6speedonline's official 60-130, 1/4 Mile, and Standing Mile list
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 405
From: Brentwood, TN
Rep Power: 49
Okay guys...so here's one hell of a run:
Tym Switzer ran dk996TT's 997TT to a extraordinarily quick 5.21 60-130 with 1-shift on a almost flat .41% decline! Tym also pulled a very quick 0.16 second 3rd to 4th shift. The run was completed in only 740.6 feet.
With this phenomenal run, dk996tt just jumped to #3 on the list! Outstanding job!!
Tym Switzer ran dk996TT's 997TT to a extraordinarily quick 5.21 60-130 with 1-shift on a almost flat .41% decline! Tym also pulled a very quick 0.16 second 3rd to 4th shift. The run was completed in only 740.6 feet.
With this phenomenal run, dk996tt just jumped to #3 on the list! Outstanding job!!
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
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,509
From: Virginia, USA
Rep Power: 789
I was comparing his run to mine, and consequently uploaded my graph by mistake. It's now correct. Good catch!
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,509
From: Virginia, USA
Rep Power: 789
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.
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.
Last edited by Divexxtreme; Apr 28, 2008 at 01:10 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,957
From: Texas
Rep Power: 456
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?
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.
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.
Last edited by MBailey; Apr 28, 2008 at 08:30 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,509
From: Virginia, USA
Rep Power: 789
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.
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.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,957
From: Texas
Rep Power: 456
I can assure you that Iam not 74ft below sea level!
Actually, Iam 33ft above...
Actually, Iam 33ft above...
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.
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.
