The Official G-Meter Testing Thread
#371
Senior Members
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: southestern pa
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 550I,manufactured 2-27-08,delivered 4-2-08.Platinum bronze,natural brown interior,light poplar trim,cold weather package,heated rear seats,HD radio
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Hi all.I made another run today,weather conditions have changed enough to see if they somewhat affect performance.I had an excellent start in D with traction "off".The temp is finally warm enough for my goodyears to stick.Results below.
1/4..........13.41/105.5
1000'....... 11.19
1/8.......... 8.69/82.7
330'..........5.65
60'............ 1.95
0-60......... 4.97
temp.........52F
dew point... 19F
barometer.. 30.18
altitude...... 400'
humidity.... 24%
Zman,please work your magic with the corrections and let me know.
1/4..........13.41/105.5
1000'....... 11.19
1/8.......... 8.69/82.7
330'..........5.65
60'............ 1.95
0-60......... 4.97
temp.........52F
dew point... 19F
barometer.. 30.18
altitude...... 400'
humidity.... 24%
Zman,please work your magic with the corrections and let me know.
#372
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by grogan545' post='260855' date='Mar 27 2006, 04:19 PM
Hi all.I made another run today,weather conditions have changed enough to see if they somewhat affect performance.I had an excellent start in D with traction "off".The temp is finally warm enough for my goodyears to stick.Results below.
1/4..........13.41/105.5
1000'....... 11.19
1/8.......... 8.69/82.7
330'..........5.65
60'............ 1.95
0-60......... 4.97
temp.........52F
dew point... 19F
barometer.. 30.18
altitude...... 400'
humidity.... 24%
Zman,please work your magic with the corrections and let me know.
1/4..........13.41/105.5
1000'....... 11.19
1/8.......... 8.69/82.7
330'..........5.65
60'............ 1.95
0-60......... 4.97
temp.........52F
dew point... 19F
barometer.. 30.18
altitude...... 400'
humidity.... 24%
Zman,please work your magic with the corrections and let me know.
Your results:
Air Temp 52 (?F)
Altimeter Setting 30.18 (in)
Dew Point 19 (?F)
Altitude 400 (Feet)
Density Altitude -211.8 (feet)
Here is your adjustment to sea level.
Your results:
Density Altitude -211.8 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.41 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 105.5 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.44
Corrected MPH 105.26
Here are your excellent results adjusted to 500'. The same thing almost always happens to me. I start out below 13.5 and over 104.999 after the density altitude adjustment top sea level, then, the adjustment to 500' almost always take me back over 13.499 and to less than 105--even when using 42% adjustment.
Your results:
E.T. 13.44 (sec)
Trap Speed 105.26 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.511 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 104.697 (mph)
My best estimate of your 0 to 60 is: 4.97 - (13.41 - 13.511) = 5.071
Using 42% adjustment for weather, you get:
For your density altitude: 400 + -.42(400 - (-211.8)) = 143.044
Now, your adjustment to sea level gives:
Your results:
Density Altitude 143.04 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.41 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 105.5 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.39
Corrected MPH 105.662
Here is your adjustment to 500':
Great pass. Way to go.
Your results:
E.T. 13.39 (sec)
Trap Speed 105.662 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.461 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 105.097 (mph)
Here, my best estimate of your 0 - 60 is: 4.97 - (13.41 - 13.461) = 5.021
I assume that I should post your 42% results on the other thread. Let me know for sure. The 42% method is 99 and 44/100 % pure--just like Ivory Snow.
I am very glad that you finally got a good chance to show what you and your car can do. 550i's watch out for the g-man.
EDIT: Too late. I have already posted your new results under the 42% method on the other thread. I did it while I had the time this evening. I also converted your earlier posted data to the 42% method. I can change both to the 100% method if you prefer. Just let me know. Also, I have not yet "announced" the posting of your latest on the other thread. So, no one will even notice the change to 100% if that is your preference. Just let me know which you prefer.
#373
Senior Members
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: southestern pa
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 550I,manufactured 2-27-08,delivered 4-2-08.Platinum bronze,natural brown interior,light poplar trim,cold weather package,heated rear seats,HD radio
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Znod' post='260969' date='Mar 27 2006, 07:21 PM
Good deal g-man. I am glad your weather is shaping up. Mine is starting to get hot, but I will continue to do passes to see what happens when it does so. Your pass was an excellent one. Here is your density altitude.
Your results:
Air Temp 52 (?F)
Altimeter Setting 30.18 (in)
Dew Point 19 (?F)
Altitude 400 (Feet)
Density Altitude -211.8 (feet)
Here is your adjustment to sea level.
Your results:
Density Altitude -211.8 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.41 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 105.5 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.44
Corrected MPH 105.26
Here are your excellent results adjusted to 500'. The same thing almost always happens to me. I start out below 13.5 and over 104.999 after the density altitude adjustment top sea level, then, the adjustment to 500' almost always take me back over 13.499 and to less than 105--even when using 42% adjustment.
Your results:
E.T. 13.44 (sec)
Trap Speed 105.26 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.511 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 104.697 (mph)
My best estimate of your 0 to 60 is: 4.97 - (13.41 - 13.511) = 5.071
Using 42% adjustment for weather, you get:
For your density altitude: 400 + -.42(400 - (-211.8)) = 143.044
Now, your adjustment to sea level gives:
Your results:
Density Altitude 143.04 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.41 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 105.5 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.39
Corrected MPH 105.662
Here is your adjustment to 500':
Great pass. Way to go.
Your results:
E.T. 13.39 (sec)
Trap Speed 105.662 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.461 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 105.097 (mph)
Here, my best estimate of your 0 - 60 is: 4.97 - (13.41 - 13.461) = 5.021
I assume that I should post your 42% results on the other thread. Let me know for sure. The 42% method is 99 and 44/100 % pure--just like Ivory Snow.
I am very glad that you finally got a good chance to show what you and your car can do. 550i's watch out for the g-man.
EDIT: Too late. I have already posted your new results under the 42% method on the other thread. I did it while I had the time this evening. I also converted your earlier posted data to the 42% method. I can change both to the 100% method if you prefer. Just let me know. Also, I have not yet "announced" the posting of your latest on the other thread. So, no one will even notice the change to 100% if that is your preference. Just let me know which you prefer.
Your results:
Air Temp 52 (?F)
Altimeter Setting 30.18 (in)
Dew Point 19 (?F)
Altitude 400 (Feet)
Density Altitude -211.8 (feet)
Here is your adjustment to sea level.
Your results:
Density Altitude -211.8 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.41 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 105.5 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.44
Corrected MPH 105.26
Here are your excellent results adjusted to 500'. The same thing almost always happens to me. I start out below 13.5 and over 104.999 after the density altitude adjustment top sea level, then, the adjustment to 500' almost always take me back over 13.499 and to less than 105--even when using 42% adjustment.
Your results:
E.T. 13.44 (sec)
Trap Speed 105.26 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.511 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 104.697 (mph)
My best estimate of your 0 to 60 is: 4.97 - (13.41 - 13.511) = 5.071
Using 42% adjustment for weather, you get:
For your density altitude: 400 + -.42(400 - (-211.8)) = 143.044
Now, your adjustment to sea level gives:
Your results:
Density Altitude 143.04 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.41 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 105.5 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.39
Corrected MPH 105.662
Here is your adjustment to 500':
Great pass. Way to go.
Your results:
E.T. 13.39 (sec)
Trap Speed 105.662 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.461 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 105.097 (mph)
Here, my best estimate of your 0 - 60 is: 4.97 - (13.41 - 13.461) = 5.021
I assume that I should post your 42% results on the other thread. Let me know for sure. The 42% method is 99 and 44/100 % pure--just like Ivory Snow.
I am very glad that you finally got a good chance to show what you and your car can do. 550i's watch out for the g-man.
EDIT: Too late. I have already posted your new results under the 42% method on the other thread. I did it while I had the time this evening. I also converted your earlier posted data to the 42% method. I can change both to the 100% method if you prefer. Just let me know. Also, I have not yet "announced" the posting of your latest on the other thread. So, no one will even notice the change to 100% if that is your preference. Just let me know which you prefer.
I need to do more testing ,but todays run gives me the impression that my original thought that the NHRA factors are overcorrecting for our cars is valid.I think my best unadjusted run(13.26) when corrected 100% was 13.56.This run was done in very cold weather(26F) with a dew point of 5F.Today with the weather near "standard" conditions gave me my best to date numbers.
#374
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by grogan545' post='260994' date='Mar 27 2006, 09:01 PM
Thank you again Zman.You are a magician with numbers!!.Use the 42% correction numbers.I think they are the most accurate.
I need to do more testing ,but todays run gives me the impression that my original thought that the NHRA factors are overcorrecting for our cars is valid.I think my best unadjusted run(13.26) when corrected 100% was 13.56.This run was done in very cold weather(26F) with a dew point of 5F.Today with the weather near "standard" conditions gave me my best to date numbers.
I need to do more testing ,but todays run gives me the impression that my original thought that the NHRA factors are overcorrecting for our cars is valid.I think my best unadjusted run(13.26) when corrected 100% was 13.56.This run was done in very cold weather(26F) with a dew point of 5F.Today with the weather near "standard" conditions gave me my best to date numbers.
#375
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by grogan545' post='260994' date='Mar 27 2006, 09:01 PM
Thank you again Zman.You are a magician with numbers!!.Use the 42% correction numbers.I think they are the most accurate.
I need to do more testing ,but todays run gives me the impression that my original thought that the NHRA factors are overcorrecting for our cars is valid.I think my best unadjusted run(13.26) when corrected 100% was 13.56.This run was done in very cold weather(26F) with a dew point of 5F.Today with the weather near "standard" conditions gave me my best to date numbers.
I need to do more testing ,but todays run gives me the impression that my original thought that the NHRA factors are overcorrecting for our cars is valid.I think my best unadjusted run(13.26) when corrected 100% was 13.56.This run was done in very cold weather(26F) with a dew point of 5F.Today with the weather near "standard" conditions gave me my best to date numbers.
I'll be pretty scarce for the next several days. I will be attending a conference that spans the better part of 3 days. Regardless, I will be able to check in with some frequency. I made one pass today. It looked so bad that I went home after the pass. I am not used to 70 degrees. The adjustment factors made a great deal of difference. I did notice a larger than expected drop in HP. So, I am going to do a more thorough HP/Tq change analysis. I want to try to figure out if 42% adjustment really is the best we can do. It is possible, that varying percents should be used depending on the circumstances. We'll see. Here are my results from this morning.
Unadjusted 1/4--13.869 @102.51
100% weather and 500' altitude adjusted--13.37 @ 106.396 (may look too good even given DA of 3384.9)
42% weather and 500' altitude adjusted--13.558 @ 104.918 (may look too bad given 42.2% DA of 2349.65)
On the other hand, either could be just right depending on how my HP/Tq change given differing weather conditions.
#376
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Znod' post='259843' date='Mar 25 2006, 10:51 AM
Good work g-man. I wasn't aware of the small problem with the NHRA altitude adjustment table, but, as you say, the error looks like it would not be at all significant. I'll look more closely at the table. And, I agree about your nonlinearity conclusion. Everything that I have been able to infer about the all the tables implies that they are based on a linearity assumption.
On the weather correction issue, I adjusted each of my 38 passes so that each allows for only 25% of the weather correction and calculated the resulting averages. The averages are given below. Ignoring a rounding error, the procedure I used yields exactly the same results that are produced when adjusting my averages for the 38 passes using a 25% weather correction applied to my average density altitude of 1360?. For example, a 25% weather correction based on the 1360? value yields an adjusted density altitude of 1540 = -.25(1600 ? 1360) + 1600. Using 1540, adjusting 13.727* (see * below) to sea level gives 13.493. Then, adjusting this value to 500? yields 13.564 = approximately 13.562** (see ** below).
...........................1...................... .......2.......................................... ....3.........................................4
..................Unadjusted.....Weather/Altitude to 500'.....25% Weather/Altitude to 500'....Altitude to 500'
1/4 Time.........13.727*..................13.592...... ...............................13.562**........... .................13.556
1/4 Speed.....102.878..................104.046........ ............................104.351............... ..............104.134
Taking the altitude effect of .171 (13.727 - 13.556) out of 2 and 3 gives:
2 = 13.592 + .171 = 13.763 adjusted to 1600' given standard conditions or
3 = 13.562 + .171 = 13.733 adjusted to 1600' given standard conditions
Now, the question is whether the weather conditions, on average, were better than standard so that:
a. they imply a .036 increase ? time at 1600' assuming standard conditions (i.e., 13.763 - 13.727) or
b. they imply a .006 increase in ? time at 1600' assuming standard conditions (i.e., 13.733 - 13.727)?
The more reasonable answer depends on how my car?s HP is affected by weather over the 1360? (my average density altitude) to 1600? (my actual altitude) range of altitudes. If the answer is .036, then, crudely, my car?s performance should be handicapped, in effect, by the absence .036(HP) = .036(325 HP) = 11.70 HP [(= RWHP of 9.36 = .8(11.70 HP)]. And, if the more reasonable answer is .006, then, crudely, my car?s performance should be handicapped, in effect, by the absence of .006(HP) = .006(325 HP) = 1.95 HP [(= RWHP of 1.56 = .8(1.95 HP)].
The values below show my car?s Pro RR-measured average RWHP for each of the given density altitudes (DA). The range of these values approximates the range mentioned .above.
..............Average
...DA........RWHP
1695.0.....243.3
1554.4.....239.3
1516.0.....244.8
1509.3.....240.0
1415.4.....248.0
1239.0.....244.1
The average of the RWHP values associated with the density altitudes averaging close to 1360? [(1415.4 + 1239.0) / 2 = 1327.2?] is 246.05, while the average of the RWHP values associated with the density altitudes averaging close to 1600? [(1695 + 1554.4 + 1516.0 + 1509.3) / 4 = 1568.7] is 241.85. The difference between the two averages is 4.2?which is closer to 1.56 than to 9.36 (i.e., 4.2 ? 1.56 = 2.64, while 9.36 ? 4.2 = 5.16).
The above observations suggest that the more reasonable answer to the question raised above is .006. In turn, this conclusion suggests that adjusting for 25% of a density altitude adjustment is more reasonable than adjusting for 100% of the adjustment.
From an overall perspective, what seems to be implied, for my car, is finding the percentage of the 1360? density-altitude adjustment that yields a RWHP decrease of 4.2 RWHP. Trial and error reveals that 42% yields a decrease of 4.28 RWHP?which actually is as close as one can get using the tables. The density altitude yielding this decrease is 1499.2 = -.42(1600 -1360) + 1600.
I believe that the above procedure is appropriate for use on my car. But, I am uncertain about whether it applies to the cars of others running especially at greatly differening altitudes. On the other hand, I would bet that using my procedure on other cars, etc., at least would improve accuracy. Also, I would bet that the use of my procedure could not hurt accuracy appreciably since the average results produced should differ very little from what 100% adjustment yields--i.e., my 40%-adjustment values compared to my 100%-adjustment values for the 1/4 are as follows.
........................100%........42%
1/4 Time..........13.592.....13.572 (difference .02)
1/4 Speed......104.046....104.077 (difference .31)
Thus, the advantage of my procedure does not subsist in it effects of averages, but rather in its effects on the identification of superior passes. Using the 25% adjustment caused some rearrangement, and minor changes in times/speeds, for my superior passes. I am not yet sure if the 40% adjustment will have the same effects.
Ultra conservatism is implied by using 100% adjustment. However, as shown above, the effect of doing so is not likely to be significant.
On the weather correction issue, I adjusted each of my 38 passes so that each allows for only 25% of the weather correction and calculated the resulting averages. The averages are given below. Ignoring a rounding error, the procedure I used yields exactly the same results that are produced when adjusting my averages for the 38 passes using a 25% weather correction applied to my average density altitude of 1360?. For example, a 25% weather correction based on the 1360? value yields an adjusted density altitude of 1540 = -.25(1600 ? 1360) + 1600. Using 1540, adjusting 13.727* (see * below) to sea level gives 13.493. Then, adjusting this value to 500? yields 13.564 = approximately 13.562** (see ** below).
...........................1...................... .......2.......................................... ....3.........................................4
..................Unadjusted.....Weather/Altitude to 500'.....25% Weather/Altitude to 500'....Altitude to 500'
1/4 Time.........13.727*..................13.592...... ...............................13.562**........... .................13.556
1/4 Speed.....102.878..................104.046........ ............................104.351............... ..............104.134
Taking the altitude effect of .171 (13.727 - 13.556) out of 2 and 3 gives:
2 = 13.592 + .171 = 13.763 adjusted to 1600' given standard conditions or
3 = 13.562 + .171 = 13.733 adjusted to 1600' given standard conditions
Now, the question is whether the weather conditions, on average, were better than standard so that:
a. they imply a .036 increase ? time at 1600' assuming standard conditions (i.e., 13.763 - 13.727) or
b. they imply a .006 increase in ? time at 1600' assuming standard conditions (i.e., 13.733 - 13.727)?
The more reasonable answer depends on how my car?s HP is affected by weather over the 1360? (my average density altitude) to 1600? (my actual altitude) range of altitudes. If the answer is .036, then, crudely, my car?s performance should be handicapped, in effect, by the absence .036(HP) = .036(325 HP) = 11.70 HP [(= RWHP of 9.36 = .8(11.70 HP)]. And, if the more reasonable answer is .006, then, crudely, my car?s performance should be handicapped, in effect, by the absence of .006(HP) = .006(325 HP) = 1.95 HP [(= RWHP of 1.56 = .8(1.95 HP)].
The values below show my car?s Pro RR-measured average RWHP for each of the given density altitudes (DA). The range of these values approximates the range mentioned .above.
..............Average
...DA........RWHP
1695.0.....243.3
1554.4.....239.3
1516.0.....244.8
1509.3.....240.0
1415.4.....248.0
1239.0.....244.1
The average of the RWHP values associated with the density altitudes averaging close to 1360? [(1415.4 + 1239.0) / 2 = 1327.2?] is 246.05, while the average of the RWHP values associated with the density altitudes averaging close to 1600? [(1695 + 1554.4 + 1516.0 + 1509.3) / 4 = 1568.7] is 241.85. The difference between the two averages is 4.2?which is closer to 1.56 than to 9.36 (i.e., 4.2 ? 1.56 = 2.64, while 9.36 ? 4.2 = 5.16).
The above observations suggest that the more reasonable answer to the question raised above is .006. In turn, this conclusion suggests that adjusting for 25% of a density altitude adjustment is more reasonable than adjusting for 100% of the adjustment.
From an overall perspective, what seems to be implied, for my car, is finding the percentage of the 1360? density-altitude adjustment that yields a RWHP decrease of 4.2 RWHP. Trial and error reveals that 42% yields a decrease of 4.28 RWHP?which actually is as close as one can get using the tables. The density altitude yielding this decrease is 1499.2 = -.42(1600 -1360) + 1600.
I believe that the above procedure is appropriate for use on my car. But, I am uncertain about whether it applies to the cars of others running especially at greatly differening altitudes. On the other hand, I would bet that using my procedure on other cars, etc., at least would improve accuracy. Also, I would bet that the use of my procedure could not hurt accuracy appreciably since the average results produced should differ very little from what 100% adjustment yields--i.e., my 40%-adjustment values compared to my 100%-adjustment values for the 1/4 are as follows.
........................100%........42%
1/4 Time..........13.592.....13.572 (difference .02)
1/4 Speed......104.046....104.077 (difference .31)
Thus, the advantage of my procedure does not subsist in it effects of averages, but rather in its effects on the identification of superior passes. Using the 25% adjustment caused some rearrangement, and minor changes in times/speeds, for my superior passes. I am not yet sure if the 40% adjustment will have the same effects.
Ultra conservatism is implied by using 100% adjustment. However, as shown above, the effect of doing so is not likely to be significant.
........................100%........25%
1/4 Time..........13.592.....13.566 (difference about .026)
1/4 Speed......104.046....104.143 (difference .097)
What do you think g-man? I know I am fiddling with the numbers, but I am trying to get things as right as I possible can.
#377
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Hi g-man:
I have adjusted all of your recent passes for 25% weather. What do you think about reporting these results--except for those the final (farkled) pass show below. I like them. I am going to make one more look see at my recent data to make sure that I have not made an error in concluding that 25% weather is more accurate than 42% weather--at least for my car.
Here are your results for your pass of 3/27/06 with 25% adjustment.
Using 25% adjustment for weather, you get:
For your density altitude: 400 + -.25(400 - (-211.8)) = 247.05
Your adjustment to sea level gives:
Your results:
Density Altitude 247.05 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.41 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 105.5 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.375
Corrected MPH 105.78
Here is your adjustment to 500':
Your results:
E.T. 13.375 (sec)
Trap Speed 105.78 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.446 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 105.214 (mph)
Here, my best estimate of your 0 - 60 is: 4.97 - (13.41 - 13.446) = 5.006
Here are the 25% data for your 3/15/06 pass:
Here are your basic data corrected to sea level.
Your results:
Density Altitude 152.25 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.35 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 104.65 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.329
Corrected MPH 104.821
Here they are corrected to 500'.
Your results:
E.T. 13.329 (sec)
Trap Speed 104.821 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.399 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 104.261 (mph)
Here, my best estimate of your 0 - 60 is: 4.90 - (13.35 - 13.399) = 4.945
Here are the 25% data for your 3/20/06 pass:
First Run to Sea Level:
Your results:
Density Altitude 33.85 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.39 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 105.5 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.385
Corrected MPH 105.538
First Run to 500'
Your results:
E.T. 13.385 (sec)
Trap Speed 105.538 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.456 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 104.974 (mph)
Second Run to Sea Level:
Your results:
Density Altitude 33.85 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.62 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 105.7 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.615
Corrected MPH 105.738
Second Run to 500'
Your results:
E.T. 13.615 (sec)
Trap Speed 105.738 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.687 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 105.173 (mph)
Zero to 60:
First Run: 5 - (13.39 - 13.456) = 5.066
Second Run: 5.25 - (13.62 - 13.687) = 5.317
I have adjusted all of your recent passes for 25% weather. What do you think about reporting these results--except for those the final (farkled) pass show below. I like them. I am going to make one more look see at my recent data to make sure that I have not made an error in concluding that 25% weather is more accurate than 42% weather--at least for my car.
Here are your results for your pass of 3/27/06 with 25% adjustment.
Using 25% adjustment for weather, you get:
For your density altitude: 400 + -.25(400 - (-211.8)) = 247.05
Your adjustment to sea level gives:
Your results:
Density Altitude 247.05 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.41 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 105.5 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.375
Corrected MPH 105.78
Here is your adjustment to 500':
Your results:
E.T. 13.375 (sec)
Trap Speed 105.78 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.446 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 105.214 (mph)
Here, my best estimate of your 0 - 60 is: 4.97 - (13.41 - 13.446) = 5.006
Here are the 25% data for your 3/15/06 pass:
Here are your basic data corrected to sea level.
Your results:
Density Altitude 152.25 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.35 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 104.65 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.329
Corrected MPH 104.821
Here they are corrected to 500'.
Your results:
E.T. 13.329 (sec)
Trap Speed 104.821 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.399 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 104.261 (mph)
Here, my best estimate of your 0 - 60 is: 4.90 - (13.35 - 13.399) = 4.945
Here are the 25% data for your 3/20/06 pass:
First Run to Sea Level:
Your results:
Density Altitude 33.85 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.39 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 105.5 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.385
Corrected MPH 105.538
First Run to 500'
Your results:
E.T. 13.385 (sec)
Trap Speed 105.538 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.456 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 104.974 (mph)
Second Run to Sea Level:
Your results:
Density Altitude 33.85 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.62 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 105.7 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.615
Corrected MPH 105.738
Second Run to 500'
Your results:
E.T. 13.615 (sec)
Trap Speed 105.738 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.687 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 105.173 (mph)
Zero to 60:
First Run: 5 - (13.39 - 13.456) = 5.066
Second Run: 5.25 - (13.62 - 13.687) = 5.317
#378
Contributors
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: FLA - East Coast, USA
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: (USA) 645Ci, Silver Gray, Chateau, Cold Weather PKG, Premium Sound PKG, Sport PKG, Step, NAV [Std Equip in 645], HUD, Satellite (SIRIUS) Radio, Aux Input, Bluetooth enabled using iPhone 3GS w/ adapter cradle - Build date - 01/05, Baby delivered 2/24/05
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I'm sorry I do not have time to do any of my own analysis on these first runs, but I have three upcoming launches I am working requirements on and just cannot afford the time right now. Hence I could not even put these into tabular form - just a snap shot.
I believe my weight to be off. Vehicle is only 22 pounds lighter than 545 per unladen weight in BMW specs so I believe I need to increase weight.
Also think pitch is too high. I believe this suspension could easily be a 1.8 or 1.9.
After some experimentation I determined my best runs were DSC OFF and in Steptronic (Manual Mode) starting in M1 and letting it auto shift at Redline. ANy attempts with D or DS were far slower
Wx
Temp = 67 degrees
DewPt = 49 degrees
Wind Sp = 1 MPH
Bar = 30.32" or 1026.7mb
Height = 20 feet
Hate to hit and run but gotta go.
I believe my weight to be off. Vehicle is only 22 pounds lighter than 545 per unladen weight in BMW specs so I believe I need to increase weight.
Also think pitch is too high. I believe this suspension could easily be a 1.8 or 1.9.
After some experimentation I determined my best runs were DSC OFF and in Steptronic (Manual Mode) starting in M1 and letting it auto shift at Redline. ANy attempts with D or DS were far slower
Wx
Temp = 67 degrees
DewPt = 49 degrees
Wind Sp = 1 MPH
Bar = 30.32" or 1026.7mb
Height = 20 feet
Hate to hit and run but gotta go.
#379
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by cobradav' post='261963' date='Mar 29 2006, 12:45 PM
I'm sorry I do not have time to do any of my own analysis on these first runs, but I have three upcoming launches I am working requirements on and just cannot afford the time right now. Hence I could not even put these into tabular form - just a snap shot.
I believe my weight to be off. Vehicle is only 22 pounds lighter than 545 per unladen weight in BMW specs so I believe I need to increase weight.
Also think pitch is too high. I believe this suspension could easily be a 1.8 or 1.9.
After some experimentation I determined my best runs were DSC OFF and in Steptronic (Manual Mode) starting in M1 and letting it auto shift at Redline. ANy attempts with D or DS were far slower
Wx
Temp = 67 degrees
DewPt = 49 degrees
Wind Sp = 1 MPH
Bar = 30.32" or 1026.7mb
Height = 20 feet
Hate to hit and run but gotta go.
I believe my weight to be off. Vehicle is only 22 pounds lighter than 545 per unladen weight in BMW specs so I believe I need to increase weight.
Also think pitch is too high. I believe this suspension could easily be a 1.8 or 1.9.
After some experimentation I determined my best runs were DSC OFF and in Steptronic (Manual Mode) starting in M1 and letting it auto shift at Redline. ANy attempts with D or DS were far slower
Wx
Temp = 67 degrees
DewPt = 49 degrees
Wind Sp = 1 MPH
Bar = 30.32" or 1026.7mb
Height = 20 feet
Hate to hit and run but gotta go.
#380
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Here comes your info. I will repost later using 100% Weather/500' Altitude. I am hurrying/scurrying too. Your unadjusted 0 -60's look good, but then you car appears to be slowing more than I would have expected. Get back to you on this issue later.
Actual Density Altitude:
Your results:
Air Temp 67 (?F)
Altimeter Setting 30.32 (in)
Dew Point 49 (?F)
Altitude 20 (Feet)
Density Altitude 251.4 (feet)
First Pass--25% Weather/Sea Level
Your results:
Density Altitude 77.85 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.810 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 101.74 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.799
Corrected MPH 101.825
First Pass--25% Weather/500' Altitude
Your results:
E.T. 13.799 (sec)
Trap Speed 101.825 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.872 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 101.281 (mph)
Second Pass--25% Weather/Sea Level
Your results:
Density Altitude 77.85 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.427 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 114.62 (mph).............(114.62? You might want to check what your meter reading, etc.)
Corrected ET 13.416
Corrected MPH 114.716
Second Pass--25% Weather/500' Altitude
Your results:
E.T. 13.416 (sec)
Trap Speed 114.716 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.487 (sec).................Super result. All things considered, check your meter reading, etc.?
Corrected Trap Speed 114.103 (mph)
Third Pass--25% Weather/Sea Level
Your results:
Density Altitude 77.85 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.817 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 101.65 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.806
Corrected MPH 101.735
Third Pass--25% Weather/500' Altitude
Your results:
E.T. 13.806 (sec)
Trap Speed 101.735 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.879 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 101.191 (mph)
Fourth Pass--25% Weather/Sea Level
Your results:
Density Altitude 77.85 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.857 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 101.42 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.846
Corrected MPH 101.505
Fourth Pass--25% Weather/500' Altitude
Your results:
E.T. 13.846 (sec)
Trap Speed 101.505 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.919 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 100.962 (mph)
Actual Density Altitude:
Your results:
Air Temp 67 (?F)
Altimeter Setting 30.32 (in)
Dew Point 49 (?F)
Altitude 20 (Feet)
Density Altitude 251.4 (feet)
First Pass--25% Weather/Sea Level
Your results:
Density Altitude 77.85 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.810 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 101.74 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.799
Corrected MPH 101.825
First Pass--25% Weather/500' Altitude
Your results:
E.T. 13.799 (sec)
Trap Speed 101.825 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.872 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 101.281 (mph)
Second Pass--25% Weather/Sea Level
Your results:
Density Altitude 77.85 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.427 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 114.62 (mph).............(114.62? You might want to check what your meter reading, etc.)
Corrected ET 13.416
Corrected MPH 114.716
Second Pass--25% Weather/500' Altitude
Your results:
E.T. 13.416 (sec)
Trap Speed 114.716 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.487 (sec).................Super result. All things considered, check your meter reading, etc.?
Corrected Trap Speed 114.103 (mph)
Third Pass--25% Weather/Sea Level
Your results:
Density Altitude 77.85 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.817 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 101.65 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.806
Corrected MPH 101.735
Third Pass--25% Weather/500' Altitude
Your results:
E.T. 13.806 (sec)
Trap Speed 101.735 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.879 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 101.191 (mph)
Fourth Pass--25% Weather/Sea Level
Your results:
Density Altitude 77.85 (feet)
Uncorrected ET 13.857 (sec)
Uncorrected MPH 101.42 (mph)
Corrected ET 13.846
Corrected MPH 101.505
Fourth Pass--25% Weather/500' Altitude
Your results:
E.T. 13.846 (sec)
Trap Speed 101.505 (mph)
Measured DA 0 (feet)
Corrected to 500(feet) DA
Corrected ET 13.919 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 100.962 (mph)