Originally Posted by tachyon' post='319330' date='Aug 5 2006, 02:12 PM

Hey Z - I hope your rehab is coming along well and that you will soon be back behind the wheels of your ....

Originally Posted by grogan545' post='318988' date='Aug 4 2006, 01:29 PM

Hi Zman.You have obviously put in a tremendous amount of time into this post.I agree that averaging the results of the big 3 magazines probably gives a more representative indication of a given cars capabilities.The problem I have occasionaly with some of the magazine tests is that sometimes they show data that doesn't make sense,and there is no explanation for the results.I can't think of a specific insatnce right now,but I'll give you a for instance.A 0-60 time of 5.8 sec with a 1/4 time of 13.45 @ 99 mph.When I see figures like this I wonder what happened during the run.A time of 5.8 for 0-60 won't yield a 13.45 et @99mph.If the speed were 108 on this run it might make sense.My thinking is that a poor start would give the relatively slow 0-60 time,but the car is obviously making big HP and therefore gives a good 1/4 time and speed.But I rarely see any mention by the magazines of extenuating circumstances.

I guess what I am saying is that I always analize test figures on cars that I am interested in to see if they make sense.Most of the time they do but I would not want to use data that doesn't make sense in my averaging.

Originally Posted by Znod' post='319338' date='Aug 5 2006, 02:45 PM

I am totally impressed that you took the time to actually read all that stuff.

Originally Posted by tachyon' post='319353' date='Aug 5 2006, 04:32 PM

Well, I didn't actually read all that stuff ... just enough to get it wrong.

So now I understand what you mean ... it's about all of the real-world forces, internal and external. So, yes, aerodynamics is a big part of that.

I didn't realize G-Tech measures net horsepower, i.e.; everything that is left over to actually accelerate your car. I guess I thought the device somehow reported an estimate of rear wheel horsepower.

Carry on ...

Originally Posted by Znod' post='322550' date='Aug 14 2006, 04:35 PM

Here you go. I just saw your post. I think the run will be good because of the weather conditions.

Calculate Density Altitude:
Your results:
Air Temp 82 (?F)
Altimeter Setting 29.97 (in)
Dew Point 63 (?F)
Altitude 400 (Feet)
Density Altitude 2166.6 (feet)

Correct 1/4 mi. Timeslip to Sea Level:
Your results:
Density Altitude 2166.6 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.71 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 103.4 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.365
Corrected MPH 106.133

Correct 1/4 mi. Timeslip to New Density Altitude:
Your results:
E.T. 13.365 (sec)
Trap Speed 106.133 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.436 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 105.566 (mph)

Good one g-man. I have a somewhat similar one that turned out to be within my best 5 adjusted passes because of the weather conditions. As with you, my pass wasn't close to being within my best 5 unadjusted passes. As implied, this one is within your best 5 adjusted passes. I'll substitute it in. What was your 0 to 60? I am keeping track of this measure in your best 5's too.

Originally Posted by grogan545' post='322630' date='Aug 14 2006, 07:05 PM

Wow Zman the run was better than I thought.The humidity was not bad so I wasn't expecting the correction factor to be so large.The 0-60 time was 5.31,and the 0-100 was 12.48 on that run.I think your observation a while back that the correction factors for below average weather conditions seem to help our times more than factors for better than average weather conditions.I know this doesn't make good sense but you can't argue with facts.