6speedonline's official 60-130, 1/4 Mile, and Standing Mile list
#46
09-17-2006, 03:58 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Glendora,Ca
Age: 37
Posts: 2,970
Rep Power: 158 
Originally Posted by RennTechV12
It's the 3rd one down:
http://www.scottsdaleexoticcarclub.com/photos1.html
http://www.scottsdaleexoticcarclub.com/photos1.html
-Markus-
#47
10-21-2006, 07:23 PM
Hey DJ... Go to http://www.vbulletin.org and download the time slip hack to install on the forums. With it guys can upload their timeslips and it keeps it in order of best time. Try it on mine and if you need help with the install, let me know. I think the members would love this....
http://www.myvividracing.com/timeslips.php?
http://www.myvividracing.com/timeslips.php?
#48
10-21-2006, 09:54 PM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 8,511
Rep Power: 787
Originally Posted by vividracing
Hey DJ... Go to http://www.vbulletin.org and download the time slip hack to install on the forums. With it guys can upload their timeslips and it keeps it in order of best time. Try it on mine and if you need help with the install, let me know. I think the members would love this....
http://www.myvividracing.com/timeslips.php?
http://www.myvividracing.com/timeslips.php?
#49
10-31-2006, 04:28 PM
Here's what I measured for 60 to 130 with an AX22 on a perfectly FLAT road. All start at about 30 MPH at 70-degrees air temp. Elevations all between 1000 and 2000 ft:
Ferrari CS: 11.77 sec (3 shifts, 91 octane)
Ruf 993 Turbo R: 9.1 sec (2 shifts, 100 octane)
Carrera GT: 8.87 sec (2 "slow" shifts, 91 octane)
I can post the graphs, but the site gives me an error when I try to upload:
Ferrari CS: 11.77 sec (3 shifts, 91 octane)
Ruf 993 Turbo R: 9.1 sec (2 shifts, 100 octane)
Carrera GT: 8.87 sec (2 "slow" shifts, 91 octane)
I can post the graphs, but the site gives me an error when I try to upload:
There seems to have been a problem with the 6speedonline.com Forums database.
Please try again by clicking the Refresh button in your web browser.
An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, whom you can also contact if the problem persists.
We apologise for any inconvenience.
Please try again by clicking the Refresh button in your web browser.
An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, whom you can also contact if the problem persists.
We apologise for any inconvenience.
Last edited by Bill S.; 11-01-2006 at 01:11 PM.
#50
10-31-2006, 10:27 PM
Originally Posted by Bill S.
Here's what I measured with an AX22 on a perfectly FLAT road. All start at about 30 MPH at 70-degrees air temp. Elevations all between 1000 and 2000 ft:
Ferrari CS: 11.77 sec (3 shifts, 91 octane)
Ruf 993 Turbo R: 9.1 sec (2 shifts, 100 octane)
Carrera GT: 8.87 sec (2 "slow" shifts, 91 octane)[/INDENT]
Ferrari CS: 11.77 sec (3 shifts, 91 octane)
Ruf 993 Turbo R: 9.1 sec (2 shifts, 100 octane)
Carrera GT: 8.87 sec (2 "slow" shifts, 91 octane)[/INDENT]
Is this from 60 to 130? Thx for the info!
#52
11-09-2006, 04:53 AM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by KPG
Actually...no. My best time with 2 shifts was pulled from my 11.77 at 128mph run at the drag strip..I just kept my foot in it thru the traps til 130 and that produced a 8.59 60-130 run. Now I have a lot of tq and I tried the run with a 1 shift 60-130. Again, this was at the drags. I left the line easy in 1st and shifted directly to 3rd at 40 mph and had full boost around 50 and crossed the 60mph threshold with a full head of steam and only needed a quick 3-4 shift...7.93 seconds. The car covered the 60-130 with 1 shift in 1166ft and the 60-130 with 2 shifts in 1241 feet.... BTW VR was 938 ft
Kevin
Kevin
Originally Posted by PorscheC4
Alex, i would not be suprised AT ALL if you did in continuous mode somewhere in the high 3 second range. long live the Protomotive 996TT VRALEX style!
Here are the results:
With the AX-22 in 'Summary Timing' and the car at 3/4 tank of C16 and the boost set to KILL, with on shift (3-4) yielded a best of 3.89seconds 60-130mph!! The car pulled SO hard on that run, I had to re-grip the steering wheel...my passenger turned pale white after the run and did not want to be part of anymore 'testing'...however I repeated the run with two 'easier' powershifts(2-3 and 3-4) and yielded again a 4.40second 60-130mph..
With the AX-22 in 'Continous' mode and with the same factors (did not powershift this time..because I only have one pair of underwear in the car) I yielded a best of 5.34seconds 60-130mph!!!
Now thats a 1.45second difference....what is going on??? I would love to have an explanation for the variation in timing on the two runs...granted I did not powershift on the second run but could that account for 1.45seconds???...on a regular shift (2nd run) the car did have to re-spool the turbos as opposed to the power-shift where I only get about .2bar of boost loss...the AX-22 devise is suppose to be VERY ACCURATE....so then why the difference?? Does a "regular" shift with the boost having to re-spool add 1.45 second to the 60-130mph as opposed to a WOT "Powershift" where the boost loss is minimal???....that is the question for Dr.Jean...
Dr.Jean...you have mail....and thank you again for taking the time to review all this info...
Last edited by VRAlexander; 11-09-2006 at 05:12 AM.
#53
11-09-2006, 05:20 AM
Basic Sponsor
Dr. Jean to the rescue LOL
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
#54
11-09-2006, 06:02 AM
Originally Posted by VRAlexander
You are correct!!! I shaved off .51 off my 60-130mph with just one shift!! THANK YOU!!!
Thanks for the vote of confidence...and guess what.....with the car set to KILL mode..I DID in Summary Mode!!
Here are the results:
With the AX-22 in 'Summary Timing' and the car at 3/4 tank of C16 and the boost set to KILL, with on shift (3-4) yielded a best of 3.89seconds 60-130mph!! The car pulled SO hard on that run, I had to re-grip the steering wheel...my passenger turned pale white after the run and did not want to be part of anymore 'testing'...however I repeated the run with two 'easier' powershifts(2-3 and 3-4) and yielded again a 4.40second 60-130mph..
With the AX-22 in 'Continous' mode and with the same factors (did not powershift this time..because I only have one pair of underwear in the car) I yielded a best of 5.34seconds 60-130mph!!!
Now thats a 1.45second difference....what is going on??? I would love to have an explanation for the variation in timing on the two runs...granted I did not powershift on the second run but could that account for 1.45seconds???...on a regular shift (2nd run) the car did have to re-spool the turbos as opposed to the power-shift where I only get about .2bar of boost loss...the AX-22 devise is suppose to be VERY ACCURATE....so then why the difference?? Does a "regular" shift with the boost having to re-spool add 1.45 second to the 60-130mph as opposed to a WOT "Powershift" where the boost loss is minimal???....that is the question for Dr.Jean...
Dr.Jean...you have mail....and thank you again for taking the time to review all this info...
Thanks for the vote of confidence...and guess what.....with the car set to KILL mode..I DID in Summary Mode!!
Here are the results:
With the AX-22 in 'Summary Timing' and the car at 3/4 tank of C16 and the boost set to KILL, with on shift (3-4) yielded a best of 3.89seconds 60-130mph!! The car pulled SO hard on that run, I had to re-grip the steering wheel...my passenger turned pale white after the run and did not want to be part of anymore 'testing'...however I repeated the run with two 'easier' powershifts(2-3 and 3-4) and yielded again a 4.40second 60-130mph..
With the AX-22 in 'Continous' mode and with the same factors (did not powershift this time..because I only have one pair of underwear in the car) I yielded a best of 5.34seconds 60-130mph!!!
Now thats a 1.45second difference....what is going on??? I would love to have an explanation for the variation in timing on the two runs...granted I did not powershift on the second run but could that account for 1.45seconds???...on a regular shift (2nd run) the car did have to re-spool the turbos as opposed to the power-shift where I only get about .2bar of boost loss...the AX-22 devise is suppose to be VERY ACCURATE....so then why the difference?? Does a "regular" shift with the boost having to re-spool add 1.45 second to the 60-130mph as opposed to a WOT "Powershift" where the boost loss is minimal???....that is the question for Dr.Jean...
Dr.Jean...you have mail....and thank you again for taking the time to review all this info...
#55
11-09-2006, 12:57 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by KPG
3.89 seconds.....
Last edited by VRAlexander; 11-09-2006 at 01:01 PM.
#56
11-10-2006, 04:21 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
For another opinion I am having a Physics Proff. analyse the file as well as a tech at Race Technologies...we will have validation soon..
#57
11-11-2006, 03:08 AM
Yes according to my calculations Alex's run is not good. There is some (a bit complex) calculation to be made that links acceleration with speed and gives the final verdict in these cases. The G force generated does not match the momentum at which the vehicle is picking up speed. This same calculation can determine slope etc.. which in this case was not there.
I am sending detailed instructions to VRALEX about how to use the tool and avoid these situations. In hard launching cars, the unit is subject to sudden tilt, and it can fool the numbers as the GPS does not have time to adapt quick enough and calibrate the accelerometers. These conditions are rare however and usually only happen if the car in question sees some serious Gs and the unit is not well attached. He will do some reruns and have these ones double checked by a friend. These are my findings.
The unit is extremely accurate, and one of the best out there for sure, proof is that one is able to pick up these variations, however like any other electronic gizmo, they are sensitive to usage conditions.
Alex is comfortably into the 5s however, that I can guarantee..And still holds the fastest 60-130mph I have seen listed anywhere on a street car.
I am sending detailed instructions to VRALEX about how to use the tool and avoid these situations. In hard launching cars, the unit is subject to sudden tilt, and it can fool the numbers as the GPS does not have time to adapt quick enough and calibrate the accelerometers. These conditions are rare however and usually only happen if the car in question sees some serious Gs and the unit is not well attached. He will do some reruns and have these ones double checked by a friend. These are my findings.
The unit is extremely accurate, and one of the best out there for sure, proof is that one is able to pick up these variations, however like any other electronic gizmo, they are sensitive to usage conditions.
Alex is comfortably into the 5s however, that I can guarantee..And still holds the fastest 60-130mph I have seen listed anywhere on a street car.
Last edited by Jean; 11-11-2006 at 03:10 AM.
#58
11-11-2006, 03:22 AM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jean,
Thanks for your analysis...are you saying that my car pulls so hard (G's) that the unit cannot catch up and recalibrate in time to record an accurate time?? The other question I have is why is there a difference in 'Summary' vs 'Continuous' mode?
I have sent the file to race technologies for a verification as well as a Physics Proff. friend of mine at MIT.
As for the procedure, I make shure the car is turned off when it calibrates on flat ground and I use a level to make shure the unit is 'square'...I will follow your procedure and If we still have a discrepency, then I will do the Michael Jordan 'nothing but net' into my garbage can!
Thanks again for your time and diligence in analysing my files...
Thanks for your analysis...are you saying that my car pulls so hard (G's) that the unit cannot catch up and recalibrate in time to record an accurate time?? The other question I have is why is there a difference in 'Summary' vs 'Continuous' mode?
I have sent the file to race technologies for a verification as well as a Physics Proff. friend of mine at MIT.
As for the procedure, I make shure the car is turned off when it calibrates on flat ground and I use a level to make shure the unit is 'square'...I will follow your procedure and If we still have a discrepency, then I will do the Michael Jordan 'nothing but net' into my garbage can!
Thanks again for your time and diligence in analysing my files...
#59
11-12-2006, 06:22 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minneapolis, Mn
Age: 48
Posts: 16,073
Rep Power: 1069 
#60
11-12-2006, 07:20 PM
Basic Sponsor
Originally Posted by LUIS95993
I posted that about a half a year ago... my friend was trying to make fun of casue I had the same arena red 993tt b4....
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL