It looks like the indicators were off, if you look at the two closest timeslips, the CO and fathouse1 everything was really close and you were realing him in from the very beginning. From -.04. 60', to -.02, 1/8, to -.01, 1000', then finally +.01, 1/4 mile. The only difference is the MPH and there is almost no way that a 3mph difference would only be good for .02 from the 1000' to the 1/4 like you stated. I think it would be closer to 116.65 rather than the 118.65.

Comparing his two timeslips, 2.5mph got him .17 seconds faster even with a slower 60'. But your 3MPH got you almost the same et as him. The indicators had to be off on both sides.

Then again, you said that your friends fpgreen evo ran the same time on both sides of the track, correct? That is very strange for it to happen and never heard of only one car trapping different on one side than the other while other cars are trapping the same on both sides.

 

The ETS FMIC and the E85 definitely helps when hot lapping. Back when I was on 100oct, if we did 3 pulls back to back, I'd lose anywhere from 15-20whp by the 3rd pull. On E85, I did 4 back to back pulls and stayed within 4whp of each other. Didn't even turn the car off.

When compared to Fathouse and a few other time slips I've seen, your times seem about a tenth slow for your MPH and 60ft. Do you WOT shift? If so which gears specifically? I can drop a tenth on my times if I WOT shift 1-2 rather than lifting, without really changing MPH. The other gears aren't as noticeable, possibly because I've already got a lot of momentum built up.

Your MPH from the 1/8th to the 1/4 seems legit though. I was going 91mph in the 1/8th and 115-116mph in the 1/4 with 366whp (DJ). That's with a full weight SSL car though. My car is probably around 3500lbs with me in it.

 

I Went 11.6 & 124 With A 1.89 60 Foot

 

Jasnm21, I basically made those same points in regards to the comparison of the splits vs trap speed differential. However, also like you, I don't understand why I had such a crazy discrepancy between lanes when others didn't.

Dsmfan, I typically NLTS every gear, and I see my times as being either .2s too slow for the mph or 2mph too high for the ET. Considering this was about 50 passes across 3 events and the fact I had 300 passes on this car before that, I'm leaning towards the traps behing artificially high.

 

Rockingham is the same way as far as traps, just at the 1/8th. People typically go 2-3mph faster in the left lane through the 1/8th with the same 1/4 trap on either side.

Here's a comparison to look at. I pulled out my old 12.0 timeslip from a few years back. Here is my breakdown:


Timeslip-----Warrtalon--------dsmfan95------Warrtalon2(CA)
60---------------1.74----------------1.64------------1.76
330-------------4.91-----------------4.94-----------4.99
1/8--------------7.59----------------7.67------------7.70
MPH------------93.14---------------89.88----------89.00
1000-----------9.90----------------10.03-----------10.01
1/4------------ 11.84---------------12.03-----------11.97
MPH-----------118.65-------------113.23----------115.36

On the new pass you were a tenth slower through the 60ft than me but had already made up that ground by the 330ft. I NLTS btw also. On your old pass with the 115mph trap, you were 5 hundredths slower with nearly the same 60ft. By the 1/8th mile you were almost a tenth of ahead on your new pass, but still behind on your old pass. Obviously my car didn't have as much top end as yours does now. You were barely ahead of me through the 1000' on your older pass, but .13 ahead on your new pass.

You're new trap might be artificially high, but I don't believe by as much as you say. I would say 117mph range at the slowest. Compared to my timeslip, you wouldn't have made up as much ground on your new pass with say only a 116mph trap. With a tenth disadvantage, you would have already passed me by the 330ft mark which shows a definite power advantage or possibly a slight driver disadvantage on my part. If you had a 116mph car, you would see about a 91mph 1/8th which wouldn't be enough for you to make up a tenth and gain an extra tenth on me by the 660ft.

I personally believe your car's MPH is true going based on breakdowns and comparisons. But you are far more experienced than me, so maybe you can make more out of it.

 

Yeah, it's obvious that my car in its current mode is faster than it was on that 11.97 @ 115, but I don't believe it's by 3.5mph. You aren't lending as much credit to the better 60' on the new run and are putting most of the weight on speed advantage. I believe it's a combination of the two that gets me to the 330 and 660 quicker. You couldn't have known this, but my 1-2 on the old run sucked, but my 1-2 on the new run was nasty with even a little chirp in 2nd.

On my faster run, I outran you by .29 after the start, but it says I'm over 5.4mph faster. It's about 1mph per tenth, so it would make more sense to me if I was 3.4mph faster, because that would make up almost 3 tenths after the launch. Also, if you compare the time it took for me to go from the 330 to 1/4 on both of my runs, you see it only changes by .05 (6.93 vs 6.98). An average of 3-4mph faster through that span would glean more than half a tenth, imo. an average of 1-1.5mph faster would get that half a tenth assuming similar driving, imo.

It's all a bunch of speculation, and we'll see what happens tonight at the other local track. I'm going to hopefully get to launch from the sticky side - they make street tire cars launch out of the groove on what is basically slick concrete with no VHT, so I'm going to tell them my new Z1s are drag radials.

 

It has to do with the weight of the driver. The drag race theorem is "The mph of any given lane is INVERSELY proportional to the weight of the driver divided by the weight of the opposing driver plus 4 mph." In other words, the mph will run down hill to the side of the heavier driver. So who's heaviest? Drive from the passenger side and see what happens.

 

I'm usually heavier than my opponent at 250lbs if you include clothing and helmet!

 

That's what makes the et/mph that much more impressive. You've got that good 'ol altitude to deal with too.

 

edit. This is boltz.

 

This does seem odd. Its funny because I remember you back in the day talking about mph discrepancies between lanes and now you're at it again!! And you're still the only person I've ever that happen to.

I made a comment (in your other thread) about how you would be blazing fast at sea level with a trap like that at 6000' but now I am thinking that there was a timing error at the track.

If you were going 11.8@118.5 or whatever at 6000', you should be going 10.9-11.1 @ 125-127 at sea level. With the weight of the car and driver and the power it makes I think you will agree with me that it is unreasonable.


Damnit... I did the eveslow thing again. lol

 

I do agree that it's unreasonable - that's my whole point here. However, you're giving a little too much credit for the sea level difference. I lost 40whp peak and close to 50whp around 7k, which affected me by 4-5mph. I think I am really trapping 116s now and would likely trap 120-121 at sea level if I had the chance, which I think would be expected with a 3300lb race weight and a IX turbo on E-85 with cams, yah?

I think there are timing errors more often than you think, but people just don't notice or don't want to know. Look at this timeslip that a guy posted on DCEVOCLUB just yesterday. I immediately squashed it, but everyone else in the thread was congratulating him for hitting 7.8s in the 1/8th his first time out...

(the site is down, but I remember the splits)

He had run an 8.9 @ 83 with a 2.1 60', but then claimed his last run was a 7.8 @ 83 also with a 2.1 60'. I found this quite odd, so when he showed the actual timeslip, you could see that his 1/8th-mile was an ENTIRE second off. The person next to him had left earlier (better R/T), had a better 60' (1.9), and trapped higher (87+), yet this guy's 1/8th ET was BETTER (7.8 vs 8.2). I looked at the 330 and saw that he had gone from the 330 to 660 in 2.0 seconds. You can look at your own timeslips for confirmation, but there's no way in hell he went that far in 2.0 seconds with a trap of 83mph. It takes me 2.6-2.7 to go that far with 90+ mph in the 1/8th.

So, had I not pointed it out, the guy would have really thought he was cutting 7s in the 1/8th with 2.1 60's, and the rest of the respondents didn't seem to think twice about it when congratulating him...

 

The track by chance doesn't compensate for the elevation by automatically adjusting the trap speeds does it? I've heard of a few tracks being a few feet shorter because of elevation, which usually hurts trap speeds but keeps the ET's about the same as a normal track.

 

No, neither track does that, but it was a very good question, because I have heard of that before. As confirmation, my traps AND ETs dropped significantly when I moved here - ~5mph and half a second.

Ok, so now I have a bunch more data from a trip to the other local track, but the data will likely just make this even more confusing. I simply can't wait to get some runs on my DRs next week, because this spinning crap is for the birds. Check my new thread for the new details...