies at Sac. bassn - great results whether or not the high-end trap's right; the ET's killer anyway.

Thericker

You are correct, I was only quoting Sal's record breaking 10.89 @ 127.5 not higher ET 10.98 @ 128. As the Lower 10.89 directly compares to Alans 10.88 @ 133

Sal's 60' was improved between runs obviously lowering 1/4 ET but decreasing Trap a bit

juicee63

We have both made a mistake here.

It is not within the 1% range of his highest trap but it is very close.

You would take the 133.1(record)*.01=1.331 133.1 =/- 1% =131.769-134.431.The run would need to be on the same day same track. Thats all NHRA requires to uphold a record in a car on an NHRA sanctioned track.

So yeah nitpicking he was a bit under, but the weather was much hotter 8/9/09.

http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm

I just did satellite measurements and this track in no way shape or form goes downhill. It also is not 50 ft ABSL , try 104ft. The track starts at 104ft and runs to 106 ft, at the very end it is 111 ft absl.

This is a compulink system, in the ground for ET , the beams at the end measure an AVERAGE speed not radar or lidar, its an equated measure

The example slip from August shows a stage 3 E55 trapping well within an average at 120.xx, side by side with Alan. If trap was off this car should have measured higher. My car has hit 115-116 at SAC, and trapped 115-116.xx all day?? It traps 114-116 all day at Famoso, and 113-116 all day at Infineon.

111-114 at California Speedway
102-108 at LACR

89-92 at Irwindale(1/8th)

111-114 at Speedworld

The differences all point to weather and altitude.
If Scaramento was off it should have measured my car , the other E55's Mo's car at least a few mph higher??Maybe not five but 2, my 115 traps should have been 117-118, then I could say hell yeah this place is measuring high.

Is it possible that the traps are only off for 10-11.2 cars? This does not explain Hammers 121

I have been to Sacramento Raceway six times in 2 years and never have my traps been off? Guess it only is inaccurate when a car does something nobody has ever seen.

c32AMG-DTM

Gotcha, okay. I misunderstood your point in my previous post - thought you were saying the new record was "within 1%" of what he'd previously achieved, and attached the 130.1 slip to show what you meant. For that to be true, it'd have to be in the range I previously posted. 133.1 is "within 2.5%" of the prior trap speed of 130.1, FWIW (it's 2.3% higher).

c32AMG-DTM

Thericker quotes someone (B1Valiant) in post #45 - the last sentence of the second quote seems interesting. Maybe they got some new speed-measurement equipment this summer and it's calibrated differently than what was there before?

To be clear - I appreciate the candid discussion and hope my posts don't come across inappropriately; I'm not questioning anyone's runs... just think reviewing the #'s is interesting.

juicee63

A trap speed record can be independant of ET and vice versa. Both need to be backed up on the same track however. There is no requirement for a potential record holder to run the same numbers at a different track.

I think Alan likely has other slips from the day he ran that are within the 1% rule which would be all he needed to have the trap record veryfied. Certainly if at some point it is discovered the timing equipment at this NHRA sanctioned track is not calibrated correctly, the record would fall. Alan understands this.

Sorry for the bad math. I have seen the car trap 130 on an 75 degree day , on the same exact track within minutes of my own car which I am intimately familiar, trapped 116.xx. Alan's car at Fontana in 104 degrees picked up serious back half, so seeing it do it at 75 and again at 60 is not suprising. Drop the temp 45 degrees frees up ALOT OF HP

bassn_07

I've ran with very similar mods at Fontana during a 105 degree day with DA above 4500 during my best pass. I ran a 11.64 @ 123 which was good enough for the E55 record. Hell, from what I was told on my very first run I broke every single record at that track on out platform. Does this mean my car will trap 133, by all means no. It's just a reference as to how my car performs on other tracks. I also ran at Famoso earlier this year in 1500 DA but my car was no where close to how it's currently modded.

How about this, before we start discrediting other peoples runs let's wait until we all run together. If you go on that same website you'll also see many others claiming Sacramento is accurate. My point being, lets not be so quick and just wait for judgement day....fair enough. At that time we evaluate all cars on the same track. If Sal trap anywhere around his same MPH and I trap high than 130 we would have a better idea of how to treat this matter. If Sal and I both trap in the 133 mph range we'll know that Sacramento is definitely off. It doesn't hurt to have this discussion but up to this point it's still speculation.

People also need to keep in mind that Sacramento is known as a fast track but very few people come out of there with stellar ET's. I would much rather be on a well prepped track trapping 127 with ET's lower. I will go out of the way here and say when i get my chance at a private rental and not TNT days where track prep is fair at best I'll run quicker ET's with slower traps.

juicee63

Sacramento has not done any updating , the timing equipment is actually very costly. Most systems range from 100k-250k. The new ones are Fiber Optic, NED just installed one.

We will figure it out , but its likely a calibration error. This error however should effect every single car on every single pass not just the 10 second guys.

Here is how they calibrate.

*Potential E.T. accuracy at all 1/4 mile dragstrip distances after calibration to vehicle's dynamic tilt & rollout under ideal conditions. Individual results may vary:

For vehicles with 1/4 mile E.T. less than 13 seconds: potential error less than +/- .018 seconds & .15 mph.
For vehicles with 1/4 mile E.T. less than 18 seconds: potential error less than +/- .025 seconds & .20 mph.


dragstrip method of averaging over the 66 feet before the 1/8 and 1/4 mile marks plus also display ending mark speed.

The standard full-tree setting for Chrondek C44

http://www.sacramentoraceway.com/gen...cingrules.html

Sorry it was just confirmed Sacramento does not use Compulink, rather a Chrondek C44..

MB_Forever

You present excellent points in your argument, but Juicee is right.... why isn't the equipment affecting other cars running side by side? Why is it only affecting record runs? Why didn't it affect my car a couple of years back? I was 100% stock down to the tires

EDIT: juicee, I just saw your post.... I was told by Blake that Famoso updates equipment every 3 years (or at least part of the equipment) and re-caliberates every year or before an important race. And yes, it's very expensive....

ExtremeSpeed5

backing up runs within 1% of each other or even 0.0001% of each other is irrelevant in the discussion. the question in this case is whether bassn's e55 traps 133 mph or not? this question will not be successfully answered until he is able to run at a similar track with similar DA
if equipment is off (not the actual car) then it should by all means run within 1% of previous runs.
you bring up two interesting points:

1) why is the stage 3 E55 trapping only 120 mph?

this could have multiple explanations: from my understanding, stage 3/4 should trap 121 to 122 mph which means that car could have something wrong with it or due to the variation in these cars the car itself maybe a tad slower, which means the car would've trapped slower at a different track but by how much? no one knows.


2) why did it not affect your car?

according to the other thread the speed inaccuracy increased as trap speed increased. since others have experienced up to 6 mph descrepency at high speeds, it is certainly possible that equipment:

- is off by 1 mph at 115 mph
- is off by 2 mph at 120 mph
- is off by 3 mph at 125 mph
- is off by 4 mph at 130 mph
- is off by 5 mph at 140 mph
- is off by 6 mph at 150 mph

the above model would make the inaccuracies fall within range of what your car "normally" runs at Sacramento which makes it harder to be conclusive. however, it would explain Hammer's runs, the stage 3 e55, the SL and the drag car in the other thread. i'm not saying this is the exact factor, i'm simplying presenting possible scenarios.

juicee63

Too bad it only works for some cars.

I would have loved to see a 117-119 trap but I trapped the same as always do at Sacramento.

It will be harder to convince me the timing equipment is broken due to the fact not all the cars added mph. If the beams are mis placed then my car should have attained a 117-119 trap as it has run a string of 116 traps at Famoso and Sacramento. The day Alan ran 130.1 my cars best in the rt lane came on my last run where I out trapped a 9 second dragster. I still only managed a 116.57

The ET is what matters and Alan is the current champ IMO

Mikesamg

I haven't read this entire thread but may I suggest something for the experts to consider. If you watch the videos where I run against Alan he pulls away from me as he should having 50+ hp and 50-60lbs of tq. After that run we line up at 80mph in 3rd gear and right away he pulls on me. When i am at 120 he is at 130, we talked of this before he hit his tens. I understand the formula showing the mph error at certain speed ranges.

If Alan and Jack are trapping higher then normal for their stages compared to other cars, shouldn't I? Jack has the same amount of MPH gain in the back half as I do and I run 11.5 @123 consistantly. The last time I ran 6 in a row at Sacramento. Why am I not out trapping him and falling in the middle of Alan and him?

The equipment is not off at Sacramento IMO, if it was I wouldn't be running the same mph as a stock car. I'm running the same as every other MB is, or as I will call it a typical back half run. Alan and Jacks car pull hard up top, why? I don't know but they do, the MPH isn't off since Josh ran the same and so has many other stock MBs at sac when Alan has ran 130mph plus. He has the right combination of parts and just a healthy running engine that does what most think is improbable. Everyone agrees and talks all day long how hand built engines run slightly different, what is the argument here?

juicee63

I hear ya Mike loud and clear.

When I saw Alan post up his 128 mph run I figured "no way". So I got in my Benz and made a 376 mile drive to see for myself.

What does he do ??

a 130 mph trap and a 11.0 pass...

Everything appeared accurate on 8/9/2009.

You are right when you run him heads up even in a pullied and tuned 55 , you feel stuck in the mud. I saw you beat him out only to be walked by a significant margin, and your car is much faster than mine.

We will resolve this , The TEAM AMG way. Im not going to make a conclusion based on the members of a forum that previously trashed this group!

I accept the runs as accurate based on my eye witness account of the car

ExtremeSpeed5

you misunderstood my point. for your trap speeds the inaccuracy is so minor that it falls within the normal trap/error range. for example, if you normally trap 114 to 116 at sacramento then adding the error rate would net you 115 to 117 mph trap speeds. two of those "inaccurate" trap speeds already fall within your normal trap range of 114 to 116 at sacramento which you have shown countless times. not to mention that the above model is an "estimate" and therefore the inaccuracy could be as low as 1/2 a mile per hour at 114 traps.
not sure if you were referring to me in your other post so let me say this now: i'm not trying to trash any results or any members, i'm actually trying to provide possible scenarios. bassn posted a thread of other "hard core" dragers who supposedly know their cars very well and they could attest to the inaccuracies and even offered an explanation of why the equipment was reading higher.

ExtremeSpeed5

you are right on the money with that statement: once bassn runs his car at famoso (or other track in similar da), either his car will trap like sal's car: 128 to 129 mph or it will trap identical to traps to ones achieved at sacramento: 132 to 133 mph. this will uncover much for everyone

MB_Forever

Mike, you bring another very excellent point to the table..... it seems that both sides present valid points and we'll keep going round and round until Alan runs his car at Famoso in January.

Now I wish more than ever that he could've came to Famoso last Saturday and just ended all this or even you..... I thought for a minute that you may make it down here but that never happened either Mike, what's the latest status on your car? We need to get you into the 10s bro, so you can start scaring the two titans (Alan and Sal) away

Mikesamg

Exactly and it sorta sucks to see valid points on both sides and I'd hate to see it turn into an argument when we are all here as friends, well I hope we all are!

I would have made it but I got a nail in my DR and didn't get the new set until today. I have them ready for tomorrow and what sucks is the nail didn't go all the way through and they said I could still run on it. It went in flat against the surface, so it should be ok to run correct? Alan was going to loan me his tires and roll down with me but he got stuck at the reception but I can't fault him for that. I am going to run the car tomorrow and see if I can break into 11.4s which I should since my 11.506 was in 85 degree weather and high da. Ideally I'd like to see an 11.3 but not expecting it, but tomorrow should settle how fast I can be as a stage two then the TB goes on and I'll see if I can hold my own against the true beasts aka Alan and Sals 55. I'll definitely keep you updated Mo!

Wish I could have made it to Famoso too but if we do another one soon I should be able to make it!

Marcus Frost

An unfortunate turn of events here but looking at the math the notion that Sac might be off seems to be valid. This is really a crappy situation. Between drag strips and dyno's these bay area guys can't catch a break. My hats off to you guys for putting up with so much B.S. - I'd be on the verge of pulling my hair out. Imagine, everyone telling you to dyno the car and take it to the track, and when you do, numbers still don't add up. That's downright frustrating.

C'est la vie.

-m

bassn_07

It is unfortunate that the trap speeds seems to be off but either way my target was achieved by breaking into the 10's. The only thing to determine now is how much it might be off. There are still many variable left on the table to accurately make a determination. This could go on forever but in the end like I mentioned before the true test will come....Sal and I will line up. The only number that don't add up would be the trap speeds and that's something I could live with. I still achieved something in my car people have been trying to do for years in a very short time....very satisfying and well deserved.

I've spoken with many people about this dilemma and they all have something different to say, from the track being dead on to it being way off. The one thing that did make me feel good was they all say the track's ET's are dead accurate....thank goodness. Let's just wait and see and stop speculating on a subject that can't be determined .