RDunn

here is a new thread for everyone so the 1/4 times one doesnt get locked


you may cont......

yell03

It looks like the actual time being debated was a 13.3@110 which corrected to a 12.3@117 due to the DA at track time.

As you know, we post actual times, so the debate and skepticism was warranted.

Howard

RDunn

LOL all that over a speculated time

LS1LT1

Wait, that 12.300@117.00000 wasn't even the ACTUAL time run in this whole discussion?
It's bad enough that ALL that debate had gone on over a track pass run at a makeshift, wannabe track with no time slips given to drivers but then it turns out to be a freakin' shoulda/woulda/coulda corrected time on top of that?!
Please.

'06 Quicksilver Z06

I am afraid so. If it was run at all, then those are the conditions and circumstances under which it was run, and the "actual" time run was not the 12.3 @ 117mph, but 13.3 @110 mph.

I think he had to fess when glennhl posted that El Paso has an average altitude of 3695 feet.

Had that not been pointed out, who knows if we would have ever heard that this was not an actual time but a corrected time.

Oh, well. I guess he still got the benefit from the Vararam and the thermostat as he must have been running 13.6 before those were installed.

cmb13

Wow. I watched the whole thing develop, and I must say I was a little put off by the : call. I did think 117 sounded pretty damn good, and it blew away my best trap speed (108 I think), but I just chalked that up to the fact that I'm not too experienced and maybe he was.

Anyway, I guess it was better to let the pros handle it.

'06 Quicksilver Z06

Believe me, I really didn't want to call . But when I started looking at the prior posts and the repeated 12.3 @117 mph, and then the straw which broke the camel's back, the third gear claim of 117 mph and the rest of the reply in http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...214565&page=53 post 1047 that was all I could take. I mean that was just playing us for fools.

There are a few more up there that I have held my tongue about over the past several months. I won't get into those but I have been in private communication with others who agree.

But that list is terribly compromised and I trust only a hand full of bone stock numbers and from only a few people here. I trust virtually none of the modified times as people will omit, sometimes deliberately, some of their modifications.

I trust NO numbers which don't come with a time slip. And even then if the numbers are "too good" I don't trust them.

Having drag raced before, I know what these cars will and won't do. I come from drag racing automatics and I know first hand how difficult it is for a "novice manual transmission" drag racer to get good times out of one of these cars.

cmb13

Funny, I didn't put too much thought into it, but I'm always shifting into 4th and my peak speed has been 108. Granted it's a Z51; didn't know it made that much difference.

bunk22

I stopped following the thread but if we are correcting times, I think my best corrects to a 12.1@121 or 122. Okay, I feel better about my pathetic actual times now

'06 Quicksilver Z06

Its my belief that it doesn't. There are a couple who claim that the base manual transmission offers an advantage because it can be run through the traps in 3rd gear on the stock rev limiter.

Apparently it is not easy to do without hitting the rev limiter and having the car cut power, and most base manual drivers end up shifting into 4th just like manual Z51 drivers (and Z06 drivers) do anyway.

The theory that the shift into fourth "cost time" is a weak one in my opinion, especially if you're talking about a good driver. a I have bracket raced and know that it is difficult to take off any appreciable amount of time even if the driver is on the brakes going through the traps, let alone if he is making a power shift into fourth. I have broken out too many times attempting to scrub time off by getting on the brakes.

Also using Ranger's times as the gold standard, I believe that he is shifting into 4th in his C6 Z06 and most certainly would have had to have been shifting into 4th in his C5 Z06.

When Ranger was setting all those records in the C5 Z06, do you think that his having to shift into 4th gear presented a "handicap" for him????? The guy ran 11.818 @ 117.26 in a bone stock C5 Z06, shifting into fourth. Does it look like shifting into fourth hurt him?

I believe that he is currently at 11.24 @127.03 bone stock and again shifting into fourth in a C6 Z06, bone stock.

I think its absolutely laughable, hilarious even, to believe that his shifting into fourth somehow cost him time and trap speed during those runs.

glennhl

Normally I would agree with your assessment of shifting into 4th gear, however, I have some real world experience here.

My 01 Z28 would run 112 running through the traps in third gear while bumping up against the rev limiter. If I shifted I'd run high 111's. Now, mind you, the ET would not differ much, but it would always be a tick slower when I shifted instead of just letting it bounce off the rev limiter. Also, I was not speed shifting, I was lifting off the throttle, but when you are shifting, the car can only slow down, sorry, that's just physics.

Now the kicker is that I upped the rev limiter in 3rd gear and continued to accelerate through the traps in third gear and ran high 113's.

If I had speed shifted into 4th, I probably would have been fine, but I never did. It was my daily driver and I never wanted to risk hitting 2nd gear by mistake.

'06 Quicksilver Z06

Attacked and slandered???? The first thing you need to understand, is that we are not stupid and we won't be played for fools which is what you were clearly trying to do here. You told us that you ran a time that you did not run. I am reading that post #1047 and then finally post #1080 when the jig is up.

I have been civil so far and will continue to be. Despite your attempt to deceive us.

I left you an "out" by "agreeing" that you may have run at some non mainstream track. But there were a few inconsistencies in your prior posts. Many have already been mentioned.

1. When asked for the splits, you tell us that the track where you ran it does not break down the times. And that times are not measured in the conventional manner with three decimal places for ET and two for trap speed. Time slips aren't given and that a bystander gave you your time. "They do not even give out time slips. I rounded my numbers because they were reported to the tenth to me by a bystander." Fine OK. Is this like what some call "flashlight drags"?

2. You don't tell us where this time was run until pretty much cornered into telling us. And we still don't know the name of the place. OK Fine. Most people will start out by telling you where they ran as in: "Ran 12.31 @ 115.62 at Atco last night." You just tell us that you ran 12.30 @ 117. No mention of where.

3. You tell us of a 117 mph trap speed in third gear without powershifting, and then it comes to light that a 117mph trap is likely not possible in third gear in a base manual car. You weren't even powershifting you say, which would certainly help were one tryng to achieve such a feat of a 117 mph trap speed with only two shifts. The shift points would have to be perfect and even then it is very unlikely if not outright impossible. Yet you somehow accomplished this shift point perfection after only a few trips to the track in the C6? Thats impressive.

4. After telling us that you ran this time on a clandestine track which we still do not know the name of, somehow you feel that the times ran there are just as legit as ones run at an NHRA/IHRA sanctioned drag strip. I have a hard time understanding this.

5. You offer all this advice on launching a manual transmissioned C6 and tell us what a great launch you had on that terrific run, yet there is no numerical indicator anywhere which tells you how good or how bad the launch was. No 60ft time.

6. Finally, when forum member Glenhl points out that El Paso has an average altitude of 3695 feet, then and only then are you forced to "offer up" that this is a "corrected" time. That you actually ran 13.3 @110 mph.

I have a question for you: Just when were you planning on telling us that you actually did not make a 12.3 second 117mph pass in third gear ????? That this never happened..

It would at least seem that if you had wanted it known that this was a "corrected" time, that you would have told us that at the outset and/or immediately pointed out that it was a corrected time as soon as the questions and scrutiny started. You made a few posts, one thanking another forum member for defending you, before you offer us that this was a "corrected time". You had a chance to say that this was a corrected time in post 1058, 1071 and 1072.

Instead you were "content" to let us believe that this was an actual time for as long as you could. Only problem was is that we are not that stupid. When it became apparent that it was not going to fly, and that others were questioning the results, especially the trap speed, you then offered us the "corrected time" explanation.

But when you get cornered, you want to argue that you are somehow being treated unfairly. "Bullied". No. You got caught and were forced to admit that what you said happend, what you said you ran, was not what you ACTUALLY ran.

But this issue about the Vararam. Ah the Vararam. You tell us that you ran 12.3 @117mph with the Vararam. You tell us in more than one place. Made me want to go right out and buy a Vararam.

And before you or anyone else says that I am biased against the Vararam or have a problem with using "corrected times" as a means of standardization, you may want to look at these:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1066313

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1066543

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1078518

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1035720

I think someone here is going out of their way to tell us how good a result they got using the Vararam. But you see, strange thing is, I don't need convincing. The last thing I need is someone posting results to convince me that the Vararam offers measurable gain on the drag strip. I have seen it AND DOCUMENTED IT with real time slips first hand.

So when someone comes up and tells me that it worked, I have no problem believing that. But when they "embellish" and tell me that they ran 12.3@ 117mph in third gear in El Paso in a C6 and have no time slip to prove it, well then I didn't just fall off some cabbage truck. I know thats a bit far fetched.

LS1LT1

Time slips? We don't need no stinkin' time slips.
I thought every track informs it's racers of their uber accurate, stopwatch recorded ETs by simply yelling them from the stands, no?

'06 Quicksilver Z06

Thats just it. Did they yell the DA down too???

LS1LT1

Nah, it's almost like the 'guess your weight' booth at a carnival or something I bet, "get your correction here, come one come all, see the numbers drop, see what your car would run elsewhere, factor up factor down, come on people step right up, accurate to within 4/10ths and 4mph, step right up folks".

yell03

DSOM Z51 -

I can vouch for the fact that the BASE manual will cross the traps in THIRD gear at 115.85, but it pegs the limiter right after, and I mean RIGHT AFTER.

I would say at 116.

That is why corrected times don't work.
He wold ave needed another shift at 117 for sure.

As far as if it makes a difference, on my 1st run I ran a 12.89@114.80 on a lousy 2.30 60' leaving it in 3rd.
On my 2nd run I ran a 12.91@111.xx (I forget exactly and I am too lazy to go dig up the slip) on another lousy 2.26 60', on this run I shifted in to 4th.

So, for me , leaving it in 3rd is the way to go.

You and I will debate this one forever, but for my driving style leaving it in 3rd is better as it is one less thing for me to worry about on the pass.

I have each and every slip from all my passes from all my cars AND videos of quite a few.

Let's hope the HONOR SYSTEM is upheld rather than the EGO SYSTEM in the future.

I do feel sorry for those forced to run at HIGH ELEVATION tracks, but a simple explanation and Display of actual and corrected times will still provide a great basis of how the cars run and could run.

Howard

RDunn

i have ran my base m6 at the track 2 times crossing the finish line between 113-114mph and dont hit the rev limiter. so i see no need to shift my car out of 3rd

i have no prob believing these cars can pull 116mph in stock form in 3rd gear

unfortunatly i wont be on the stock list after today....my catback is getting put on today and my car is getting tuned and a 160 stat


not anything special but the first of many!!!!

Ranger

Max acceleration is achieved in the stock/near-stock LS-series motors with M6/M12 by running each gear to just before the limiter before the shift. That may not work for everyone, but it is where max acceleration and fastest ET will occur.

The notion of driving through the traps bouncing on and off the limiter certainly isn't faster. Because the car ceases to accelerate once on the limiter.

Finally, the concept of ET "correction factors" is intended to allow a standard means to adjust ETs to a stardard track elevation. It has nothing to do with weather conditions. The only items used as input is the official track elevation. Folks trying to factor in the weather are off the reservation.

Ranger

k0bun

What is the precise rev limiter on the C6(non Z)? Is it 6500?

chempowr

I was finished with this thread but since our resident expert posted:

I hope since RANGER acknowledges correction factors the naysayers will follow suit.

Ranger, do you have a reputable source for correcting times for altitudes. I'm asking you because you are very respected by all forumers.

thanks again for enlightening us