Evoms
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,803
From: Missing in action
Rep Power: 214
There is an important fact that has been overlooked in this thread: The trap speed on 1/4 mile time slip is NOT the speed that the car is travelling when it crosses the finish line. Rather, it is an average of the car's speed during a certain period BEFORE it crosses the finish line (I believe for the prior ten feet, but I may be mistaken). The speed that the car is travelling when it actually crosses the finish line is HIGHER than the trap speed stated on the time slip.
Why is this relevant? As Joe previously stated, when comparing performance statistics, one must be careful to compare apples to apples. The AX22 103 - 130 mph time measurements posted above are based on the actual speed of the car at a particular moment in time, whereas the trap speed figures are NOT. Therefore, one cannot compare a time slip trap speed with an AX22 derived speed figure. Right Joe?
Craig
Why is this relevant? As Joe previously stated, when comparing performance statistics, one must be careful to compare apples to apples. The AX22 103 - 130 mph time measurements posted above are based on the actual speed of the car at a particular moment in time, whereas the trap speed figures are NOT. Therefore, one cannot compare a time slip trap speed with an AX22 derived speed figure. Right Joe?
Craig
All I can say is that UMs stage 2 car, for the money is a great value.. especially when he is turning 128 mph in 1/4.
Same goes for a bolt on kit from evoms the gt700... seems very strong.
The Proto car is custom tuned so I expect it to be a kicker.... even though, in my opinion, should and could if requested, be running on gt30rs...
markski
Same goes for a bolt on kit from evoms the gt700... seems very strong.
The Proto car is custom tuned so I expect it to be a kicker.... even though, in my opinion, should and could if requested, be running on gt30rs...
markski
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,726
From: Michigan
Rep Power: 416
Originally Posted by Craig
Kevin,
While your calculations are interesting, the fact remains that your car is a full second slower to the 1/4 mile than the referenced GT700s and Scott's Proto car. Thus, while UM's Stage 2 package is unquestionably a great value, it would not be suitable for someone seeking a 10 second car (or even a low 11 second car). Moreover, notwithstanding your interesting calculations, I would bet money that Joe's GT700 GT2 would cover 103-130 faster than your UM Stage 2 car if ran under the same conditions.
Craig
While your calculations are interesting, the fact remains that your car is a full second slower to the 1/4 mile than the referenced GT700s and Scott's Proto car. Thus, while UM's Stage 2 package is unquestionably a great value, it would not be suitable for someone seeking a 10 second car (or even a low 11 second car). Moreover, notwithstanding your interesting calculations, I would bet money that Joe's GT700 GT2 would cover 103-130 faster than your UM Stage 2 car if ran under the same conditions.
Craig
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,803
From: Missing in action
Rep Power: 214
Kevin,
I was not questioning the accuracy of your data. As previously stated, I am a big proponent of AX22s and similar GPS based measuring equipment.
That being said, see my recent post about the shortcoming in your (and others) comparison of GPS data to time slip trap speeds. Its apples and oranges.
Craig
Ps: I had UM's Stage V set-up on my car for approximately a year, so I am very familiar with Kevin's quality products. I have tremendous respect for Kevin.
I was not questioning the accuracy of your data. As previously stated, I am a big proponent of AX22s and similar GPS based measuring equipment.
That being said, see my recent post about the shortcoming in your (and others) comparison of GPS data to time slip trap speeds. Its apples and oranges.
Craig
Ps: I had UM's Stage V set-up on my car for approximately a year, so I am very familiar with Kevin's quality products. I have tremendous respect for Kevin.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,726
From: Michigan
Rep Power: 416
Originally Posted by Craig
Kevin,
I was not questioning the accuracy of your data. As previously stated, I am a big proponent of AX22s and similar GPS based measuring equipment.
That being said, see my recent post about the shortcoming in your (and others) comparison of GPS data to time slip trap speeds. Its apples and oranges.
Craig
Ps: I had UM's Stage V set-up on my car for approximately a year, so I am very familiar with Kevin's quality products. I have tremendous respect for Kevin.
I was not questioning the accuracy of your data. As previously stated, I am a big proponent of AX22s and similar GPS based measuring equipment.
That being said, see my recent post about the shortcoming in your (and others) comparison of GPS data to time slip trap speeds. Its apples and oranges.
Craig
Ps: I had UM's Stage V set-up on my car for approximately a year, so I am very familiar with Kevin's quality products. I have tremendous respect for Kevin.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,726
From: Michigan
Rep Power: 416
Originally Posted by Craig
Kevin,
While your calculations are interesting, the fact remains that your car is a full second slower to the 1/4 mile than the referenced GT700s and Scott's Proto car. Thus, while UM's Stage 2 package is unquestionably a great value, it would not be suitable for someone seeking a 10 second car (or even a low 11 second car). Moreover, notwithstanding your interesting calculations, I would bet money that Joe's GT700 GT2 would cover 103-130 faster than your UM Stage 2 car if ran under the same conditions.
Craig
While your calculations are interesting, the fact remains that your car is a full second slower to the 1/4 mile than the referenced GT700s and Scott's Proto car. Thus, while UM's Stage 2 package is unquestionably a great value, it would not be suitable for someone seeking a 10 second car (or even a low 11 second car). Moreover, notwithstanding your interesting calculations, I would bet money that Joe's GT700 GT2 would cover 103-130 faster than your UM Stage 2 car if ran under the same conditions.
Craig
In order of Trap Speed:
11.09 @ 140.0 - EVOMS 800 HP TT (AWD at time of run)
10.76 @ 136.5 - Sharky / Sharkwerks 800 HP TT (AWD)
10.86 @ 136.0 - Divexxtreme / Protomotive 700 HP TT (RWD)
10.88 @ 134.7 - Joetwint / EVOMS 700 HP TT (AWD)
11.32 @ 134.3 - RennTechV12 / EVOMS 700HP TT (AWD)
10.98 @ 134.0 - Cgmeredithjr / Imagine Auto 700 HP GT2
11.0x @ 133.9 - RUF RT-12 650 HP TT (RWD)
11.01 @ 133.8 - Excellence Magazine / EVOMS 700HP TT (AWD)
11.36 @ 132.0 - BuddyG / Stage 5 650 HP TT (AWD)
10.77 @ 131.5 - RenntechV12 / EVOMS 700 HP GT2
10.74 @ 131.7 - Hamann7 / Protomotive 700 HP TT (AWD)
10.77 @ 131.5 - RenntechV12 / EVOMS 700 HP GT2
11.21 @ 131.1 - VRAlexander / S Car Go 650 HP TT (AWD)
11.1x @ 130.1 - Roock RST 650 HP TT (AWD)
11.34 @ 129.6 - EVOMS 700 HP TT (AWD)
11.75 @ 128.2 - KPG / Ultimate MotorWerks ZC turbos, tune, headers (AWD)
11.8x @ 128.2 - RUF CTR Yellow Bird 469 HP TT (RWD)
11.38 @ 127.2 - By Design / 640 HP TT (AWD)
11.5x @ 126.5 - RUF R Turbo 590 HP TT (AWD)
11.65 @ 126.0 - Divexxtreme / Imagine Auto Stage 2 TT (AWD at time of run)
11.60 @ 124.7 - RenntechV12 / EVOMS Stage 4 TT (AWD)
11.64 @ 124.2 - Hartmann / 600 HP TT (AWD)
11.13 @ 124.1 - Imagine Auto / 550 HP TT (AWD)
11.29 @ 124.1 - Cargraphic / 530 HP TT (AWD)
11.54 @ 123.7 - Markski / FVD Stage 3.5 TT (AWD)
11.85 @ 122.8 - John D II / Speed Gallery Stage 3.5 TT (AWD)
11.9x @ 122.7 - RUF R Turbo 520 HP TT (RWD)
11.77 @ 122.6 - KPG / Ultimate MotorWerks ZC turbos, tune, headers (AWD)
11.91 @ 119.9 - Silver / PSI 480 TT (AWD)
12.1x @ 119.x - Rwm514 / EVOMS Stage 2 (AWD)
12.18 @ 117.8 - Devious996TT / EVOMS Stage 1 TT X50 (AWD)
12.47 @ 117.4 - Gareeb / Upsolute Stage 1+ TT (AWD)
12.27 @ 115.9 - Mr.Blonde / Bone Stock 996TT
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,803
From: Missing in action
Rep Power: 214
Originally Posted by KPG
Craig, I will agree that the 103-130 is apples to oranges, but how about both myself, Joe and Scott( on one of his runs) turning +28mph in the back half of the quarter.... Fair Comparison? Kevin
Craig
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,726
From: Michigan
Rep Power: 416
Originally Posted by Craig
Yes, to the extent that your comparison is limited to time slip data. However, the comparison does not take into account temp and humidity variations (see my above post regarding these factors). Moreover, and more importantly, a car starting at a lower mph will accelerate 28 mph faster than a car starting at a higher mph. Stated another way, the same car will accelerate from 98 mph to 128 mph faster than it will from 103 mph to 133 mph. The 28 mph delta is the same, but the force required to achieve the delta is different and the corresponding time interval is likewise different. Consequently, comparing a 98 - 128 mph measurement with a 103 - 133 mph measurement is, IMHO, not apples to apples.
Craig
Craig
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,803
From: Missing in action
Rep Power: 214
Originally Posted by KPG
Craig, I would respectfully disagree with you suggestion that this setup would not qualify as a vehicle capable of low 11 sec . Here are some numbers from the drag standings and as you can see there are cars with slower trap speeds than mine running low 11's. Clearly the car is capable of low 11's, whether the driver is capable of those times is another story, Kevin
Craig
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,726
From: Michigan
Rep Power: 416
Originally Posted by Craig
Point well taken Kevin. I retract my statement that a UM Stage 2 is not capable of low 11s. It may well be capable of such a time based upon the trap speed of other cars that have run low 11s.
Craig
Craig
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,803
From: Missing in action
Rep Power: 214
Originally Posted by KPG
Hmmm. Craig, my deepest regrets.... I actually thought we were comparing posted 1/4 times. My mistake. Kevin
Craig
Last edited by Craig; Sep 28, 2006 at 08:38 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,726
From: Michigan
Rep Power: 416
Originally Posted by RennTechV12
Here's a slip from my AWD TT700; not sure how the data crunchers would analyze it, but it does show a high trap:
Kevin
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,803
From: Missing in action
Rep Power: 214
Originally Posted by KPG
The GPS data is fascinating and in my opinion tells more of a vehicles overall perfromance than just a timeslip. I wish more would post GPS data for comparison purposes. Be good , Kevin
Craig
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,726
From: Michigan
Rep Power: 416
Originally Posted by Craig
You lost me??? Yes, the comparison is of the mph picked up by certain cars during the second 1/8 mile. My point is simply that slower cars to the eighth will have an easier time picking up mph during the second eighth simply because their starting mph at the eighth marker is lower. Use your GPS device and measure your acceleration from 30 to 60, then from 100 to 130. The 30 mph delta is the same, but Im confident that you will cover 30 to 60 considerably faster. Thats why cars trapping 150 mph in the 1/4 mile are still below 200 mph at the 1/2 mile marker. The first 150 mph is achieved faster than the next 50 mph.
Craig
Craig