Not to hijack here but do/did you own a B5 S4?

 

Renntech

If you stop rolling your eyes you might read, and maybe even understand better what numbers mean. I am sure that with a serious effort you might be able to go beyond understanding a drag slip.

In the meantime in only four seconds I will be ahead of you by 120 feet.

 

Same guy

 

Great response


I figured you wouldn't address the points in my post . Why don't you take your car to the strip and see where it traps...then talk

 

Your deepest post yet on this board. I wonder if you can you count the little circles.

Remember those 120 ft. though.

 

So will you at least acknowledge that you are comparing you car's performance to the rest of ours using a completely different means of measurement...will you at least admit that?

Every post in this thread and 99.99% on the forum are about ET and Trapspeed, whether you like it or not, everyone talks about trapspeed and ET and you start up with your AX-22 numbers

 

So Jean, according to you and others on the board, VR's car ran in the 9's and trapped in the high 140's, and yours is faster? That means you should trap in the low 150 range...I don't think you'll be able to convince anyone here of that...so in other words, your extrapolations are bull$h!t.


Take it to the strip and prove me wrong!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RennTechV12

Every post in this thread and 99.99% on the forum are about ET and Trapspeed, whether you like it or not, everyone talks about trapspeed and ET and you start up with your AX-22 numbers

Joe, I am a complete novice next to you and I have immense respect for your vast motorsports experience, but I respectfully disagree with your emphasis on ETs and traps to the exclusion of 60-130 mph measurements conducted using an AX22. Yes, the vast majority of the world focuses on 1/4 mile stats. However, the mere fact that the masses ascribe to a particular school of thought does not make it right or superior (throughout history, the masses have ascribed to beliefs that are now demonstrably false).

If one is trying to measure a car's true performance, devoid of launch and tire variables, I personally believe a 60-130 mph time is a better indicator than a ¼ mile ET or trap. As discussed above, ¼ mile runs are subject to several important variables that can profoundly impact ETs and traps. A 60-130 mph run retains some of these same variables (e.g., temperature, humidity), but eliminates others (tires, track prep, launch ability, etc.). The beauty of the 60-130 mph measurement is that even an idiot like myself can mash a gas pedal and hold on for 70 mph of acceleration. In contrast, there is a great deal of skill that goes into achieving good ¼ mile stats. Two different drivers can achieve vastly different ¼ mile stats running the same car. On the other hand, the delta in 60-130 mph times for those same two drivers will likely be far less. Therefore, while most of the world exalts the mighty ¼ mile ET and trap, and I too have cited to such figures many times, I personally believe the 60-130 mph measurement is deserving of greater emphasis among informed car enthusiasts who understand the various factors in play.

The foregoing is written with the following caveat: I am by far the least knowledgeable of those who have participated in this thread, so take my novice observations with a hearty grain of salt.

Craig

 

I think you missed my point. I was stating that you shouldn't compare the 2 types of measurements and draw conclusions, for the exact reasons that you just stated. You can't take a guy who is drag racing on a strip, and compare his NHRA certified timeslip to someone else who is on the freeway with a data recording device. You have to compare apples to apples. With that being said, trapspeeds will still be rather consistant, as shown by many peoples' runs here



With that being said, I find it hard to believe that Jean's car would trap at 150mph+

 

I completely agree and I apologize for missing your point. One should definitely compare apples to apples.

I have no idea what Jean's car traps at, but 150 sounds mighty high. On the other hand, I do not recall Jean saying that his car would trap over 150. Keep in mind that Jean's car is completely different than any 996TT that I am aware of . . . particularly his tranny and gearing. Therefore, the fact that he may achieve a very fast 100-130 mph time does not necessarily mean that he has a fast 1/4 mile or a high trap.

Craig

 

I once trapped a mongoose here in hawaii going 170. Could not get a quartermile time from him because the bugga got away. Oh well.

Aloha

 

You almost made me spit my drink out

REP 4 U!!!

 

Speaking of which, I received a negative rep from this thread. WTH!!! I can't get this rep thing down right.

Craig

 

This has turned into a pretty interesting thread....the least of which however is why someone would have removed Protomotive from my title? Can someone please explain that to me?

Craig, I agree with you in the sense that my original intent was to get a "real world" comparison between the two approaches. I find it odd after all this time no one has lined these two kits up on the highway to do a friendly roll-on with both on kill mode. Those of us who drive these cars on a regular basis on the street would find this very interesting.

That being the case, I rode in David Kim's GT900 996 yesterday. At 24 psi he mentioned he made 760whp on C16. It was very smooth and I was quite impressed. However, I think he said Todd only trapped about 137 in it, which seems low for a 3300 lb +/- car with that hp. It felt like a car in the upper 130's. I was impressed with the drivability and how quiet it was under full acceleration. Although it is much slower than my GT47-80 Supra, it convinced me that I made the right choice selling it for a modded GT2

 

I did too....Hey thanks for the rep revtech and craig I will try to give you one.

I wonder what happens if I get enough negative reps from annonymous names? Maybe banned...Oh well