Bad Habit Bird

iTrader: (12)

<img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0">
Time slip

If I hadnt let out of it to stop the spinning I think I might have gotten 121 out of it. Im going to get the video up as soon as possible as well.

*edit - forgot about geocities and how they suck.

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bad Habit Bird ]</p>

Bad Habit Bird

iTrader: (12)

yes this is the same track that alan ran his 121 traps and the same one that Coach 02 Z28 trapped 114 with his bolt on M6, he has the same mods as Alan and I except he has macs and cats and we have grots and o/r 3" y-pipes.

Tums

OK guys enough of this, I do not know what you are talking about and I am not saying anything about anyone. Here is the story on trap speeds.

BAD TRAP SPEEDS
The 1/4 mile trap speed is figured off of a calculation of the last 66' (1/20th) of the track. There is a beam that you will cross 66' before the finish line that works with the finish line beam to calculate trap speed. The speed is calculated off of the time it takes to cover the 66' thrown into a mathematical formula for computing. Anything breaking the 2nd beam after you cross the first one will produce a faster trap speed. It can be a piece of papaer blown by the wind, a bird, whatever as long as it is something that interrupts the beam. The second way is the beam can be off as to were something can activate it early. Steele Alabama had this problem one time and one lane would read 5 to 6 MPH faster than the other. If you think your speed is high at one track I would get it from another also, because if there equipment is off you will get several high readings. LOL, I even seen a mustang lose to a FBODY even thought the stang trapped over 300 MPH. Another way to tell is compare your numbers to car that are similar to your setup. If have a couple mile per hour difference then I would question if the MPH at the track read write for those runs. Also check and see does you ET match your MPH if not question it. If it only happened on one run really question it. The best back up for checking MPH is laying down the same MPH at multiple tracks. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

Tray Jones

damn sean your getting blamed for something the track "could" have done, or HE JUST COULD BE FAST!!!! <img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[Burnout]" />

RyanJ

i really didnt see anyone 'non-believe'...but i still think the track was reading a bit high that night. and as much as we like to see slips, its the time equipment that some folks disbelieve not you. is this the same track/night that Alan ran 121? like that one dude said.."This ****, I gotta see."

Sally 5.0!

Sean and Alan have very similiar mods and weight reduction. Alan has ran around the same MPH at 3 tracks. TAD, ENNIS, and HRP!!! Case closed. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

Tums

LOL, Hmmmm it appears some people do not believe this run was made due to some big question marks. I see questions I have like the fact of the MPH gained in the last 1/8th of a mile. With the mod. list you have for your car I can see why this would cause questions. I explained yesterday what can cause bad MPH readings on one of your threads. Then I checked the weather for the run you made. Since you forgot to mention it. This will help explain some of your MPH if you would have shared it with other people. The weather for the time slip you posted was like this.
Temp. 57.2 F DEWPOINT 14 F Barometer 30.51 R
Wind speed sustained of 23 MPH and gusting to 29 MPH.
If the track is right then you run what you run. The part that had me confused was the amount of power your car would have had to produce over the last 1/8th of a mile for you to gain 28 MPH. When you produce numbers that no one else can they will be questioned. Like in all racing when you are running faster than other people they try to verify it and then figure out how you are doing it. Because we are on the internet they have to verify it cause of people like JUEAVOS. Once it is verified then you have to deal with the how part. This is part of racing at any level. As long as you do something no one else is it will be questioned period. Sorry but that is the way it is until you lay the numbers down in front of people for them to see it in person. Luck is own your side and you will get you chance at the THUNDER RACING event to show the world. So if your gonna race this is part of what you have to deal with no matter where you go or who you are. Hate it, but that is the way it is. BTW NICE RUN. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

Colonel

"Temp. 57.2 F DEWPOINT 14 F Barometer 30.51 R Wind speed sustained of 23 MPH and gusting to 29 MPH."

Goodness! That's SOME kind of running conditions if that wind was a tailwind! And what a barometer! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" /> That info, if provided earlier, would have cut out most of the questions and doubters.

I bet I could run 140 MPH with a 23 MPH tailwind and a barometer of 30.5. <img border="0" alt="[Burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" />

<small>[ March 13, 2002, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Colonel ]</small>

Bad Habit Bird

iTrader: (12)

I dont think the tailwind was that much. I was thinking around 10 mph tailwind. Where did you find out that information? I need to find a website with accurate weather information, what do yall use?

Damian

iTrader: (89)

Well hell, we should all make a trip out there and run about 3 mph faster than everywhere else <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0"> .


[quote]Alan has ran around the same MPH at 3 tracks. TAD, ENNIS, and HRP!!! <hr></blockquote>

I believed he trapped 119 at HRP correct? If so, a 3 mph jump is a big difference.

Colonel

"I need to find a website with accurate weather information, what do yall use?"

www.weatherunderground.com

Bad Habit Bird

iTrader: (12)

[quote]Originally posted by Damian:
<strong>Well hell, we should all make a trip out there and run about 3 mph faster than everywhere else <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0"> .

I believed he trapped 119 at HRP correct? If so, a 3 mph jump is a big difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I havent had math in awhile but since when is 119 3 mph slower than 121. seems more like 2 to me. 2 mph in better weather. hmmmmm seems reasonable to me.

Thanks colonel.

RAGEman

iTrader: (4)

I mentioned the weather when I first posted my 11.568.

All 3 of my runs netted me trap speeds from 121.13 to 121.39. I'd say IF, and I repeat, IF Temple Academy Dragway's timers are off, they are at least consistently off. And that 23-29 MPH tailwind obviously didn't have that much of an effect because my traps were all within .26 MPH of each other and the tailwind died WAY down by 8 p.m. when I made my last (and best) pass.

Colonel, it said the baro was 30.5, not 31.5.

I can see 2+ MPH coming from a non-slipping clutch and better air. I ran 119.04 @ HRP in 70-degree weather @ around 11 a.m. on Feb 9th, 2002, if you'd like to plug that into your little weather thing. Hopefully you don't doubt HRP's timing system.

I've mentioned this a few times before, but I'll ask again. Does an IHRA certification of a dragstrip not necessarily mean the timers are accurate?

[quote]Originally posted by Damian:
<strong>Well hell, we should all make a trip out there and run about 3 mph faster than everywhere else <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0"> .</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not gonna stop you. In fact, I'd encourage you to do so to see for yourself if the timers are inaccurate or if we're just faster than you think we OUGHT to be.

Tums

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by RAGEman:
<strong>I've mentioned this a few times before, but I'll ask again. Does an IHRA certification of a dragstrip not necessarily mean the timers are accurate?
.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This just means the beams were adjusted right when they checked the track. If they even checked them. The track I mentioned in a earlier post that was way off in one lane was a IHRA track when that took place. Also most tracks remove most of the timing equipment to keep it from being destroyed on there 1/4 mile lightening rod. The mounting box is left but the actual piece for the beam is removed. Tracks will tell you they check the alignment, but in all actuality it was probably a $6 to $8 track help that done the install. I have heard of some tracks setting equipment up to read a little better to make racers happy so they will come back. If you run faster at one track than you do another which will you keep going to? What I am saying is there are countless possabilties that some people have to take into consideration. Do you think a track will tell you they falsify the numbers. Be glad people are questioning the tracks numbers instead of accusing you of something. As far as the late run you think the DA dropping another 600ft may have had something to do with making up for the tailwind dropping to 10mph. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Colonel

"Colonel, it said the baro was 30.5, not 31.5."

Typo on my part. I meant to say 30.5. Never heard of a 31.5 baro! That WOULD be awesome!

BTW, the track I've mentioned that was 7 MPH faster in one lane than the other WAS IHRA certified. The ETs were consistant from one lane to the next but the MPH was WAAAAAAAAAY off.

Not saying this is the case with you at all. I was just throwing out reasons that I would check other tracks if it were me just so that I would know that my car was as fast as I thought it was. But in your case I think the weather helps to explain the excellent MPH for the lack of mods to the doubters. Personnally, I would have made that clear to begin with so that there would have been less doubters.

RAGEman

iTrader: (4)

Tums,

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I'm not sure what in the world density altitude even is, much less how it works or anything like that. All I know is that the tailwind died way down to almost nothing and I still trapped 121. So you can't cite the tailwind as a major contributing factor. You can cite the overall conditions, sure. It was a good night for racing. I had been waiting all winter for a good night, and I guess I finally got it. Can't throw my times out the window just because I got abnormally good racing weather. And I guess there's no way to prove TAD's timers are off, because you sure can't just say, oh well, you shouldn't be trapping that high so something has to be wrong. I'll say again. No one has been able to see until now what a stripped 6-speed car can do, so just expect more of the same from me is all I can tell you. Just out of curiosity, can you figure the DA for HRP (Baytown, TX) on Saturday, February 9th, 2002 @ around 11 a.m.? That's when I trapped 119.04 on a slipping clutch.

Stephen,

I mentioned in the very beginning what the weather was like, although I didn't know the exact conditions. I will have to remember to bring a portable weather unit with me everywhere I go so that everyone out there that is shocked by the power of the lightweight 6-speed will be satisfied.

RAGEman

iTrader: (4)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by PaiN:
<strong>6:00am DA approximately -1,450ft
8:00am DA approximately -16ft
2:00pm DA approximately 900ft</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now all I need to know is how the heck you did that and what the numbers mean. As in...is negative better than positive or what? How do we analyze the readings?

RAGEman

iTrader: (4)

And also, what was the DA for Little River Academy, TX @ 8 p.m on Saturday, March 9th, 2002?

Trevor @ Texas Speed & Perf.

iTrader: (3)

You can get historical weather info at www.wunderground.com, and he most likely ran it through his own DA calculator. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> http://xs-fx.com/da The # that you get represents the # of feet above sea-level that the weather conditions produce. If you have a negative #, then it's like running that many feet BELOW sea-level. The larger the negative # the better. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

BLU-BY-U

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by RAGEman:
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by PaiN:
Now all I need to know is how the heck you did that and what the numbers mean. As in...is negative better than positive or what? How do we analyze the readings?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The ole drag racing saying is "look for mineshaft air"....

another words, you want NEGATIVE density altitude for the best possible power.