The Official G-Meter Testing Thread
04-03-2006, 06:20 AM
#411
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
Originally Posted by grogan545' post='263838' date='Apr 2 2006, 09:12 PM
Thanks again Zman for the correction info.So far the weather doesn't appear to affect my performance unless it becomes extreme.Like -2500 altitude or + 2500 altitude.It seems that I can get consistant unadjusted times between13.36 to 13.45 for the 1/4 and 0-60 times between 4.90 & 5.00 under a variety of weather conditions.As long as it doesn't get very cold and dry,or hot and humid my times are relatively unaffected.
The more important correlations are highlighted--blue for positive correlations and orange for negative ones. The values in blue emphasise the positive HP effects of test (i.e., the passage of time) on my cars HP, while the orange ones emphasize the negative effects of density altitude, and its main component (temp), on my car's HP. Examination of the correlations implies that these effects are occurring simultaneously, as time passes, because DA and temp also are positively correlated with test (i.e., the passage of time). Because of the negative effects, it appears that I need to do some weather correction. I continue to try to figure out the best way to do so.
.................................................. ....................Unadj.......Unadj.........Adj. ..........Adj
...........................DA........RWHP......RWT Q......Speed........Time.......Speed........Time.. ......Temp
Test................0.4430....0.3258....-0.1926.....0.5281.....-0.0664.....0.6898.....-0.3508......0.3363
DA................................-0.3538....-0.3954.....-0.1737.....0.5059.....0.1894......0.0239......0.8510
RWHP.............................................0 .3600.....0.8041.....-0.7756.....0.6666.....-0.6791.....-0.2420
RWTQ.............................................. ...............0.3236.....-0.5342.....0.1894.....-0.3455....-0.2875
Unadj Speed............................................. .....................-0.7067.....0.9207.....-0.7002.....-0.0522
Unadj Time.............................................. .......................................-0.5226......0.8178......0.2813
Adj Speed............................................. .................................................. ........-0.7205......0.2387
Adj Time.............................................. .................................................. ..........................-0.1348
04-05-2006, 01:04 PM
#412
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
Originally Posted by Znod' post='263985' date='Apr 3 2006, 09:20 AM
You are very welcome g-man. Your car is behaving somewhat like mine, but I have more distance between the ET extremes even when weather conditions don't vary by much. That is the issue that I am wrestlling with. I continue to analyze correlations. Below are my latest correlation data.
The more important correlations are highlighted--blue for positive correlations and orange for negative ones. The values in blue emphasise the positive HP effects of test (i.e., the passage of time) on my cars HP, while the orange ones emphasize the negative effects of density altitude, and its main component (temp), on my car's HP. Examination of the correlations implies that these effects are occurring simultaneously, as time passes, because DA and temp also are positively correlated with test (i.e., the passage of time). Because of the negative effects, it appears that I need to do some weather correction. I continue to try to figure out the best way to do so.
.................................................. ....................Unadj.......Unadj.........Adj. ..........Adj
...........................DA........RWHP......RWT Q......Speed........Time.......Speed........Time.. ......Temp
Test................0.4430....0.3258....-0.1926.....0.5281.....-0.0664.....0.6898.....-0.3508......0.3363
DA................................-0.3538....-0.3954.....-0.1737.....0.5059.....0.1894......0.0239......0.8510
RWHP.............................................0 .3600.....0.8041.....-0.7756.....0.6666.....-0.6791.....-0.2420
RWTQ.............................................. ...............0.3236.....-0.5342.....0.1894.....-0.3455....-0.2875
Unadj Speed............................................. .....................-0.7067.....0.9207.....-0.7002.....-0.0522
Unadj Time.............................................. .......................................-0.5226......0.8178......0.2813
Adj Speed............................................. .................................................. ........-0.7205......0.2387
Adj Time.............................................. .................................................. ..........................-0.1348
The more important correlations are highlighted--blue for positive correlations and orange for negative ones. The values in blue emphasise the positive HP effects of test (i.e., the passage of time) on my cars HP, while the orange ones emphasize the negative effects of density altitude, and its main component (temp), on my car's HP. Examination of the correlations implies that these effects are occurring simultaneously, as time passes, because DA and temp also are positively correlated with test (i.e., the passage of time). Because of the negative effects, it appears that I need to do some weather correction. I continue to try to figure out the best way to do so.
.................................................. ....................Unadj.......Unadj.........Adj. ..........Adj
...........................DA........RWHP......RWT Q......Speed........Time.......Speed........Time.. ......Temp
Test................0.4430....0.3258....-0.1926.....0.5281.....-0.0664.....0.6898.....-0.3508......0.3363
DA................................-0.3538....-0.3954.....-0.1737.....0.5059.....0.1894......0.0239......0.8510
RWHP.............................................0 .3600.....0.8041.....-0.7756.....0.6666.....-0.6791.....-0.2420
RWTQ.............................................. ...............0.3236.....-0.5342.....0.1894.....-0.3455....-0.2875
Unadj Speed............................................. .....................-0.7067.....0.9207.....-0.7002.....-0.0522
Unadj Time.............................................. .......................................-0.5226......0.8178......0.2813
Adj Speed............................................. .................................................. ........-0.7205......0.2387
Adj Time.............................................. .................................................. ..........................-0.1348
Continuing what's above, I think that I have come up with the definitive analysis for my car. The implication is that 100% weather correction is likely to be the way to go. But, regardless, the difference between 100% and 25% weather correction is very small. I have attached a big "table" to show my analysis. The keys to understanding are that the analysis abstracts from altitutde correction and focuses exclusively on weather correction. In this regard, note that:
Time Diff = (undadjusted 1/4 time - 100% weather/altitude adjusted 1/4 time) - (undadjusted 1/4 time - altitude adjusted 1/4 time) = (unadjusted 1/4 time - 100% weather adjusted 1/4 time) and
% Time Diff = Time Diff / unadjusted 1/4 time.
Using this approach one can make an educated quess at the all-loss RWHP that 100% weather correction compensates for on my car. Given that my RWHP at is about 240 at max when my density altitude equals my actual altitude of about 1600, then the top value given for % Time Diff implies that my maximum RWHP advantage being allowed for by 100% weather adjustment is about 2.31 (.00963 X 240) when weather is better than standard. On the other hand, the bottom % Time Diff value implies that the maximum RWHP disadvantage being allowed for by 100% weather adjustment is about 5.61 (0.02336 X 240) when weather is worse than standard. Note that this bottom value is pretty extreme. The next to bottom value implies that only a RWHP disadvantage of 1.74 (.00725 X 240) is being allowed for when weather is worse than standard. In this regard, it would not surprise me if all of these values are appropriate even though our cars have engine management systems that are supposed to compensate when weather fluctuates. If so, then 100% weather adjustment looks AOK. Any thoughts anyone?
My argument seems especially sound for the weather conditions I have experienced. However, it may not apply when the weather moves towards and eventually tops 100+ degrees, etc. Also, note that 100% adjustment, over the conditions I have experienced, seems reasonable given the similarities in the ranges and averages for RWHP given for both the better than and worse than standard weather conditions shown in the table.
Here are some important correlations related to, and also shown in, the table.
...............................Density
........Test............Altitude (DA).............RWHP
0.451860782....................................... ......................DA
0.469241926.....0.995360834....................... ............Time Diff
0.468026870.....0.995658598....................... ............% Time Diff
0.297748904....-0.351822434...................................RWHP
.................................................. ..0.774151741.........Unadj Time
.................................................. .-0.795358951.........Unad Speed
04-06-2006, 09:54 AM
#413
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
Originally Posted by Znod' post='265154' date='Apr 5 2006, 04:04 PM
The "table" posted below is a tad small. I continue to experiment with ways to make it larger. Doing so is tricky.
Continuing what's above, I think that I have come up with the definitive analysis for my car. The implication is that 100% weather correction is likely to be the way to go. But, regardless, the difference between 100% and 25% weather correction is very small. I have attached a big "table" to show my analysis. The keys to understanding are that the analysis abstracts from altitutde correction and focuses exclusively on weather correction. In this regard, note that:
Time Diff = (undadjusted 1/4 time - 100% weather/altitude adjusted 1/4 time) - (undadjusted 1/4 time - altitude adjusted 1/4 time) = (unadjusted 1/4 time - 100% weather adjusted 1/4 time) and
% Time Diff = Time Diff / unadjusted 1/4 time.
Using this approach one can make an educated quess at the all-loss RWHP that 100% weather correction compensates for on my car. Given that my RWHP at is about 240 at max when my density altitude equals my actual altitude of about 1600, then the top value given for % Time Diff implies that my maximum RWHP advantage being allowed for by 100% weather adjustment is about 2.31 (.00963 X 240) when weather is better than standard. On the other hand, the bottom % Time Diff value implies that the maximum RWHP disadvantage being allowed for by 100% weather adjustment is about 5.61 (0.02336 X 240) when weather is worse than standard. Note that this bottom value is pretty extreme. The next to bottom value implies that only a RWHP disadvantage of 1.74 (.00725 X 240) is being allowed for when weather is worse than standard. In this regard, it would not surprise me if all of these values are appropriate even though our cars have engine management systems that are supposed to compensate when weather fluctuates. If so, then 100% weather adjustment looks AOK. Any thoughts anyone?
My argument seems especially sound for the weather conditions I have experienced. However, it may not apply when the weather moves towards and eventually tops 100+ degrees, etc. Also, note that 100% adjustment, over the conditions I have experienced, seems reasonable given the similarities in the ranges and averages for RWHP given for both the better than and worse than standard weather conditions shown in the table.
Here are some important correlations related to, and also shown in, the table.
...............................Density
........Test............Altitude (DA).............RWHP
0.451860782....................................... ......................DA
0.469241926.....0.995360834....................... ............Time Diff
0.468026870.....0.995658598....................... ............% Time Diff
0.297748904....-0.351822434...................................RWHP
.................................................. ..0.774151741.........Unadj Time
.................................................. .-0.795358951.........Unad Speed
Continuing what's above, I think that I have come up with the definitive analysis for my car. The implication is that 100% weather correction is likely to be the way to go. But, regardless, the difference between 100% and 25% weather correction is very small. I have attached a big "table" to show my analysis. The keys to understanding are that the analysis abstracts from altitutde correction and focuses exclusively on weather correction. In this regard, note that:
Time Diff = (undadjusted 1/4 time - 100% weather/altitude adjusted 1/4 time) - (undadjusted 1/4 time - altitude adjusted 1/4 time) = (unadjusted 1/4 time - 100% weather adjusted 1/4 time) and
% Time Diff = Time Diff / unadjusted 1/4 time.
Using this approach one can make an educated quess at the all-loss RWHP that 100% weather correction compensates for on my car. Given that my RWHP at is about 240 at max when my density altitude equals my actual altitude of about 1600, then the top value given for % Time Diff implies that my maximum RWHP advantage being allowed for by 100% weather adjustment is about 2.31 (.00963 X 240) when weather is better than standard. On the other hand, the bottom % Time Diff value implies that the maximum RWHP disadvantage being allowed for by 100% weather adjustment is about 5.61 (0.02336 X 240) when weather is worse than standard. Note that this bottom value is pretty extreme. The next to bottom value implies that only a RWHP disadvantage of 1.74 (.00725 X 240) is being allowed for when weather is worse than standard. In this regard, it would not surprise me if all of these values are appropriate even though our cars have engine management systems that are supposed to compensate when weather fluctuates. If so, then 100% weather adjustment looks AOK. Any thoughts anyone?
My argument seems especially sound for the weather conditions I have experienced. However, it may not apply when the weather moves towards and eventually tops 100+ degrees, etc. Also, note that 100% adjustment, over the conditions I have experienced, seems reasonable given the similarities in the ranges and averages for RWHP given for both the better than and worse than standard weather conditions shown in the table.
Here are some important correlations related to, and also shown in, the table.
...............................Density
........Test............Altitude (DA).............RWHP
0.451860782....................................... ......................DA
0.469241926.....0.995360834....................... ............Time Diff
0.468026870.....0.995658598....................... ............% Time Diff
0.297748904....-0.351822434...................................RWHP
.................................................. ..0.774151741.........Unadj Time
.................................................. .-0.795358951.........Unad Speed
Weather conditions here today.
Temp......47F
Dew.......30F
Bar........29.93
Hum......53%
Alt.........400'
04-06-2006, 12:27 PM
#414
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
Originally Posted by grogan545' post='265554' date='Apr 6 2006, 12:54 PM
Hi Zman.If you left click on your chart it will enlarge and is easy to read.There is a lot of information in this post and I tend to agree with you on the 100% correction factor.What I have noticed most with my tests is that if the weather conditions are relatively close to standard(+1200 to -1200 equv. alt)my times depend more on other factors than weather.If I get a very good start,I can get better times with below standard weather than a mediocre start with above standard weather.I realize that all runs can be corrected but I think my times are affected more by my methods than by weather.I have tried a couple more runs today with decent weather conditions and found that I can no longer use my "controls on,D" starting method.I get a serious bogg due to traction controls.I will have to go back to "controls off,manual shift mode"I tried a run in D and had it shift to second early because I waited too long to go to full throttle.It is strange,but my car acts quite a bit differently from cold weather to warmer weather.I must go back to my previous test methods to get my best times.I don't know if the temp varies a lot in Phoenix.Do you notice a difference in your starts with large temp differences?
Weather conditions here today.
Temp......47F
Dew.......30F
Bar........29.93
Hum......53%
Alt.........400'
Weather conditions here today.
Temp......47F
Dew.......30F
Bar........29.93
Hum......53%
Alt.........400'
04-06-2006, 06:10 PM
#415
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
Hi g-man:
My work on your spreadsheet is almost done. I tracking your raw data, your 100% weather data, and your 25% weather data. Also, I have set up regression equations for your key values that cannot be obtained through SMOKEmUp. I am missing two of your 0 to 100's--a good datum to track. Can you fill in the blanks below--for the missing 0 to 100's?
These are your best unadjusted data since 20.01.00:
...........................3/15/06.....3/20/06...3/27/06.....4/2/06...Average
1/4 Mile Speed.....104.650.....105.500...105.500...106.300. ..105.488
1/8 Mile Speed.......82.400.......82.600.....82.700....83.7 00.....82.850
1/4 Mile Time.........13.350.......13.390.....13.410....13. 380.....13.383
0-100....................11.630.......12.090
1/8 Mile Time...........8.650.........8.720......8.690..... 8.750........8.703
0-60........................4.900.........5.000..... .4.970.....4.980........4.963
1,000 Feet..............11.200.......11.270.....11.190.. .11.260......11.230
1/8 Mile Time............8.650.........8.720......8.690.... .8.750.......8.703
330 Feet...................5.620.........5.700......5. 650.....5.770.......5.685
60 Feet.....................1.930.........1.950...... 1.950.....2.080.......1.978
My work on your spreadsheet is almost done. I tracking your raw data, your 100% weather data, and your 25% weather data. Also, I have set up regression equations for your key values that cannot be obtained through SMOKEmUp. I am missing two of your 0 to 100's--a good datum to track. Can you fill in the blanks below--for the missing 0 to 100's?
These are your best unadjusted data since 20.01.00:
...........................3/15/06.....3/20/06...3/27/06.....4/2/06...Average
1/4 Mile Speed.....104.650.....105.500...105.500...106.300. ..105.488
1/8 Mile Speed.......82.400.......82.600.....82.700....83.7 00.....82.850
1/4 Mile Time.........13.350.......13.390.....13.410....13. 380.....13.383
0-100....................11.630.......12.090
1/8 Mile Time...........8.650.........8.720......8.690..... 8.750........8.703
0-60........................4.900.........5.000..... .4.970.....4.980........4.963
1,000 Feet..............11.200.......11.270.....11.190.. .11.260......11.230
1/8 Mile Time............8.650.........8.720......8.690.... .8.750.......8.703
330 Feet...................5.620.........5.700......5. 650.....5.770.......5.685
60 Feet.....................1.930.........1.950...... 1.950.....2.080.......1.978
04-07-2006, 08:42 AM
#416
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
Originally Posted by Znod' post='265746' date='Apr 6 2006, 09:10 PM
Hi g-man:
My work on your spreadsheet is almost done. I tracking your raw data, your 100% weather data, and your 25% weather data. Also, I have set up regression equations for your key values that cannot be obtained through SMOKEmUp. I am missing two of your 0 to 100's--a good datum to track. Can you fill in the blanks below--for the missing 0 to 100's?
These are your best unadjusted data since 20.01.00:
...........................3/15/06.....3/20/06...3/27/06.....4/2/06...Average
1/4 Mile Speed.....104.650.....105.500...105.500...106.300. ..105.488
1/8 Mile Speed.......82.400.......82.600.....82.700....83.7 00.....82.850
1/4 Mile Time.........13.350.......13.390.....13.410....13. 380.....13.383
0-100....................11.630.......12.090
1/8 Mile Time...........8.650.........8.720......8.690..... 8.750........8.703
0-60........................4.900.........5.000..... .4.970.....4.980........4.963
1,000 Feet..............11.200.......11.270.....11.190.. .11.260......11.230
1/8 Mile Time............8.650.........8.720......8.690.... .8.750.......8.703
330 Feet...................5.620.........5.700......5. 650.....5.770.......5.685
60 Feet.....................1.930.........1.950...... 1.950.....2.080.......1.978
My work on your spreadsheet is almost done. I tracking your raw data, your 100% weather data, and your 25% weather data. Also, I have set up regression equations for your key values that cannot be obtained through SMOKEmUp. I am missing two of your 0 to 100's--a good datum to track. Can you fill in the blanks below--for the missing 0 to 100's?
These are your best unadjusted data since 20.01.00:
...........................3/15/06.....3/20/06...3/27/06.....4/2/06...Average
1/4 Mile Speed.....104.650.....105.500...105.500...106.300. ..105.488
1/8 Mile Speed.......82.400.......82.600.....82.700....83.7 00.....82.850
1/4 Mile Time.........13.350.......13.390.....13.410....13. 380.....13.383
0-100....................11.630.......12.090
1/8 Mile Time...........8.650.........8.720......8.690..... 8.750........8.703
0-60........................4.900.........5.000..... .4.970.....4.980........4.963
1,000 Feet..............11.200.......11.270.....11.190.. .11.260......11.230
1/8 Mile Time............8.650.........8.720......8.690.... .8.750.......8.703
330 Feet...................5.620.........5.700......5. 650.....5.770.......5.685
60 Feet.....................1.930.........1.950...... 1.950.....2.080.......1.978
The speeds at the 1/8 & 1/4 on my 4/2 run are higher than expected.This is the run that I had excessive wheelspin at the start.This evidently helped my speeds at the 1/8 & 1/4 marks.Based on drag strip experience this is a common occurance.I believe what happens is that with excessive wheelspin at the start,you travel less distance to reach a given speed thereby giving you more distance in the second 1/8 to accelerate to a higher speed.Thanks again for your great work in charting my runs.
04-07-2006, 11:21 AM
#417
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
Originally Posted by grogan545' post='265968' date='Apr 7 2006, 12:42 PM
Thanks Zman.The 0-100 times were 12.050 for 3/27 and 11.55 for 4/2.After looking at my runs in your chart form I noticed several anomalies.The speed at the 1/4 on the 3/15 run seems low.I probably let off slightly before the 1/4 mark.I suspect the speed would have been over 105 if I had complteted the full 1/4.
The speeds at the 1/8 & 1/4 on my 4/2 run are higher than expected.This is the run that I had excessive wheelspin at the start.This evidently helped my speeds at the 1/8 & 1/4 marks.Based on drag strip experience this is a common occurance.I believe what happens is that with excessive wheelspin at the start,you travel less distance to reach a given speed thereby giving you more distance in the second 1/8 to accelerate to a higher speed.Thanks again for your great work in charting my runs.
The speeds at the 1/8 & 1/4 on my 4/2 run are higher than expected.This is the run that I had excessive wheelspin at the start.This evidently helped my speeds at the 1/8 & 1/4 marks.Based on drag strip experience this is a common occurance.I believe what happens is that with excessive wheelspin at the start,you travel less distance to reach a given speed thereby giving you more distance in the second 1/8 to accelerate to a higher speed.Thanks again for your great work in charting my runs.
04-07-2006, 11:36 AM
#418
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
Originally Posted by cobradav' post='266042' date='Apr 7 2006, 02:21 PM
I agree with your assessment of why higher 1/4 trap speed (and lower 1/4 ET) compared to those times when you have better 60' and 0-60 mph times. Getting that wheel spin has done that to me and until I kept a run or two to evaluate I had been aborting those runs. So now I am trying to collect runs of similar type for best 0-60 times and separately 1/4 mile times/speed.
04-08-2006, 01:04 AM
#419
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
Originally Posted by grogan545' post='265968' date='Apr 7 2006, 11:42 AM
Thanks Zman.The 0-100 times were 12.050 for 3/27 and 11.55 for 4/2.After looking at my runs in your chart form I noticed several anomalies.The speed at the 1/4 on the 3/15 run seems low.I probably let off slightly before the 1/4 mark.I suspect the speed would have been over 105 if I had complteted the full 1/4.
The speeds at the 1/8 & 1/4 on my 4/2 run are higher than expected.This is the run that I had excessive wheelspin at the start.This evidently helped my speeds at the 1/8 & 1/4 marks.Based on drag strip experience this is a common occurance.I believe what happens is that with excessive wheelspin at the start,you travel less distance to reach a given speed thereby giving you more distance in the second 1/8 to accelerate to a higher speed.Thanks again for your great work in charting my runs.
The speeds at the 1/8 & 1/4 on my 4/2 run are higher than expected.This is the run that I had excessive wheelspin at the start.This evidently helped my speeds at the 1/8 & 1/4 marks.Based on drag strip experience this is a common occurance.I believe what happens is that with excessive wheelspin at the start,you travel less distance to reach a given speed thereby giving you more distance in the second 1/8 to accelerate to a higher speed.Thanks again for your great work in charting my runs.
04-08-2006, 05:41 AM
#420
Members
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey ZNOD, God it took me about an hour to read through this thread.. and near the end I was more or less speed skimming. 
I'm a 20yr auto enthusaist and drag racer at the track in Epping NH. I've only read about these performance testers and have always loved the excitement of the racing community at the track so I never purchased one... Though you've now got me thinking about getting one.. I love your choices of vehicles, I think they are more or less what I hope to attain as I get a little older (35 now). They are the perfect trio for all occasions. Anyhow, I didn't read anywhere that you've taken your Z06 or 545 to the 1/4 drag strip to compare numbers with the gizmos. Have you had that opportunity? I've got about a 6-8 week wait for my 550i on order still so I'm reading everything here to get ready. This will be my first Bimmer so I'm a BimmVirgin. And my two cents for those who think that you're driving is reckless or irresponsible, they need to realize that if you're not putting anyone but yourself in danger they should probably find something better to do with their time.
I'm not trying to offend anyone here but I'm sure that these people don't exactly live an angelic life themselves..
Keep on Redlining,
Steve
I'm a 20yr auto enthusaist and drag racer at the track in Epping NH. I've only read about these performance testers and have always loved the excitement of the racing community at the track so I never purchased one... Though you've now got me thinking about getting one.. I love your choices of vehicles, I think they are more or less what I hope to attain as I get a little older (35 now). They are the perfect trio for all occasions. Anyhow, I didn't read anywhere that you've taken your Z06 or 545 to the 1/4 drag strip to compare numbers with the gizmos. Have you had that opportunity? I've got about a 6-8 week wait for my 550i on order still so I'm reading everything here to get ready. This will be my first Bimmer so I'm a BimmVirgin. And my two cents for those who think that you're driving is reckless or irresponsible, they need to realize that if you're not putting anyone but yourself in danger they should probably find something better to do with their time.
I'm not trying to offend anyone here but I'm sure that these people don't exactly live an angelic life themselves.. Keep on Redlining,
Steve