Originally Posted by grogan545' post='243974' date='Feb 21 2006, 10:15 PM

My best estimate for 0-100 mph on my recent great runs as follows:
run 1 11.45
run 2 11.79

Originally Posted by Bokke' post='244235' date='Feb 22 2006, 11:36 AM

Znod - if your table is in Excel, do you mind sharing? If so, I'll PM you my email address.

TIA

Originally Posted by Znod' post='244008' date='Feb 22 2006, 12:04 AM

OK, g-man, here we go on the new era of E60 Discussion g-meter performance reporting. I am posting the tables tonight, and if I see any gross errors tomorrow, then I correct and reattach them.

Note that your 1/4 mile results are based on Grogan's fabulous formula since you did not actually compete the 1/4 in either direction of your averaged results. Also, I took the average of runs 1 and 2 above to get your unadjusted zero to 100 value--since you also did not make it to 100 on your runs. And, as you know, I don't average my results because my tests show that my strip is sufficiently level (and a tad dangerous when going south to north).

For all, the first set of side-by-side tables provides a comparison of what amounts to our best single runs to date--after both of us updated to 20.01.00 and after removal of my mods. These tables provide an indication of how we might do side by side on the same sea-level strip under excellent weather conditions. An interesting feature of these tables is that I "win" on all the times to distance except 60 feet, but you "win" on all the 0 "tos's."

The second set of side-by-side tables provides the raw data upon which the top two tables are based. They are not particularly good for making comparisons since the elevations and weather conditions under which our runs were conducted are not acceptably comparable (e.g., my elevation is 1,500 feet, while grogan545i's is 534 feet. However, they are true indicators of performance in our respective environments.

Originally Posted by grogan545' post='244265' date='Feb 22 2006, 12:28 PM

Hi Znod You have done yeoman work in compiling all data and generating tables.I usually am very comfortable with numbers but the corrected tables are very confusing to me.The times to distance make sense with our different weather conditions but the time to speeds don't correlate.All of my corrected times to speed are faster than yours but all times to distance(except 60') are slower.This cannot be true.Maybe the correction factors are not valid for the times to speed.I previously noted that time to speed is different than time to distance,but these anomalies show up at the start(Slow 60' time due to wheelspin or bog).This is not the case with my numbers they are faster at every time to speed and also at 60'.I know there is a reasonable answer to this but at the moment it escapes me.

Originally Posted by Znod' post='244271' date='Feb 22 2006, 12:41 PM

Right, I mentioned this issue above. It bothers me too, but I also don't have an answer yet. Like you, I am wondering if the times to distance values are the better for comparisons. The reason I suspect so is that dragstrip correction factors are meant to correct for time to distance and terminal speeds. As you know, you can't get zero to anything at a dragstrip except to whatever speed is recorded going throught the 1/8 and 1/4 mile traps--which is an average anyway. I have the suspicion mentioned above, but am not sure what it would be correct. Given the magnitudes of the correction factors I used it seems to me that my car would have to be doing better than yours in the first tables for times to speeds.

Originally Posted by grogan545' post='244265' date='Feb 22 2006, 12:28 PM

What I meant by plugging in our numbers into the (1/4 mile correction to sea level) is that directly under the density 2 formula is the calculator to do this.You type in the density altitude,our 1/4 time,and speed and it will give you the corrected time & speed instead of manually using the correction factors.It should be the same but it is a double check on our manual calculations for correction.If they are not the same we are overlooking something.

I did find the "Standard conditions" they are 59 F,29.92 barometer,and 0% humidity.

Originally Posted by grogan545' post='244273' date='Feb 22 2006, 12:44 PM

I just edited my pevious post .Please check and let me know what you think.

Originally Posted by Znod' post='244298' date='Feb 22 2006, 01:40 PM

OK, the time-slip correction calculator gives exactly the same results for my car. The results are a very small amount different on your car. I'll check it out and get back to you. I'm not sure if the error, or whatever, could account for the anomaly. It dawns on me that I can infer both correction factors from the time-slip calculator.

Originally Posted by Znod' post='244324' date='Feb 22 2006, 02:41 PM

I checked everything out. After correcting things, your car got a little faster, and the anomaly got worse.