¼ mile test runs at LACR - link enclosed
Evolving Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: boonies
if the car ran 13.8, then the car ran a 13.8. in *my opinion* there is no need for corrections whether the car was run at 3000ft above sea level or 2000 above sea level...the car ran a 13.8...
the reason i say it's gay is because of this:
let's say for example that i ran 13.0 sec ¼ mile in Colorado . however from special "correction" factors if i ran the car in a lower altitude, i would have run maybe a mid to high twelve ¼. now does this mean that I have a 12 sec car?...in my opinion NO, it does not...i ran 13.0 from where ever i was at...i have a slip to prove it, but i don't have a slip to prove a 12 sec run...
plus i think it's stupid to even say, " I ran a 13.0 in the ¼, but according to correction factors i should be in the 12's. that means i have a 12 sec car!"
not trying to offend anyone, ->I<- just think that correcting times are gay.
Ryan
the reason i say it's gay is because of this:
let's say for example that i ran 13.0 sec ¼ mile in Colorado . however from special "correction" factors if i ran the car in a lower altitude, i would have run maybe a mid to high twelve ¼. now does this mean that I have a 12 sec car?...in my opinion NO, it does not...i ran 13.0 from where ever i was at...i have a slip to prove it, but i don't have a slip to prove a 12 sec run...
plus i think it's stupid to even say, " I ran a 13.0 in the ¼, but according to correction factors i should be in the 12's. that means i have a 12 sec car!"
not trying to offend anyone, ->I<- just think that correcting times are gay.
Ryan
Last edited by EVOwhat; Jan 24, 2003 at 03:57 PM.
Correcting times are gay? 
By correcting the times you are just showing what the car would..or should I say could run at sea level. There are plenty of people that live at places that aren't high altitudes and the corrected times represent what those people may run. The true power and times of the car are best represented AT SEA LEVEL. Don't you agree? I would be willing to bet we'll see times very close to the 13.35 by some people in their stock Evo.
By correcting the times you are just showing what the car would..or should I say could run at sea level. There are plenty of people that live at places that aren't high altitudes and the corrected times represent what those people may run. The true power and times of the car are best represented AT SEA LEVEL. Don't you agree? I would be willing to bet we'll see times very close to the 13.35 by some people in their stock Evo.
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,760
Likes: 22
From: Reading, MA
Originally posted by EVOwhat
Sorry Fedja, didn't answer your question...assuming the car ran a 13.8 is a good thing...like many others, i hope that the car's #'s are underrated. Ryan
Sorry Fedja, didn't answer your question...assuming the car ran a 13.8 is a good thing...like many others, i hope that the car's #'s are underrated. Ryan
The thing is that using a "gay" word as a comparison would be a good thing for some people and bad for the others. At the same time, there will be plenty of people that wouldn't care either way about such a comment. All IMHO!
Fedja
Last edited by MrAWD; Jan 24, 2003 at 04:32 PM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
From: Kansas City, MO
Corrected times really aren't very accurate for forced-induction cars.
Most of the time, a forced induction car can compensate for the reduced atmospheric pressure by upping boost, thus producing a very similar run no matter what the altitude.
From what I understand, LACR sucks because of the track surface, not the altitude. When they're talking about the car doing much better on a different track they mean a better (surfaced) drag strip...
Most of the time, a forced induction car can compensate for the reduced atmospheric pressure by upping boost, thus producing a very similar run no matter what the altitude.
From what I understand, LACR sucks because of the track surface, not the altitude. When they're talking about the car doing much better on a different track they mean a better (surfaced) drag strip...
Evolving Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: boonies
Originally posted by MrAWD
Don't worry big guy, I was just joking about your comment...
The thing is that using a "gay" word as a comparison would a good thing for some people and bad for the others. At the same time, there will be plenty of people that wouldn't care either way about such a comment. All IMHO!
Fedja
Don't worry big guy, I was just joking about your comment...
The thing is that using a "gay" word as a comparison would a good thing for some people and bad for the others. At the same time, there will be plenty of people that wouldn't care either way about such a comment. All IMHO!
Fedja
cheers
Ryan
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,760
Likes: 22
From: Reading, MA
Originally posted by MEGABUSA
well, i am just glad to see it run 13.8 at a crap track that is half a mile high.
12's should not be too far away with some tuning.
well, i am just glad to see it run 13.8 at a crap track that is half a mile high.
12's should not be too far away with some tuning.
Fedja
Yes, LACR really sucks. I was there in November helping out my cousin. He ran in the high 8's when he would normally run in the 7's. The track surface is shot to hell, it is uneven, and has cracks in it!!!! They really need to re-surface it.
Well, I haven't to the 1/4 mile track yet, but I did go to out local 1/8 mile and here are the results from that;
60' - 1.87
1/8 - 8.301
mph - 83.76
Those number equal very low 13 or very high 12. I have also did a couple of 0-60 times with the G-Tech......4.4 sec
was the best I could get till the clutch started to go.
Cant wait to get to the 1/4 !!!!
60' - 1.87
1/8 - 8.301
mph - 83.76
Those number equal very low 13 or very high 12. I have also did a couple of 0-60 times with the G-Tech......4.4 sec
was the best I could get till the clutch started to go.Cant wait to get to the 1/4 !!!!
