Just make another run and get another slip. Heck, there would still be doubters.

 

What's the big deal here guys? I spoke to Ryan, wished him luck and told him he'd better beat 11.1. Spoke to him afterwards and he nailed 11.1. Shouldn't we be giving him thumbs up It's hard to do that.... With Drag radials that's a 10 right there.

 

Why is this so hard to believe? Fred, Myself, Alex, etc have all been on the low 11s and with any luck and snap a 10. Ryan's car is no different. It isn't like Ryan has to prove anything. We all know what these kits run.

 

Seh1, SOrry I should have read your quote clearer.

Sticky, a buddy and I just drove to the office to find the other slips to scan...Here is one more.

If any of you still think its a scam or something, I really dont care.....I am telling the truth.

Here is one of the 12 second runs....

 

Stephen,

That is really good for a GT2, considering they don't usually launch as well as an awd turbo.

 

This guy who intimidated me in an awd galant all souped up, with 420HP to the wheels and I lined up one of the runs. We were neck and neck from a dead stop. I got out of the hole pretty good in that run.

 

Congrats man... Go out another time and run that 10... I'll head out some point when it cools down and when I ge my car running right again

 

Shank,

The timeslip has to have an error on it. Between 1000ft and the 1/4 you covered 320ft in 1.29sec. That translates to 169.4 average MPH in the last 320ft. Clearly that makes no sense. The timing of the last segment got screwed up in your run. Your numbers are real strong though, here are mine with stage 4
60ft 2.19sec
330ft 5.41sec
1/8 7.93sec 101.3mph
1000ft 10.09
1/4 11.89 126.1mph

 

RMR what do you mean 169mph. How did you get that?

In my 12.0 run, I did 1.8 in the last 320', so what is that mph??

 

He's talking about the first time slip in this thread.

The 1.8 sec on your second time slip is right in there for your 125 mph trap speed.

 

Thanks for posting the other slip shank, I wasn't doubting you I just wanted to see how the numbers differed on the runs due to the launch.

 

I've known Shank a long time, and trust me, he has much better things to do than to waste his time doctoring and photoshoping timeslips.

If anything, had the run not produced decent results, instead of "doctoring" it to make it better, he'd have posted the poor results on the forum immediately to find out what was wrong with his numbers... THAT, is his style.

Those of us who've come to know him will attest that he will call out any anyone, vendor, supplier, etc whose marketing claim does not stand up in the real world. He made a run and was handed a timeslip, which he then shared with us. It's that simple.

I live a couple blocks away from Shank, so I drove over to check out the slip... the sketchy ink and type quality is very typical of GLD's timeslip printers. I know because I used to go there all the time. It can't even touch the latest $100 inkjet printer, that's for sure. Can we put this to rest, geez...

 

take the 1.288 seconds in the last 320' and multiply it by 4, which gives you your ET for that 1/4 mile; 5.152 seconds, multiply by another 4 which gives you your 1 mile time at that rate of speed; 20.608 seconds.

We all agree that there are 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in every minute, so 60 minutes x 60 seconds is 3600 seconds in an hour: 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds.

So if 1 mile is 20.608 seconds then you can plug it in to the equation.

1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds
1 hour = 60 minutes = 20.608 seconds per mile
1 hour = 60 minutes = 174.69 miles per hour

any mathmaticians want to correct me? I am pretty sure I am right.

So in conclusion for that last 320' you were traveling at 174.69 miles per hour.

 

Also, on that run, I was lined up against a heavily modified ZR1 Vette that finished with a 11.7 but he was at least 7 to 8 cars behind me.

On that note, I am confident the 1/4 mi time was what it stated, and confused about the in between numbers. I leave this final note that I did not alter the slips, as two witnesses confirmed. God bless you all, and this thread is officially closed.

 

Ryan,

I have no doubt that is true. Over a year ago when Dave Colman tested my car, in 105 degree temperatures it was producing 1.6 second sixty foot times. It's about a third of a second faster now.

If the awd has sufficient rubber and torque you can't beat having all four tires accelerating. AWD's are better in some things and 2WD'S are better in other things.