K24/18g vs Tial GT28 "alpha," what i'v learned.
#46
07-02-2009, 02:34 PM
vrybad -
I could really care less what 60-130 time my car runs. I only did a run to verify that my car would, in fact, run as slow as the other two ran.
My feeling is that with the same hardware, most of these cars will run side by side with each other but may have vastly different 60-130 times.
Again, there is nothing on a computer in my car that would make me want to jump up and down.
Just being able to drive a car like this at these power levels makes me want to jump up and down
I could really care less what 60-130 time my car runs. I only did a run to verify that my car would, in fact, run as slow as the other two ran.
My feeling is that with the same hardware, most of these cars will run side by side with each other but may have vastly different 60-130 times.
Again, there is nothing on a computer in my car that would make me want to jump up and down.
Just being able to drive a car like this at these power levels makes me want to jump up and down
Jason,
Allow me to rephrase.
If you had run a mid 6 on the PBox, you would be less inclined to say that the list has little merit.
Rather, you would probably be inclined to say the list can be used for comparison purposes, because your results would have mirrored other 24/18g cars.
I hear you about driving a fast car like that though, it's reward enough.
#47
07-02-2009, 02:39 PM
Jason,
Allow me to rephrase.
If you had run a mid 6 on the PBox, you would be less inclined to say that the list has little merit.
Rather, you would probably be inclined to say the list can be used for comparison purposes, because your results would have mirrored other 24/18g cars.
I hear you about driving a fast car like that though, it's reward enough.
Allow me to rephrase.
If you had run a mid 6 on the PBox, you would be less inclined to say that the list has little merit.
Rather, you would probably be inclined to say the list can be used for comparison purposes, because your results would have mirrored other 24/18g cars.
I hear you about driving a fast car like that though, it's reward enough.
All it would show is that I was a better driver, or "did it with the right technique" or had better conditions.
Lining up next to someone, honk, honk, honk and go is best.
#48
07-02-2009, 02:45 PM
Well, if you had a logging tool that could measure a given RPM spread in the same gear and all the test required was setting the cruise control at, let's say 3000rpm in 3rd, hitting start on the logging tool and then flooring it until you hit 7000rpm, you'd likely have a more accurate reading without a shift.
#49
07-02-2009, 02:46 PM
Even in head to head, technique and driver skill are very important and can determine outcome.
#50
07-02-2009, 02:52 PM
LMAO -
I was wondering when one of you FATS guys would chime in.
Maybe we should all use our iPhones to time it?
#51
07-02-2009, 02:56 PM
Even a head to head run on three honks is ideally a max effort run for both cars and drivers.
At max effort, these tests showcase more than just engine hp/torque.
#52
07-02-2009, 02:59 PM
That's the whole point - we're trying to use a benchmark to compare cars and what it compares is driver skill.
#53
07-02-2009, 02:59 PM
Wow, great idea - someone should make an Excel template so the graphs would be created for you - maybe something like...
Hi Jason
#54
07-02-2009, 03:01 PM
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bloomingdale, IL
Posts: 507
Rep Power: 47 
I understand that in a 6-speed shifting is going to play a role but what about in a tip? is it slower because it shifting almost 1000 rpms faster then the 6speed?
#55
07-02-2009, 03:04 PM
Even two 996tt's with similar mileage, and exact mods will have variances in dyno results, and dare I say, if driven by the same very skilled driver, may have different times as well.
There is no way to make it completely fair.
#56
07-02-2009, 03:22 PM
...and not that my car is any kind of a benchmark, but it seems there are cars out there with the same mods as me that are not quite as quick 60-130.
I will say that even though the 60-130 is a better performance comparison than most, it DOES still require some input from the driver. I DO believe that you need to practice this technique as it WILL make you more effective on a "roll race". You have to know your car and it's advantages and disadvantages. I have raced 600's, which we all agree are not much of a race at our level, however, those that feel that the bike will get the jump, nope, didn't happen.
I have all my 60-130 files that I keep for comparison. I will ALSO add that my best 60-130 was done on the same file as a 6.62 and a 6.38, all done within seconds of each other. These were done on a 55deg night, with drag radials on a 1-1/2% to 2% decline, brake boosting. Is this cheating? No, thats what my car runs in that environment when I drive it that way, which is how I would drive it if you were next to me on the highway flipping me off!.
I also have files with 6.3's on a 75deg day and a 65deg muggy night. The bottom line is when you have the perfect run with no traction issues and you shift very well, you will reward yourself with a respectable 60-130. You never know when it's gonna happen. vrybad will tell you, when I had his box, I first thought he rigged it too!!! You guy have plenty fast cars.
I will say that even though the 60-130 is a better performance comparison than most, it DOES still require some input from the driver. I DO believe that you need to practice this technique as it WILL make you more effective on a "roll race". You have to know your car and it's advantages and disadvantages. I have raced 600's, which we all agree are not much of a race at our level, however, those that feel that the bike will get the jump, nope, didn't happen.
I have all my 60-130 files that I keep for comparison. I will ALSO add that my best 60-130 was done on the same file as a 6.62 and a 6.38, all done within seconds of each other. These were done on a 55deg night, with drag radials on a 1-1/2% to 2% decline, brake boosting. Is this cheating? No, thats what my car runs in that environment when I drive it that way, which is how I would drive it if you were next to me on the highway flipping me off!.
I also have files with 6.3's on a 75deg day and a 65deg muggy night. The bottom line is when you have the perfect run with no traction issues and you shift very well, you will reward yourself with a respectable 60-130. You never know when it's gonna happen. vrybad will tell you, when I had his box, I first thought he rigged it too!!! You guy have plenty fast cars.
#57
07-02-2009, 03:25 PM
Driver skill is definitely important and plays a big role. Once I realized that people are using certain techniques to get their 60-130, it really became less relevant.
so if you want to compare, then do a timed run from 2000 rpms in 2nd gear through 3rd gear to redline. One shift involves very little error. this would be around 20-30 mph to about 110 or so.
so if you want to compare, then do a timed run from 2000 rpms in 2nd gear through 3rd gear to redline. One shift involves very little error. this would be around 20-30 mph to about 110 or so.
#59
07-02-2009, 03:52 PM
...and not that my car is any kind of a benchmark, but it seems there are cars out there with the same mods as me that are not quite as quick 60-130.
I will say that even though the 60-130 is a better performance comparison than most, it DOES still require some input from the driver. I DO believe that you need to practice this technique as it WILL make you more effective on a "roll race". You have to know your car and it's advantages and disadvantages. I have raced 600's, which we all agree are not much of a race at our level, however, those that feel that the bike will get the jump, nope, didn't happen.
I have all my 60-130 files that I keep for comparison. I will ALSO add that my best 60-130 was done on the same file as a 6.62 and a 6.38, all done within seconds of each other. These were done on a 55deg night, with drag radials on a 1-1/2% to 2% decline, brake boosting. Is this cheating? No, thats what my car runs in that environment when I drive it that way, which is how I would drive it if you were next to me on the highway flipping me off!.
I also have files with 6.3's on a 75deg day and a 65deg muggy night. The bottom line is when you have the perfect run with no traction issues and you shift very well, you will reward yourself with a respectable 60-130. You never know when it's gonna happen. vrybad will tell you, when I had his box, I first thought he rigged it too!!! You guy have plenty fast cars.
I will say that even though the 60-130 is a better performance comparison than most, it DOES still require some input from the driver. I DO believe that you need to practice this technique as it WILL make you more effective on a "roll race". You have to know your car and it's advantages and disadvantages. I have raced 600's, which we all agree are not much of a race at our level, however, those that feel that the bike will get the jump, nope, didn't happen.
I have all my 60-130 files that I keep for comparison. I will ALSO add that my best 60-130 was done on the same file as a 6.62 and a 6.38, all done within seconds of each other. These were done on a 55deg night, with drag radials on a 1-1/2% to 2% decline, brake boosting. Is this cheating? No, thats what my car runs in that environment when I drive it that way, which is how I would drive it if you were next to me on the highway flipping me off!.
I also have files with 6.3's on a 75deg day and a 65deg muggy night. The bottom line is when you have the perfect run with no traction issues and you shift very well, you will reward yourself with a respectable 60-130. You never know when it's gonna happen. vrybad will tell you, when I had his box, I first thought he rigged it too!!! You guy have plenty fast cars.
I didn't brake boost - just started around 55mph and floored it. Top of 3rd, shifted to 4th until I hit 130.
I had the A/C on and PSM on too
#60
07-02-2009, 03:55 PM
Hey Vince -
It's Jason from last night. Fun runs for sure.
I agree with all your comments above!
I don't post much but I will say: There is NO WAY other K24/18g cars are running so much more HP than my car that they will be 2 seconds faster from 60-130. At those speed, that's like 20 car lengths.
As I said last PM, something fishy is going on.
Either:
1. We are using the box wrong
2. All of our cars are really slow
3. People are using different techniques to get fast 60-130 times.
Either way, it was fun and I agree - I'd like to see one of these k24/18g cars that run 6 sec 60-130 times beat me by 20 car lengths! If they do, I'm sending my car to their tuner
It's Jason from last night. Fun runs for sure.
I agree with all your comments above!
I don't post much but I will say: There is NO WAY other K24/18g cars are running so much more HP than my car that they will be 2 seconds faster from 60-130. At those speed, that's like 20 car lengths.
As I said last PM, something fishy is going on.
Either:
1. We are using the box wrong
2. All of our cars are really slow
3. People are using different techniques to get fast 60-130 times.
Either way, it was fun and I agree - I'd like to see one of these k24/18g cars that run 6 sec 60-130 times beat me by 20 car lengths! If they do, I'm sending my car to their tuner
Wrt distance, I just did a quick comparison check of a car that went 7.99 to a car that went 6.14, and the difference was indeed 20 lengths (286 feet)
Last edited by Divexxtreme; 07-02-2009 at 04:18 PM.