View Poll Results: do you post corrected timeslips?
yes, i use a DA calculator to say what i run at sea level
0
0%
no, i post what i actually run.
36
100.00%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll
post corrected or uncorrected times?
I'd love to run in some -2000da someday 
02-09-2006 | 05:36 PM
#23
While I'd be the first to say 'NO' to posting corrected ETs only it cracks me up that no one seems to mind posting up 'corrected' dyno numbers but not one wants to see 'corrected' ET's.
The argument would be, 'well we use those corrected dyno numbers to keep things even and compare them location to location.' I guess no one wants to be even to the guys that live @ 5000' and race in 90 degree weather LOL.
Most people put their DA at the time of their passes and thats good enough for me honestly, one can figure it out for themselves.
As far as altitude corrections they do work pretty well if you have correct/accurate weather data, if NHRA uses them for records at high elevation tracks then there must be some logic to it.
The argument would be, 'well we use those corrected dyno numbers to keep things even and compare them location to location.' I guess no one wants to be even to the guys that live @ 5000' and race in 90 degree weather LOL.
Most people put their DA at the time of their passes and thats good enough for me honestly, one can figure it out for themselves.
As far as altitude corrections they do work pretty well if you have correct/accurate weather data, if NHRA uses them for records at high elevation tracks then there must be some logic to it.
02-09-2006 | 10:00 PM
#25
I correct mine just for my reference. There is a calculator that you can type in the weather conditions, presssure, elevation, temp, and humidity. It is nice to use b/c my first time to the track was nice and cool I ran a 12.6 u/c. I went got a new tune and got 20rwhp out of it, wne to the track on a hotter day and ran a 12.9 u/c. Could not figure it out. I new that the temp had little to do with it. So I used the correcter and the 12.9 was actually faster than the 12.6. Made me feel a little better.
02-14-2006 | 04:57 PM
#26
I prefer actual times listed with 'da and raceweight.
Problem with corrected numbers is that it doesnt account for things like traction. A car at 8k ft will have an easier time hooking up, due to less power. So the corrected numbers might be inflated.
Problem with corrected numbers is that it doesnt account for things like traction. A car at 8k ft will have an easier time hooking up, due to less power. So the corrected numbers might be inflated.
02-14-2006 | 05:28 PM
#27
TECH Resident
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
From: 8000DA Land
Originally Posted by dug
I prefer actual times listed with 'da and raceweight.
Problem with corrected numbers is that it doesnt account for things like traction. A car at 8k ft will have an easier time hooking up, due to less power. So the corrected numbers might be inflated.
Problem with corrected numbers is that it doesnt account for things like traction. A car at 8k ft will have an easier time hooking up, due to less power. So the corrected numbers might be inflated.
only 320whp SAE
can't hook for ****... I know my suspension is all stock.. but i don't think that statement is valid at all.. Or at least for my car
02-16-2006 | 10:23 AM
#28
<----------outcast
seems most votes are from people from decent altitude.
I ran mine in Colorado.
You think i wanna hear how bad my runs where from people?
I ran a 13.4 @ 107
I am in IL.
New times soon.
seems most votes are from people from decent altitude.
I ran mine in Colorado.
You think i wanna hear how bad my runs where from people?
I ran a 13.4 @ 107
I am in IL.
New times soon.
