Great run, very fast 997TT.

Scott I think you uploaded the wrong graph, the one there is less than 5 seconds and also has 2 shifts. Its also below sea level, I suspect that is a graph of one of your runs.

Aaron

Thanks, Aaron.

I was comparing his run to mine, and consequently uploaded my graph by mistake. It's now correct. Good catch!

Guys,

For anyone that's interested, I just reviewed some times from a stock E60 M5.

It went 10.48 with 2-shifts on a 1.08% decline. Total distance was 1,747 feet. He sent me 6 run files; with the slowest being 11.6, then 11.1 and the others 10.9. The car is definitely quicker than a stock 996TT.

Interestingly, the 2nd to 3rd shift on the 10.48 run took .16 seconds, and the 3rd to 4th took .30. Slower than I expected.

Weather in Dallas where the car was yesterday was 58 degrees mean temp (64/51), mean humidity was 69% and pressure was at 30.1 inches.

Pretty decent time. Thanks for sharing, maybe add it to the list somewhere.

I agree those are good times especially for such a large vehicle. Maybe Iam reading it wrong but the graph looks strange to me. If you look at the g line it looks like he stepped on the brake after ~110mph but yet the car kept accelerating as quickly as you would expect for no braking. It does not seem like enough total longitudinal gs to give those times either. Can someone explain?

Now that you mention it, I looked at the graph, and you are right. How can someone accelerate with negative long G's? Something screwy is going on with that run.

Member Mbailey ran a 9.68 60-130 with 1-shift in his IA Stage 2 TT w/V-Flow. The run was on a .59% decline with a total distance of 1420 feet.

Nice job, Mike.:D

You guys are putting down some great numbers lately, wow, lots of fast rides out there. I wonder how my big pig would do in a 60-130

Info regarding runs that read below sea level
 

We (those in my area with VBOXs) have always assumed that we were below sea level on some of our roads.

But I just spoke with Jim Lau at V-Box USA about this (248-953-3251) and he told me that the GPS Datum (WGS-84) in the box resolves it's position in some areas incorrectly. So even though it reads below sea level, you may actually be at or above sea level. The variences in height are accurate, just not the actual elevation.

I just checked the elevation in my city, and I found out that am not actually below sea level. I'm about 19 feet above.

He also told me that the recorded acceleration times are not in any way affected by the elevation readings. They are two completely seperate things.

I can assure you that Iam not 74ft below sea level!hilarious

Actually, Iam 33ft above...

Scott,
Here is another explanation for GPS altitude error, as described by Gulfstream Aerospace.

Ryan

Awesome info, Ryan. So it has nothing to do with the P-box at all. It's simply an inherent innaccuracy with the WGS-84 GPS datum. Thanks, bro.

New best on pump gas tune. 11.50 @ 130mph

Great trap Chris, now go out there and practice your launch!! :D

Nice! That's a VERY strong car!