MattyS4 125.75mph trap (2960ft D/A's, 85-87F)

B8 S4
#1

Hi all,

MattyS4 sent me a text with a timeslip today. He is having traction problems with the amount of TQ from his set-up and his PSS’s not giving him good accelerative grip (I actually concur with him and have stated in the past that the OEM Dunlop Sport Maxx GT’s gave me more consistent grip), ran in mid 80’s temps around 2960ft density altitudes…

He runs the usual intake, exhaust, LW wheels and more. His tune is an APR stage 2, stacked with a Chipwerke Pro (4-1 setting), APR DSG (he has short-shift, and the usual APR shift hang-up issues as well), APR’s 57.75mm s/c pulley, and his Kustom Import 194mm crank pulley; overall pulley ratio is 3.359. He was running 94 octane, and methanol injection in order to run APR’s RACE program.

His best time today is 11.3x@ 125.76mph, with a 1.64 60ft time nonetheless! That’s trapping 1.51 mph higher than the Magnuson stage III car that ran in negative density altitudes! Plugging in the numbers, if he ran at near 0 density altitudes, he will run 10.6-10.8@128-130mph (possibly higher in mph).

3.0"T" development is coming along nicely with me, MattyS4, OneAngryBunny, mrmommo313, and blownone taking it up the limits with running larger cranks than JHM’s 179mm or GMG’s 180mm.

#2

Wow that’s a very impressive trap and the ET is great also… Good for him, I knew he’d keep pushing… 60ft isn’t that bad but to your point could be improved. MPH and time is even more impressive given the time of year… Everyone’s using the chipwerke now… lol Nice to see everyone pushing the cars, we may see 10’s yet on stock blower…

Not sure where you are getting your correction factors? If he was in 3Kish DA and went 11.35 at 125.76 it corrects to about 11.1-11.2 not 10.6-10.8 especially with him running w/m now… Not trying to discourage anyone but 10.6-10.8 is a big jump. Good shit either way… Can you post his full slip I’d love to see all the splits and such… thanks!

http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-altitude-calculator.php?elevationcorrect=3000&et=11.30&mph=125.76&correctetmph=Correct+ET+and+MPH

http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-altitude-calculator.php?elevationcorrect=3000&et=11.39&mph=125.76&correctetmph=Correct+ET+and+MPH

Oh and thanks for adding my time on your list on vendorzine, one correction, I’m running the JHM pulley or at least I was for that pass…

#3

I was using a correction factor based on 1.60 60ft time, I’ve logged/tracked that every .01 second I shave off in 60ft’s at the same track day, I drop .065 and used my ricer math from there to figure he could have ran an 11.1x 1/4mile time yesterday and plugged it into the calculator lol.

I also find that the N/A field in that calculator is more accurate because I sometimes get a positive correction factor (showing that I would actually slow down in lower D/A’s) when I view the supercharged/turbocharged field.

I’ll correct your time, I want to add a note column because of your upshift issues, but will just keep it simple for now.

here is the breakdown of his slip

60’ 1.649
330’ 4.876
1/8 7.456
MPH 93.96
1000’ 9.643
1/4 11.395
MPH 125.76

He gained 31mph in the back half! that is some crazy stuff! On his 122.56mph trap on straight 91 octane, his 1/8mile trap was 96.xxmph, so the higher D/A definitely affected his 1/8mile trap for sure.

#4

Ron, I’m very excited to see your development as well!

…and yeah, the CW stack is gaining some popularity with GIAC/APR guys I’ve spoken with via PM/text/email.

#5

Loe, Thanks! Wow that’s even more impressive given the front part of the track isn’t all that good… I’ve previously gone 7.3 in the 1/8th several times and I think maybe 7.2x once… Like you said he’s picking up a ton on the back half of the track…

Yeah, there’s no doubt the 60ft improvement will help some and obviously the DA but I think 10.6 or even 10.8 may be a stretch, hopefully I’m wrong… In general I’m not a fan of corrections but it makes bench racing and speculation fun, no doubt the car is fast especially given that trap.

I doubt the spoof box would do anything for me as I don’t see any bypass with the exception of during my actual shifts… Will be curious to see if anyone grenades a motor come fall/winter with these huge crank pulleys and no ability to bypass boost with the chipwerkes… I surely wouldn’t do this on a Revo tune… lol Again, good stuff…

#6

I have my concerns as well running such a big crank with a CW, I’ll be starting low first using a pump file and then if I have the balls to, will eventually turn on the ignition table by running the race file when my 194mm crank pulley arrives.

The CW does bleed in between shifts (3-4%), however not enough to prevent ignition correction value’s where I do see -3 or so post-shift for like 2-3 blocks/fields of data in VCDS on GIAC’s race file.

I’m crossing my fingers and hoping that GIAC will allow me the load their beta dual-pulley file this Thursday. Their disclaimer is that they recommend a GMG pulley.

#7

I will say 2 things, then I will step away and watch the explosions (either from B8 S4 guys calling me a hater, or from people who get what I’m saying realising I’m right).

  1. Correcting times for an intercooled car, that is running alcohol as part of it’s fuel source is a bit auspicious. Let’s just let him run a time before we guess what it would be in good conditions.

  2. (this is the big one) The trap is astoundingly good considering 0 DA, never mind 3000 feet. That’s enough trap for a 10.9-11.1 range ET if the trap is accurate.

BUT IS IT???

The car went 7.456 @ 93.96 at the 1/8. Based on hundreds of DSG B8 S4 times in our list, that would likely translate to about 11.55 @ 119 MPH. Normally, picking up 25 mph of trap speed from the 1/8 to the 1/4 is great. This car picked up 33 mph, aka impossible.

How his timeslip showed 11.3 @ 125 I have no idea. Clocks may have fucked up. This was a money event he was at, and I’m surprised nobody freaked out because that time is bad. You will probably see that being discussed on other forums for the guys he was up against once the slips are posted.

(ducks for cover)

#8

Saki, I tend to agree and made a few of the same points… Even when I trapped 123.13 I only picked up 28.5pmh as my 1/8th MPH was 94.63, so something does seem slightly off…

I doubt anyone on vendorzine will discuss in a way to question it as they just drink cool aid over there… There’s now a dude porting blowers but he can’t seem to find his pics of his work… lol On top of that he ran a best of 12.3 and thinks with a few more mods he’ll be going 10.6 - 10.8! lol Honestly, I hope he does but he needs to make some more passes and show some results… You know me though I’m certainly a hater! lol

#9

Those are all good questions and valid points, he did gain 31.8mph in the back half. Perhaps the injection system with IAT’s and fueling made that big of a difference versus just running race or an e85/pump blend? Not sure…

His car is slightly stronger in the top end than mine if we compare both of our 122mph traps, and he was on 91 pump too. He trapped 122.56mph to my 122.44mph, he was running in IIRC 1300 d/a’s, I was half of that. IIRC his 1/8mile trap was lower 96.xxmph, mine was lower 97.xxmph. It wasn’t his only time that day trapping above 120mph though.

Either way, Hoepfully it can be duplicated. I certainly will be aiming for at least 125mph for sure ;D

#10

the koolaid would be the guys who are seeing 15-17 degrees of ignition advance on pump or 21 degrees of ignition advance on race/E85 file on their dual-pulley set-ups and claiming OMG OMG it’s fast without #'s to back it up (I will not insert tuner) :o

If I can see 29.75 degrees, what does that make mine (or even yours)? ;D

#11

no. No audi on our list has ever gained 32 mph in the trap. Not low 10 second cars. Not high 10 second cars. Not low 11 second cars. Certainly not B8 S4s.

Not even this car that trapped 134 and 136 MPH…and was HORRIBLY driven in the first half (arguably the perfect situation to set up a big MPH gain in the second half). It gained 26 MPH.

Sorry, but your boy’s timeslip is a mistake. It won’t go on our list.

Let’s see his other 5 timeslips from the event. Let me guess…nowhere near that one?

http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q755/britishturbo/IMG_20131103_122944_831_zpsff014c2e.jpg

#12

FWIW- a 6 second pro-mod only picks up about 35"ish" mph from 1/8th to the 1/4.

#13

exactly…and that’s a 3000 hp car lol.

#14

If he has a big wing, it is possible to add 35 MPH between the 1/8 and the 1/4. The hype is real.

What was your front and rear tire pressure for the run?

#15

I don’t think he posts here anymore… so doubt he will chime in.

How do we know it’s not the 1/8 sensor that’s off? ;D

#16

If we’re using calculation and speculation :wink:

http://www.nitrousexpress.com/oldwebdocs/hpcalculators.htm

http://www.xcceleration.com/et.calculator.html

@ 4000lb he’s probably pushing 600+ bhp to hit that MPH- if true, and as I recall, isn’t that the number at which stock internals go are likely to go boom?

#17

because the only outlier is the 1/4 mile

not the 60
not the 330
not the 660
not the 1000
just the 1/4

consider the following…

primetime’s 11.45 vs Matty’s 11.39

1.60 60 1.64
4.73 330 4.87
7.33 1/8 7.45
94.62 MPH 93.96
9.56 1000 9.64
11.45 1/4 11.39
119.56 MPH 125.76

Primetime was 14 hundredths ahead at 330 feet
PT was 12 hundredths ahead at 660 feet and was 0.7 MPH faster
PT was 8 hundredths ahead at 1000 feet

From 330 feet to 1000 feet, Matty only gained 6 hundredths. That means he’s not going much faster than primetime if at all, and the numbers bear that out. But from 1000 feet to 1320 feet, Matty somehow gained 14 hundredths…and in the last 660 feet he gained 5.9 MPH on primetime, a car he was slower than at every other point in the race up to the halfway mark.

For perspective, a car that is 8 hundredths ahead of you at the 1000 foot mark is about a car length ahead of you. For you to pass him, and beat him by 6 hundredths, you’re half a car length ahead of him at the pole. To gain only that much time…but to absolutely WHOMP him with an extra 6 mph, is impossible. You’d be gaining on him so fast it would look ridiculous. If you trapped 125 in a DSG B8 S4 at a good track with a 1.6 60’ time, your 1/4 mph time should be 10.9 or so. Not 11.39.

So there’s something wrong with the 1/4 mph trap. He should be around 11.4-11.5 @ 119. The fastest cars are in the 11.4 @ 119 range. If you give them another 50-70 whp or so and add another 6 mph of trap speed, they’d be in the 10s. Easily.

http://i375.photobucket.com/albums/oo193/sakimano/IMG-20160626-WA0008_zpshtlmeqfc.jpg

http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/af247/concordslim/IMG_2485_zpsjjpeza1r.jpg

#18

according to the 1/8th to 1/4 mile estimate ( which are usually fairly accurate) he picked up .23 vs the chart: 7.45 = 11.63 vs 7.30 = 11.39- seems unlikely unless he sprayed it from the 1/8th on…?

#19

if you multiply the 1/8 time of almost any properly working car by 1.55 it will yield the 1/4 mile ET within 1/10 of a second almost every single time. I mean 1 in 500 will be off, and that’s because it wasn’t a properly working (or driven) car usually. But a DSG B8 S4, it’s a no brainer. Predictable as rain in Scotland when I go on vacation.

If you divide the 1/8 MPH by 0.785, you can generally predict the 1/4 MPH within 1 mph. This is less reliable than the ET prediction but is still damn good.

In this case, that takes his 7.456 @ 93.96 and turns into 11.55 @ 119.69. This is right where he should be among the best cars. The DA means he’s not setting records. The 60 which is good, but not great, means he is not setting ET records. Basically bang on what it should do with a massive overdrive pulley (max boost) and a piggyback to augment the conservative nature of boost management in the APR tune, alcohol for fuel (no timing pulled).

The problem is the ET barely improved over the prediction (1.5 tenths) whereas the MPH went haywire good. That doesn’t add up. You can’t gain that much MPH in the second half full stop, but if you did miraculously, your ET would improve DRASTICALLY…it wouldn’t fall within a tenth of the 1/8 prediction ET.

#20

Must have been some sweet tailwind