REVOLUTIONARY RESULTS - Dragstrip database update notification thread

[MDUBZ]

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

It just sucks because we suffer quite a bit of power loss when compared to you guys who are near sea level. It has nothing to do with the list, although it does kind of suck that I have to drive over 1000 miles to lay down some serious times. I’m guessing I’ll maybe barely beat the current 11.9 record up here. I’ve heard the times differ by as much as a second in comparison. Most importantly though is the fact that our cars just aren’t as fun up here. Not sure what s/c loss accrues to, but naturally aspirated was like 3% power loss per 1000ft.

For reference, this is right now:

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/11/7c94968ffb504cf1927a980a22f8e9fc.jpg

I won’t notice it as much when I have all the extra power but it’s still probably a 10% loss. Not sure what my whp will be but 600 will mean a 60 whp loss which is pretty significant. That’s a generalization and probably isn’t actually even accurate.

[MarcusDubya77]

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

The list is awesome. It just sucks that there is no formula to calculate loss caused by altitude.

[euroswagr]

FI loss is less.

[Badtoyz]

how does the correction actually work? whats the formula?

[MarcusDubya77]

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

The list is awesome. It just sucks that there is no formula to calculate loss caused by altitude.

[MDUBZ]

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

The list is awesome. It just sucks that there is no formula to calculate loss caused by altitude.

There is. It just isn’t used for the list because who knows how accurate it truly is. There’s no way of proving it which is fine with me.

Interestingly both dragtimes.com and this TRC app us the same equation. Although dragtimes uses 3 different ones. But they both return a corrected speed of 126 mph and time of 10.965 seconds when I use the current calculated DA of 6653 and the JHM current record time of 11.964 seconds @ 116.07mph. Drag times says this would be the naturally aspirated corrected time while the F/I corrected time only went down to 11.533 @ 120.262mph.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/11/2f4450f6c940116170df7d1c6c52a0c8.jpg

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/11/bd6c6b1d3d453f310dfdabd66cca11fd.jpg

[MarcusDubya77]

That’s pretty awesome. You got to understand I am stuck on an island that just got high speed internet the year. No cel service or cable or anything that you might even find in a rural town. Thats pretty much why every either scubas, fishes, drinks, or a combination there of.

[Badtoyz]

how does the correction actually work? whats the formula?

[sakimano]

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

It just sucks because we suffer quite a bit of power loss when compared to you guys who are near sea level. It has nothing to do with the list, although it does kind of suck that I have to drive over 1000 miles to lay down some serious times. I’m guessing I’ll maybe barely beat the current 11.9 record up here. I’ve heard the times differ by as much as a second in comparison. Most importantly though is the fact that our cars just aren’t as fun up here. Not sure what s/c loss accrues to, but naturally aspirated was like 3% power loss per 1000ft.

For reference, this is right now:

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/11/7c94968ffb504cf1927a980a22f8e9fc.jpg

I won’t notice it as much when I have all the extra power but it’s still probably a 10% loss. Not sure what my whp will be but 600 will mean a 60 whp loss which is pretty significant. That’s a generalization and probably isn’t actually even accurate.

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

The list is awesome. It just sucks that there is no formula to calculate loss caused by altitude.

there is a way to estimate. But as I said, I wouldn’t go around saying “I ran XXX” based on that. You might lose money/face.

Go to dragtimes.com

go to tools

enter a time, and DA, and it will show you a corrected time to sea level.

[MDUBZ]

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

The list is awesome. It just sucks that there is no formula to calculate loss caused by altitude.

There is. It just isn’t used for the list because who knows how accurate it truly is. There’s no way of proving it which is fine with me.

Interestingly both dragtimes.com and this TRC app us the same equation. Although dragtimes uses 3 different ones. But they both return a corrected speed of 126 mph and time of 10.965 seconds when I use the current calculated DA of 6653 and the JHM current record time of 11.964 seconds @ 116.07mph. Drag times says this would be the naturally aspirated corrected time while the F/I corrected time only went down to 11.533 @ 120.262mph.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/11/2f4450f6c940116170df7d1c6c52a0c8.jpg

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/11/bd6c6b1d3d453f310dfdabd66cca11fd.jpg

[sakimano]

FI loss is less.

turbo loss is less. I don’t reckon supercharger would be.

[MarcusDubya77]

That’s pretty awesome. You got to understand I am stuck on an island that just got high speed internet the year. No cel service or cable or anything that you might even find in a rural town. Thats pretty much why every either scubas, fishes, drinks, or a combination there of.

[MDUBZ]

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

It just sucks because we suffer quite a bit of power loss when compared to you guys who are near sea level. It has nothing to do with the list, although it does kind of suck that I have to drive over 1000 miles to lay down some serious times. I’m guessing I’ll maybe barely beat the current 11.9 record up here. I’ve heard the times differ by as much as a second in comparison. Most importantly though is the fact that our cars just aren’t as fun up here. Not sure what s/c loss accrues to, but naturally aspirated was like 3% power loss per 1000ft.

For reference, this is right now:

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/11/7c94968ffb504cf1927a980a22f8e9fc.jpg

I won’t notice it as much when I have all the extra power but it’s still probably a 10% loss. Not sure what my whp will be but 600 will mean a 60 whp loss which is pretty significant. That’s a generalization and probably isn’t actually even accurate.

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

The list is awesome. It just sucks that there is no formula to calculate loss caused by altitude.

there is a way to estimate. But as I said, I wouldn’t go around saying “I ran XXX” based on that. You might lose money/face.

Go to dragtimes.com

go to tools

enter a time, and DA, and it will show you a corrected time to sea level.

Post #562

I would never use that as an excuse or ask for that to be used on the list. I am however curious to see the difference. But to do that I will actually hit different tracks in different parts of the country. I’ll have 6000/7000 DA runs up here, but I’ll also have some closer to 0 elsewhere, and God willing, negative this December in Phoenix.

[sakimano]

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

It just sucks because we suffer quite a bit of power loss when compared to you guys who are near sea level. It has nothing to do with the list, although it does kind of suck that I have to drive over 1000 miles to lay down some serious times. I’m guessing I’ll maybe barely beat the current 11.9 record up here. I’ve heard the times differ by as much as a second in comparison. Most importantly though is the fact that our cars just aren’t as fun up here. Not sure what s/c loss accrues to, but naturally aspirated was like 3% power loss per 1000ft.

For reference, this is right now:

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/11/7c94968ffb504cf1927a980a22f8e9fc.jpg

I won’t notice it as much when I have all the extra power but it’s still probably a 10% loss. Not sure what my whp will be but 600 will mean a 60 whp loss which is pretty significant. That’s a generalization and probably isn’t actually even accurate.

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

The list is awesome. It just sucks that there is no formula to calculate loss caused by altitude.

there is a way to estimate. But as I said, I wouldn’t go around saying “I ran XXX” based on that. You might lose money/face.

Go to dragtimes.com

go to tools

enter a time, and DA, and it will show you a corrected time to sea level.

[MarcusDubya77]

+1. It would just be some good to know info. Already know it will be faster at sea level. Just makes it easier than actually having to drive to sea, although would be a fun trip.

[sakimano]

FI loss is less.

turbo loss is less. I don’t reckon supercharger would be.

[MDUBZ]

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

It just sucks because we suffer quite a bit of power loss when compared to you guys who are near sea level. It has nothing to do with the list, although it does kind of suck that I have to drive over 1000 miles to lay down some serious times. I’m guessing I’ll maybe barely beat the current 11.9 record up here. I’ve heard the times differ by as much as a second in comparison. Most importantly though is the fact that our cars just aren’t as fun up here. Not sure what s/c loss accrues to, but naturally aspirated was like 3% power loss per 1000ft.

For reference, this is right now:

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/11/7c94968ffb504cf1927a980a22f8e9fc.jpg

I won’t notice it as much when I have all the extra power but it’s still probably a 10% loss. Not sure what my whp will be but 600 will mean a 60 whp loss which is pretty significant. That’s a generalization and probably isn’t actually even accurate.

I still don’t know why it sucks. Did you want us to out your corrected times on the list, and that sucks that we wont?

The list is awesome. It just sucks that there is no formula to calculate loss caused by altitude.

there is a way to estimate. But as I said, I wouldn’t go around saying “I ran XXX” based on that. You might lose money/face.

Go to dragtimes.com

go to tools

enter a time, and DA, and it will show you a corrected time to sea level.

Post #562

I would never use that as an excuse or ask for that to be used on the list. I am however curious to see the difference. But to do that I will actually hit different tracks in different parts of the country. I’ll have 6000/7000 DA runs up here, but I’ll also have some closer to 0 elsewhere, and God willing, negative this December in Phoenix.

[MarcusDubya77]

+1. It would just be some good to know info. Already know it will be faster at sea level. Just makes it easier than actually having to drive to sea, although would be a fun trip.

[beemercer]

FI loss is less.

turbo loss is less. I don’t reckon supercharger would be.

Depends on the control scheme, if you are typically bypassing/relieving excess pressure at sea level you’ve got something to work with (eg B8 S4 stock).

[beemercer]

FI loss is less.

turbo loss is less. I don’t reckon supercharger would be.

Depends on the control scheme, if you are typically bypassing/relieving excess pressure at sea level you’ve got something to work with (eg B8 S4 stock).