Zero Clearance Experience:The Numbers Are In 0-60,0-100,60-130,30-50,ET,Trap
#31
Kevin (KPG) what I meant is that on your 60-130mph chart, the scale starts at zero and goes all the way up to 130mph. If you change the scale to start at 60mph and end at 130mph, one can see less of a flat line...Don't know if it makes sense, no big deal anyway.
Do you have the possibility to show the long Gs on the same chart as the speed on the 60-130mph run? That would be interesting.
Thanks.
Do you have the possibility to show the long Gs on the same chart as the speed on the 60-130mph run? That would be interesting.
Thanks.
#32
Kevin:
Your numbers look like they are putting the hurt on my stage 4. I go from 68.8 mph to 130.1 mph in 8.524 sec. So, you beat me from 60 where I am starting from 69. Hmmmm!!!!! I was taking it to 7000 and shifting quick but no slamming.
In another lap I went from 61.9 to 130.0 in 9.821 seconds with 1 slow short shift (6000 rpm)but bottom line, you are spanking my fanny. HMMMM!!!!!
Your numbers look like they are putting the hurt on my stage 4. I go from 68.8 mph to 130.1 mph in 8.524 sec. So, you beat me from 60 where I am starting from 69. Hmmmm!!!!! I was taking it to 7000 and shifting quick but no slamming.
In another lap I went from 61.9 to 130.0 in 9.821 seconds with 1 slow short shift (6000 rpm)but bottom line, you are spanking my fanny. HMMMM!!!!!
Last edited by ColorChange; 09-12-2006 at 04:27 PM.
#33
Originally Posted by ColorChange
Kevin:
Your numbers look like they are putting the hurt on my stage 4. I go from 68.8 mph to 130.1 mph in 8.524 sec. So, you beat me from 60 where I am starting from 69. Hmmmm!!!!! I was taking it to 7000 and shifting quick but no slamming.
Your numbers look like they are putting the hurt on my stage 4. I go from 68.8 mph to 130.1 mph in 8.524 sec. So, you beat me from 60 where I am starting from 69. Hmmmm!!!!! I was taking it to 7000 and shifting quick but no slamming.
#34
Jean, here are your 2 graphs. I apoligize but for some reason beyond my limited Vbox skills I could not get the axis changed on the 2 shift 8.59 sec 60-130 run. The 7.93 sec 1 shift 60-130 axis is scaled from 60. Hope this helps. Kevin
Last edited by KPG; 01-03-2007 at 07:46 PM.
#36
Originally Posted by ColorChange
Kevin:
Your numbers look like they are putting the hurt on my stage 4. I go from 68.8 mph to 130.1 mph in 8.524 sec. So, you beat me from 60 where I am starting from 69. Hmmmm!!!!! I was taking it to 7000 and shifting quick but no slamming.
In another lap I went from 61.9 to 130.0 in 9.821 seconds with 1 slow short shift (6000 rpm)but bottom line, you are spanking my fanny. HMMMM!!!!!
Your numbers look like they are putting the hurt on my stage 4. I go from 68.8 mph to 130.1 mph in 8.524 sec. So, you beat me from 60 where I am starting from 69. Hmmmm!!!!! I was taking it to 7000 and shifting quick but no slamming.
In another lap I went from 61.9 to 130.0 in 9.821 seconds with 1 slow short shift (6000 rpm)but bottom line, you are spanking my fanny. HMMMM!!!!!
Last edited by KPG; 09-12-2006 at 05:42 PM.
#38
Originally Posted by ColorChange
I think I am taking an extra shift (your pushing 4th gear and I am short shifting). Let me look at this some more.
#39
Originally Posted by Jean
Kevin (KPG) what I meant is that on your 60-130mph chart, the scale starts at zero and goes all the way up to 130mph. If you change the scale to start at 60mph and end at 130mph, one can see less of a flat line...Don't know if it makes sense, no big deal anyway.
Do you have the possibility to show the long Gs on the same chart as the speed on the 60-130mph run? That would be interesting.
Thanks.
Do you have the possibility to show the long Gs on the same chart as the speed on the 60-130mph run? That would be interesting.
Thanks.
Last edited by KPG; 01-03-2007 at 07:46 PM.
#40
Originally Posted by iLLM3
Wow crazy stuff, skipping 2nd and so on LOL! Whenever i do my tests i start out at the number (40/60) to my ending mph, crazy because my times are fast then, and would be much faster from starting before and counting at WOT passing the 60mph mark, my 60-130 is about 9 sec's or so, 40-100 5 (tested with awd not rwd like now, without vflow also)! I want to do offical test's though, not on video then just counting, didnt know you can get times off running at the strip!
#41
Originally Posted by KPG
Safest way to get the times are at the dragstrip. It is a level surface so the data is accurate.Although you cannot skew the data with a downhill run because the 7 satellites watching your car keep track of the relative height of the vehicle anyway!Most lightly modified 996TT's will trap in the high 110's or the low 120's so it is just a matter of keeping your foot in it a bit past the traps and you have a safe, accurate 60-130 run. You dont lose your license this way either! You really need a GPS based timer to get accurate results though. I found with my Racelogic Driftbox that my dash speedo is off by 5 mph at some speeds.Once you have the data you can go back and see any time from any speeds with a click. It really is neat. Heck , it will tell you to the tenth of a foot the distance covered in any timed run. The US distributor is here in MI. 750$ Kevin
#42
Originally Posted by iLLM3
Damm cool man, yea once i put the new clutch in im hitting the strip, my car is putting out crazy numbers for what i have, and speedo videos show it I will try and borrow a racelogic driftbox from someone i know locally, or just try it out at the strip, you just ask them after for the data or what?
#43
Originally Posted by KPG
Safest way to get the times are at the dragstrip. It is a level surface so the data is accurate.Although you cannot skew the data with a downhill run because the 7 satellites watching your car keep track of the relative height of the vehicle anyway!.... Heck , it will tell you to the tenth of a foot the distance covered in any timed run.
Thanks for posting the graphs, it is indeed clearer. The long Gs are quite similar with what I have seen on similar cars.
Sorry for going OT here, but I would like to put a word of caution...If you are on a slope, you will indeed see better times, also if your unit is not level mounted or calibrated, it can give you foul readings. I have seen many.
Don't forget that your device, is a mix of accelerometers and GPS, and the speed that you see is a compilation of both, not GPS only.
The only way to check this is through retrieving the run logs and do some calculations.
Just trying to say that none of these devices is foolproof, they have to be used properly.. Does it have the possibility of retrieving all the data on excel?
Thanks again.
#44
Originally Posted by Jean
Kevin,
Thanks for posting the graphs, it is indeed clearer. The long Gs are quite similar with what I have seen on similar cars.
Sorry for going OT here, but I would like to put a word of caution...If you are on a slope, you will indeed see better times, also if your unit is not level mounted or calibrated, it can give you foul readings. I have seen many.
Don't forget that your device, is a mix of accelerometers and GPS, and the speed that you see is a compilation of both, not GPS only.
The only way to check this is through retrieving the run logs and do some calculations.
Just trying to say that none of these devices is foolproof, they have to be used properly.. Does it have the possibility of retrieving all the data on excel?
Thanks again.
Thanks for posting the graphs, it is indeed clearer. The long Gs are quite similar with what I have seen on similar cars.
Sorry for going OT here, but I would like to put a word of caution...If you are on a slope, you will indeed see better times, also if your unit is not level mounted or calibrated, it can give you foul readings. I have seen many.
Don't forget that your device, is a mix of accelerometers and GPS, and the speed that you see is a compilation of both, not GPS only.
The only way to check this is through retrieving the run logs and do some calculations.
Just trying to say that none of these devices is foolproof, they have to be used properly.. Does it have the possibility of retrieving all the data on excel?
Thanks again.
#45
Kevin
I hope you understand that I am not disputing the data. I am just correcting your earlier statements by saying that errors due to slope or mishandling or calibration can be there and undetected to anyone, regardless of how good the device is. I am saying from experience that the only way to spot them (when they are not gross) is through the data retrieve and some calculations.
Cheers
I hope you understand that I am not disputing the data. I am just correcting your earlier statements by saying that errors due to slope or mishandling or calibration can be there and undetected to anyone, regardless of how good the device is. I am saying from experience that the only way to spot them (when they are not gross) is through the data retrieve and some calculations.
Cheers