hhughes1

Here are the 3 recent 10 sec runs that have been posted. I broke the time slips down to look at the back half and final 320 in more detail. I also computed the avg mph for each car in both sections by dividing distance traveled by time and converting feet/seconds to miles/hour. As you can see all three runs are very similar except for the trap speed provided by the Sacramento instrumentation.

SAL ALAN tm02
1/8 7.028 7.008 7.068
mph 100.67 101.598 99.94
1000" 9.135 9.112 9.191
1/4 10.898 10.871 10.966
mph 127.51 133.20 127.23

Back Half 3.870 3.863 3.898 seconds
Avg MPH 116.28 116.49 115.44

Last 320" 1.763 1.759 1.775 seconds
Avg MPH 123.76 124.04 122.92

Luke_M

It doesn't make sense that Alan can pull about 4.5 mph over both of them on the back half but less then a tenth in ET.

Still haulin butt though!

hhughes1

That is the point. The time it took each car to travel the final 320 feet provides an average mph for that section. Alan and Sal were 3/10 of 1 mph apart going through that section meaning the terminal velocities could not be anywhere near 6 mph different.

bassn_07

Really, is that what we do with our extra time?

You act like I'm trying to claim a record with this run, I'm not. I run my car at the most convenient place and I'm sorry if it's not a big name track with a thousand NHRA events. It just is what it is so please move on. I don't care about the physics of the run because I do it to have fun . A couple of days ago I got caught up in this whole trap speed bs and came to realize it's lame. It seems that others care more than I do....

How about this, I'll openly admit my car is slow and it shouldn't even be ran at the track. In reality I'm probably doing 11.7's at 119 and Sacramento sucks. There's no question that I wouldn't have even broken into the 11's with my car at Famoso. Will this let you move on and possibly discuss your own car?

As most know I didn't even want to post my run, but I did....shame on me. It will not happen again. I will admit at first this bugged me but I'm over it now. Is it going to stop me from running at the track...no. I run where I run and love doing it.

Who ever cares about all the stupid records....KEEP THEM. It's funny, I had my car for little over a year and ended up going 10's in less than 8 track day.....

Timeless

I (and I am sure many others) appreciate you posting your times and experiences at the track. Please don't stop because of a few individuals.

Thanks!

blackbenzz

+1. Regardless of whether his trap speed is off or not his car is fast as **** He posted what the track gave him, not like he is trying to skew his results or anything. He is a great guy and wish we had more guys like him on the board

juicee63

Once again for the millionth time. I have seen his car trap 130 plus too many times. My car did exactly what it ALWAYS DOES on that track. I trapped 116.56 at Famoso and 116.57 at Sac, DA within a few hundred feet.

On 08/09/2009 Alans car broke 130 mph my car trapped 116. This was a 1350 plus DA vs his recent run at near zero. He is gonna get 1-2 mph from a 1500 ft change.

I was not suprised at the trap or ET.

The Compulink system used the data it had to calculate a trap and ET ,

There should have never been this discussion. He backed up his runs with in 1% and he likely will do it again. If the timer is broke it will be broke for SAL and for me and for Jack and everyone else.

Mikesamg

I have a friend that has a 10 second flat on average, Mustang that traps 127mph at Sacramento. Could you throw that in to the comparison if I get the time slip from him? I'm pretty sure it will only show the fact that each car gets there in different fashions. That would be the obvious for the fact that each car is different. I understand you are trying to look into it to figure out what the secret to the 10 second madness is but no variable is the same.

The only thing this thread shows is the two faster cars are PC tuned and the slower one is LET tune. Other than that there is no real point.

Marcus Frost

+2

Alan called me personally to ask me if I thought there was problems with his times. A person who doesn't give a f what people think wouldn't do that. He is not trying to tout being the fastest AMG on the planet here, he is a guy who's just interested in going fast, and making his car move. How can he help if he's only got one track that's reasonably close by? Maybe there is a problem with the timing equipment, maybe not. At the end of the day he's going off equipment (dynos and 1/4 mile tracks) that are really the best things we have. He caused controversy with his dyno numbers and now he can't even get people to believe his time slips. I tell you, it's rough being Alan (and this is from someone who actively argued with him).

The discussion about whether or not Alan's time slips may have some discrepancies is one that should be had in a constructive way, not a critical one. This thread will only cause controversy and isn't going to contribute to the discussion. The argument being made here does raise questions but unfortunately that's all it does, it does not answer anything. I do not think Alan owes it to anyone to drive hundreds of miles to validate his car's power. I think Alan is the type of guy that if he were to do that, it's because HE wants to know what the truth is, not because a bunch of nay-sayers tell him he has to.

We as a community really do ourselves a disservice with being our own biggest ****-talkers. We have enough problems making sense of these cars are making them run right that all this time and energy we waste bashing each other is really pathetic, IMO.

I know of a certain W211 E55 that ran an 11.79 @ 122mph this past weekend, with absolutely nothing but a tune and VRP HEMs. *No pulley*. That's right, a stock pulley. You tell me how that makes sense. I know it's legit because he wasn't the only E55 at the strip, and the pulley guys could barely keep up with him. Everyone checked his pulley. It's stock. Remember when I posted about bigger pullies making more power, and people posted and said it's been proven? Well, a run like that has me going back to step 1. These cars drive me up a wall. We should be focusing on providing ANSWERS for these types of things, not bashing the guys who do them and trying to make them out to be some kind of "liars"

-m

Mikesamg

Well said Marcus and I agree I think Alan's times just show it's possible and should give us hope. I run at Sacramento with him and my times are not out of the norm from what I understand is common for just a pulley and HEM/x pipe. Just watch his video where in 3rd gear he walks all over me and by no means am I lightning fast but I'm not exactly a slow car either. Yet he still pulls away and makes me while driving feel as if the car has no power. It just annoys me to see my friend get frustrated when his integrity is questioned.

BenzoBoi

+2

sneakyneon

Hey alan, exactly like we talked about huh? Sorry people have to be so insecure and go out of there way to undermine some else's accomplishments.

PTE

I like this discussion , who knows what really Happened. I do not think that HHUGES1 is targeting anyone . It is broken down & sectioned out. It does look alittle funny, But doesn't STINK. Varables come from Human Error (IE shift 50 rpm too soon or to Late. Possible Mother Nature gave use a very slight head wind, With Colder or Hotter air . , Was the gas tank REAL low on fuel & the launch sloshed the fuel away from the fuel tank pick up . Giving use air in the fuel system. I believe Alan , Sal & TM02 time & speed slips are true. And excepted for what they are.
I suppose in Real racing .They data log everything and look for those spots or droops in the CURVE. We are a group of thinkers & Doer's . and I like the What IF's. We are having fun {RIGHT}
Congratulations Sal , Alan & TM02 on a Job well done __PTEngineering

blackbenzz

No that's a completely different platform. I bet his 60' and 1/8th mile are WAY better than any benz. They just get out the whole so much better.

Luke_M

Not sure I should even try but... Nobody was calling anybody a liar or anything like that. Not me anyway. Far from it. I HOPE IT'S 100% ACCURATE, and I think it is. It's just a little confusing at first glance. As an owner of an E55 who is slowly modifying it I hope that it's not a fluke! I hope that's not hard to understand. I would prefer a bolt on e55 could hit 10's at 130mph+ given the right combo, over and over.

Ok, now...

I thought about this last night and compared to Tag's car, Alan averaged around 3.8mph more then Tag did on the back half and the back half took about 3.9 seconds. I used Tag's car because it's an E55 too.

So 3.8mph for 3.9 seconds is around 21ft. Now that assumes that the acceleration was linear, which I don't think it was, but nonetheless it gives you a starting point. At 127mph it would take around .1 seconds to cover that 21ft gap. Alan only pulled .035 seconds so that leads me to believe he didn't pull the mph gap until the very end.

My theory is that Alan stays in 3rd and continues to improve his trap speed while the other guys shift to 4th, so while still haulin @$$ and getting a good ET their trap speed suffers when their car pauses for a split second. According to Road and Track our cars hit 124mph in 3rd so an easy explaination is that the overall diameter of the rear tires makes a difference. I think this would explain the .1-.035 gap. Alan probably picks up an mph or 2 at the last possible second.

Happy Thanksgiving!

cruzinquick

Alan those are smoking runs and a big congrats. As Josh said you backed them up within 1%, and Sac does have big NHRA events. The Div 7 nationals will be there next year, and I'll be there. Your slips are legit and that timing system is set to a .0000 of a second, otherwise it wouldn't be an NHRA track. As for the mph differences, it's in the tune and mods, besides weight of driver, etc, etc, ..... Alan's is still pulling hard through the line. The mph at the 1000' mark would also show the power coming on.

hhughes1

There is no need to “circle the wagons” over this issue. This is nothing more than an analysis of the facts and has nothing to do with character traits such as integrity and honor. I have already PM’d Alan an apology for how the post was received but I make no apology for trying to clarify a strange phenomenon. Two days ago, Alan started a thread specifically asking for thoughts on this very subject which did catch my analytical curiosity. That thread for whatever reason is now deleted.
Cutting to the chase, drag racing is about elapsed time pure and simple and nothing else really matters. I truly admire the very few people who through a great deal of work and passion can guide a 4000lb luxury sedan down the quarter mile track in under 11 seconds. Period! That being said I find it hard to believe that no one else is curious how two cars can have similar runs where all 5 fixed distance points are tripped within milliseconds of each other but still have a terminal speed difference of nearly 6 mph. Why this question was taken personally is beyond me. Yes two cars can have an identical ET and a significant difference in trap speed but the faster car would have been behind the entire way and caught up at the end. This was not the case in this comparison. The two respective time slips show how fast each car was traveling during the final 320 feet which is most critical to this discussion. Sal traveled the last 320 in 1.763 seconds at an average speed of 123.76mph. Alan traveled the same distance in 1.759 seconds at an average speed of 124.04 mph. This observation has to make you wonder about the accuracy of the velocity measuring devices involved and please do not make more out of that statement than what it is. This is a sport where milliseconds rule and all results are subject to scrutiny, not focused on anyone’s integrity but rather the accuracy of the data which is provided to us.

bassn_07

I also don't think Huges is targeting me but it's a discussion that has become worn. I'll admit that I started a thread earlier which I deleted because I honestly thought the discussion would turn ugly....pointless. It no longer matters what I trap because I'm more focused on my ET's. Anyone who has spoken with me could vouche for me on this, it's always been about the ET's. In the end trap speeds don't win races better and quicker short times will get it done.

I'll tell you what, I'll take my car to a different track and try to backup my numbers and if i can't I'll openly admit my car can't do it at other places...no problem. If I do this I challenge every single car up on dragtimes to do the same and if not they'll also admit the same. People are looking at this like it's that cut and dry but it's not. By all means I'm not saying my car could trap 133 MPH at every track, maybe not even 130. All I do know is that I got a time slip with the numbers and Sacramento does have sanctioned NHRA events here. NHRA actually has Sacramento up on their website as participating member. If BS is called on my time slip I call the same on everyone else and they need to take their car to a different track and validate their runs.

Either way that doesn't take away the fact that my car did run that time and that's that. It may bother the person who holds that trap speed record and in all honesty he could keep it. Big fricken deal....

Thanks again guys for posting and supporting me, you guys are the ones that make this website what it is.

This will be my last post about my traps and if any car wants to come to Sacramento and see how slow I really am, no problem. If a car indeed does this I'll shake his hand and congratulate him on a excellent run. I also look forward to the day Sal and I line up and not for the reasons of trying to prove crap to some of you guys but for the pure enjoyment of racing another fast MB. Will I win, I don't know but that's what makes it so exciting. Thanks again guys and discuss this topic as much as you like but in the end I have a slip that tells me my car went 133. A discussion might bring up some valid points but there's no denying the fact that I ran that time.

juicee63

Could the OP deduce the trap speed from the other splits on the slip?
I believe the answer is no.
Since you cannot prove nor disprove trap the timeslip stands as Alan has run within 1% of this in the past.

133.1*.01%=1.331

133.1-1.33=131.7

You can do reverse equations and obtain the other splits because they are already known, however if you did not know Alan's trap or think its off, we would guess it to be 127-128 mph.

Try it , please someone tell me what this car trapped based on the other information. First person to do it will get 100.00 delivered via paypal.

Here is a run with two CLS 63's from January 18th 2008
The track :California speedway

CLS 63 CLS 63
1.982 2.003
5.306 5.365
8.039 8.102
90.55 90.47
10.378 10.444
12.37 12.42

Please calculate the two trap speeds

enzom

I agree. Just healthy analysis and discussion. When we are afraid to ask the questions, then we aren't really a board anymore.

Congrats to all for some fast runs!

MB_Forever

I am not sure hhuges meant to attack anybody here, and I hope the discussion doesn't turn ugly, as there is no reason we can't be constructive in finding answers as a team. Having said that, I feel the discussion is actually turning into a big blind guessing game I honestly don't think it needs to be.... to me, there are only 2 major possible paths to explore here:

1) Sacramento's trap speed equipment is somehow off or inaccurate.
2) Alan's car is really trapping that high.... 133 mph

If we assume statement number 1 is correct, then why isn't the "inaccurate" equipment affecting other cars? Why didn't it affect Juicee's trap speed or mine? Why didn't affect the other stock E63, tuned E55, or even Mike's car? These guys got trap speeds that conform to the "norm" for their respective cars. Available data just does not agree with this claim.

If we now assume statement number 1 is false and statement number 2 is correct, then we should be looking at why Alan's car is trapping so high. You have to remember that the SL is a heavier car and does have a higher coeffecient of drag than the E-Class. Sal did a great job reducing weight off his car, but that may not have been enough... especially after the conversion to the SL63 body style. It may also be gearing differences, tune, etc.....

As Marcus mentioned earlier, the discussion creates questions and very little answers. However, this matter will be put to death completely in January at Famoso. Both Alan and Sal will be there and hopefully a couple of more 10 second E55s with similar mods as well. Famoso is usually 1 mph slower than Sacramento due to 600 ft elevation difference. If Alan traps 131 at Famoso, then 133 mph at Sacramento is not out of the ordinary.... if he traps 128 to 129, then maybe something else is going on. Either way, the research, the journey, and the information collected along the way will be beneficial to us all.

juicee63

nobody want's the 100 bucks??

blackbenzz

Look at the bright side Alan! Nobody is accusing you of nitrous like some people accused me of even though I shaved 150lbs off the car and ran better tires (gained 1.5mph lol). You, Sal, and Tm02 have pushed the kk5 platform to the next level and all three of you get a from me. I know you're a racer and don't even care about traps. Can't wait to see how much faster you guys go! Keep up the good work

Hammer Down

I will take a stab, don't have time to calculate. based on the numbers I would guess car A with the quicker et ran 114.5 and car B ran 115.5 due to wheel spin upon launch! ohhhh thank you and goodnight!

hooleyboy

There is no mathematical formula that can accurately be linked to drag racing runs. Stay away from that voodoo stuff and just take what the slip gives you.

So many things can happen that can +/- MHP at the traps.

Alan for sure could have run his 10 sec pass at any speed. Trap seeds are for spectators who want to know how fast it was going. ET and 60ft are the only numbers weekend sportsman/gal like us should care about.

Infact I can show a video of letting off for about a full second and still trapping at 118mph.