Took the P-car out today. It was 73 degrees and I need the air when it is that hot. Did a few runs and pulled a 7.9 second 60 to 130 run.

The new exhaust is great and I think I will be able to get the time down to 7.4 seconds.

The slope of the road was 1.9%

 

Great time. 7.4 would be awesome, gonna take some cold weather and then some to drop .5. Winter can't come soon enough here.

 

Robert,

Both 7.9x graphs show large spikes in G's in between shifts, when it should be the other way around (G's should always drop). Also, there were a bunch of dropouts in the file....so I think there might be some major data errors in the runs.

Now, this doesn't mean that your car didn't actually run those times, it just means that the data for those particular runs might be corrupted.

I sent the file to KPG to get his take on it. I'll have an answer for you tonight or tomorrow.

 

there is another 7.9 on that run and an 8.0 and an 8.1.

 

8.0 run on this file

 

I see you have a 7.88 posted. Was that with the 996TT? If so, what HP were you at? Remember, my car has the stock K24's, Exhaust, DV, Flash and clutch.

 

7.88 was with K24/18G /flash /exhaust on pump fuel. Weather is too hot here to get any better without injectors or pushing it.

 

Robert, load your file in Pbox tools and click on the " Summary" tab on the top center. You will see that you had 668 satellite dropouts in the entire file. Each satellite dropout comes with a time stamp so you can go back and see if it occurred in the actual run or just while tooling around. The problem is it stops keeping track of the errors after 100. There is no way to tell if any of those errors occurred in your actual runs. BTW, most people only have a couple of sat summary errors...if at all. Some food for thought.....

 

What octane fuel are you running?

 

MS 109

 

We must be getting crappy satellites here on the west coast. Are you trying to correlate the drop in satellites to the integrity of my run? Is so, what evidence do you have to support such a theory? And one can also argue that I really ran a 7.5 second run and that the satellite problem caused my Vbox to post a slower time (i.e. 7.9).

If this is truly the cast, seems like my argument has more validity.

I know that some people on this board do not like the fact that I get more out of less car, but that facts speak for themselves. My tune kicks but!

 

Speaking for myself...yes. And just so you know, none of your other runs have ever had this many errors before. And no...no one is saying that you did anything on purpose. I can tell you from personal experience that this happens every once in a while.

Quote:

Is so, what evidence do you have to support such a theory?

The fact that the runs literally can not be accurately verified because there was such a huge number of dropped satellites seems to support the theory pretty well.

Quote:

And one can also argue that I really ran a 7.5 second run and that the satellite problem caused my Vbox to post a slower time (i.e. 7.9).

Exactly. You just made our point for us. The fact that you had so many satellite errors on this graph makes it impossible to accurately know what time you actually ran...be it slower, or faster than 7.9.

Like I said before, you may have ran the time(s), but unfortunately I can't verify them due to the number of dropouts in the file. I had a feeling you would whine about my position on this, which is why I asked KPG, a completely independent 3rd party who doesn't even post on this forum anymore, to take a look at the file. I see I was right in doing so.

I've been in this exact situation before with my car. I personally have had 2 or 3 fast runs that KPG was unable to verify due to dropouts or file corruption. You know what I did? I thanked Kevin for taking the time to verify the files (which you've never done), and then I went out the next day and obtained clean, verifiable runs for him to review.

Quote:

I know that some people on this board do not like the fact that I get more out of less car, but that facts speak for themselves. My tune kicks but!

I can't speak for others, but I personally enjoy seeing people spend the time to get more out of less. Remember, I'm the one that ran a 7.86 in my stock ZO6. Do you think that was easy? It took multiple runs and a lot of time.

Anyway, all that matters to me is the integrity of the 60-130 list. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that.

 

Here's some more information.

I've attached two pictures: One is the summary from this most recent run file showing the 668 satellite dropouts. The other is of a previous, clean run that you made (9.12 seconds) that had 0 dropouts.

Now, on your newest summary you can see that the software only lists the times/locations of the the first 100 dropouts. Which means the other 558 are unnaccounted for. Now please tell me, Robert...how am I or anyone else supposed to accurately verify a run with 558 unnaccounted for satellite dropouts?

Or is this just a case of myself and KPG not liking the fact that you "get more out of less car"?

 

Robert, I could give a flying **** about your tune. I dont care if you have REVO or Walmart, if you are happy....I am happy for you. As for what evidence I have, none other than what the manufacturer of the unit told me. This is a pretty slick device for only a few hundred dollars but it is only a 10Mhz GPS engine. 10 updates per second, one every .1 second. Now, if a satellite drops out for just one of those cycles in a second.... consider it a movie with 10 frames per second, lose a few frames(satellites) per second. The movie doesnt end, you are still watching it, but did you(the Pbox) really see everything.... good luck on the next runs, I am sure they will improve.

 

Here is some of my advice...
I would not even post a run with 1 drop out... I recall KPG pointed out once I had a total of 2 I think... but then he went back and said they were NOT in the 60 to 130 time so the run was good.
Robert,
find some different locations... drive around.... I am sure you will be able to get a run in without a any drop outs..
good luck
mark