PDA

View Full Version : 1/4 Mile Leaderboard.



Nick Mann
24-08-2006, 04:46 PM
There are a couple of interesting claims on the 1/4 mile leaderboard. The best is raymat who claims a 13.06 in a turbo'd 4.2 land cruiser. The only 4.2 turbo'd landcruiser I have heard of is a diesel unit that takes 11 seconds to get to 60.

I am 11th on the leaderboard, but only four people in front of me have posted a timeslip. (Even though they don't work at the moment!)

What are peoples thoughts about making the timeslip a requirement? Or having a second category of 'unsubstantiated' times? I realise that many of those times without proof are from honest people telling the truth, but I am finding myself scratching my chin whilst reading others!!

Sorry if I sound a bit negative, I am just trying to find a way of ensuring reliable information.

Legnum Breaking
24-08-2006, 04:55 PM
Mine is reliable! :p

I am with Nick......official times only please!

Oh and you haven't seen my best effort yet :rolleyes3

Kieran
24-08-2006, 05:09 PM
Mine is reliable! :p

I am with Nick......official times only please!

Oh and you haven't seen my best effort yet :rolleyes3

| agree with Dave and Nick.

And what's the best effort then Dave?/Hyper :beerbang:

Maybe one day I'll take my gloves off and give Ariadne a run..... Maybe - just maybe ;)

Wodjno
24-08-2006, 05:35 PM
I agree .. :beerbang: Even though my best is 14.5 or summat like that.. :huh: I had the 3rd best time in the chart for ages, due to there was only 2 substantiated times above me :D

I am now 20th ! But should be by virtue of a time that have a slip for ! Be 8th :D

BraindG
24-08-2006, 05:45 PM
| agree with Dave and Nick.

And what's the best effort then Dave?/Hyper :beerbang:

Maybe one day I'll take my gloves off and give Ariadne a run..... Maybe - just maybe ;)
Its as easy as changing the time, currently I have it set that you have to provide timeslip, if below 13.000.... raise the bar?

Legnum Breaking
24-08-2006, 05:45 PM
And what's the best effort then Dave?/Hyper :beerbang:



Watch this space.......................:helmet: /notworthy

Kieran
24-08-2006, 05:47 PM
Watch this space.......................:helmet: /notworthy

:inquisiti

Spirit
24-08-2006, 06:11 PM
Yep I agree....timeslip should be provided as evidence :beerbang:

valmes
24-08-2006, 06:23 PM
While I agree that 1/4 mile times should be proven by a time slip, what do you want me to do, drive to the nearest dragstrip? Where would you prefer me to go? Tokio or London? We simply don't have anything like Santa Pod in Siberia!

Most of the Drag Racing events held in Russia right now are using their own custom made electronic measurement devices, which in most cases are quite accurate... to the 0,001 sec and give out reaction time, elapsed time and speed, but they don't print it out on a timeslip... /wall :huh:

Although I won't regret if you remove my 13,5~ from the list... that's way outdated and nothing to be proud of... :rifle:

PS: ... and of course I understand I am a minority here... so nevermind...
BTW there is a picture of Notebook screen showing actual ETs, Speed and Reaction time for the right and left lane... will such photo, maybe along with photo of my car at the finish line be sufficient prove in place of regular time slip? If so I can probably do that next time...

The Vee
24-08-2006, 06:44 PM
Not that my V6 time is now relevent or indeed jaw dropping, but it used to have the timeslip there. Now when you click on the info just my avatar comes up. Don't think I have the slip anymore.

Wodjno
24-08-2006, 06:52 PM
Not that my V6 time is now relevent or indeed jaw dropping, but it used to have the timeslip there. Now when you click on the info just my avatar comes up. Don't think I have the slip anymore.

And why not may i ask /TTTH

Kieran
24-08-2006, 08:09 PM
Valmes makes a good point. How's about this:

Fill in all the fields (unless you have no way of doing so), and perhaps link to a piccy if you can?

And whilst we're on the subject. We have cars in the table that are nothing to do with the club, or indeed with Mitsubishi - such as Raymat's Toyota Land Cruiser and Sulli's Leo Cupid-R.... Should they be allowed to stay?

bradc
24-08-2006, 08:42 PM
I'm sure we'd be able to accept that valmes. Looks like you've got a Clevo D400 series laptop there - we used to sell those :)

Nick Mann
24-08-2006, 09:31 PM
I would personally vote for the limit to be raised to around 15.000s. I could probably be persuaded to vote for a higher limit than that if non-VR4 owners wanted it.

I would suggest that a photo of the run with a photo of the time is at least as good as a timeslip.

I would argue that members with non-mitsubishi cars are allowed to be a part of the leaderboard simply because they are members.

But there are some interesting points made above! I never thought that there would be this many replies this quickly!!

valmes
25-08-2006, 12:45 AM
Great! Than I will have my camera ready, since I am picking up my car today and if nothing awful happens to it and I can get all my "little" mods done, going to the local(200kms) "wanna be real dragstrip" thingy on Sep. 2 to get at least some times... I am not in for the record, just want to know where I stand at the moment, so I can make some adjustments to my tune.

. :operator: Will get back to you... hopefully with the good news and not with usual "I did it again... it was smashed by a Kamaz truck" ;)

Some of the excuses up front for ;) ya:

My LC-1s sensor was destroyed by friends who thought warming up Lambda with tig-welder would somehow be good for it ... :o ... and Dataloger is waiting for an update, which won't be happening until VR-4 ECU comes into US (for Chris).

All in all, I am glad to be back on the road with my VR-4. Hopefully... I am a little ahead of it already. Waiting sucks!

PS: Sorry to Hijack the thread, I will do my best to provide photo of my ET or at least a link to official site that lists the times for every participant of the event. So no cheating from my side!

I think the 15 sec limit should be enforced, as well as limiting published times to 6a13 (or maybe 6a12 too) engined cars only.

One thing you can add to it is listing other times under the same nick. So that you wouldn't have to take your time out if you ran better. In details you can see all the times with dates and on "Top" page - just your best time. Outside temp. and elevation of the track are also things to consider... or there is "notes" section?

Also why not have separate "Top Dyno Queens/Monsters" section under Showplace? Same idea with ranking as in "1/4 times", but on the basis of HP and you would have to put up your dyno scan? /STP

caishanvr4
25-08-2006, 12:58 AM
Im Happy with my 1/4mile time as my car was completely standard. I have proof as 7 other members witnessed my record breaking run :p
It will be broken, mark my words............















When ive sorted my f:furious3:cking air leak

Kieran
25-08-2006, 12:59 AM
Good luck today Val!:guitarist

I like the idea of a BHP shootout too....That would be interesting!

EdmundVR4
25-08-2006, 03:33 AM
How about you let "Registered Users" submit their 1/4 mile data ???
8G VR4 - 13.938 @ 99.12 1.974 60' 6A13TT
7G VR4 - 13.826 @ NA 1.873 60' 6A12TT
7G VR4 - 12.339 @ 107.30 NA 60' 6G72TT

If this 1/4 mile database is for members only, you are fooling yourselves.
There is always a faster VR4 out there & I'm not talking about me !

Legnum Breaking
25-08-2006, 06:41 AM
There is always a faster VR4 out there & I'm not talking about me !

That would be me then /Wyhy

Davezj
02-10-2006, 01:37 PM
will a picture of a g-tech do or are they that unreliable. I am not saying i will get anywhere near you guys on time but lots of people seem to have these and it would be nice to pertisipate

cheers
Dave

Paul Beazer
02-10-2006, 01:48 PM
That would be me then /Wyhy
Proof!

Nick Mann
02-10-2006, 01:58 PM
will a picture of a g-tech do or are they that unreliable. I am not saying i will get anywhere near you guys on time but lots of people seem to have these and it would be nice to pertisipate

cheers
Dave


G-Techs are not too bad on the whole, but they are not reliable all the time. There is a G-Tech thread somewhere, which is just for that very purpose!

Legnum Breaking
02-10-2006, 03:30 PM
Proof!

errrrrrr........what more do you need?

Proof (http://www.clubvr4.com/forum/timeslips.php)

The timeslip is there as well /Nuuu

zentac
03-10-2006, 02:35 PM
I still cant seem to update my time (which would make me top!) and the G-Techs cant count as you could just find a big hill and run down that.

SGHOM
03-10-2006, 04:59 PM
I still cant seem to update my time (which would make me top!) .

top of what ?? :laugh: :laugh:

Wodjno
03-10-2006, 11:46 PM
and the G-Techs cant count as you could just find a big hill and run down that.


Err ! And the point of that would be ??:speechles

Kieran
04-10-2006, 12:39 AM
Whilst we're on the subject, what about this?

We keep the existing table, but add a 'Class' section? Maybe replacing the 'Induction' section, and make it so that you can filter out a particular 'class'?

You see, I think that would be a good idea for people who want to compare like for like - What I'm thinking is something like this:

Standard/Modified non VR-4 Galants/Legnums

Standard VR-4

Modified VR-4

'Special' vehicles.

So it would all stay as one table, but people could have multiple entries if they wished, and it could be searchable - so you could compare like for like.

Example, most of the club cars would come under 'modified', however, several members did 'Baseline' tests, like Dave, Glenn, etc etc that could be entered - and new owners like Don and Wouter could see how they compare as standard.

We could then have Zentac's FTO, Dave's Frankegnum and possibly Kev's VR-4 as 'special' vehicles - Those cars that are true one-offs.

Non-VR-4s would just be Galants and Legnums only. I think cars that aren't Galants/Legnums or have a Galant/Legnum transplant have no place in our table.

Good idea/Bad idea?

valmes
04-10-2006, 06:03 AM
Err ! And the point of that would be ??:speechles

I wonder if that comment by zentac was pointed at me... than no, I ran on totally flat road, but you can delete my entry from the table if you wish. I don't mind.

However, I will still inform you, when your "official/proven" Turbos+Nitrous+"Weight reduction" times will be beaten by a full weight car on turbos only... /Wyhy

Wodjno
04-10-2006, 03:57 PM
I wonder if that comment by zentac was pointed at me... than no, I ran on totally flat road, but you can delete my entry from the table if you wish. I don't mind.

However, I will still inform you, when your "official/proven" Turbos+Nitrous+"Weight reduction" times will be beaten by a full weight car on turbos only... /Wyhy


I think it is aimed at anyone who has used a G-Tech and Submitted a time :|

Which is basically saying everyones a liar ??

zentac
04-10-2006, 04:09 PM
I was pointing out that they are unreliable as Ive seen people with FTO's' stating 5 sec 0-60 times which I struggle to do..... What is it with people on this site recently everyone is very touchey!!!

Wodjno
04-10-2006, 04:51 PM
I was pointing out that they are unreliable as Ive seen people with FTO's' stating 5 sec 0-60 times which I struggle to do..... What is it with people on this site recently everyone is very touchey!!!

Stating that " AND Gtechs can't count cos you can just find a big hill and run down that " isn't saying they are unreliable ? It's stating that the owners of the GTechs claims are unreliable :speechles

enigma
04-10-2006, 04:54 PM
I think it is aimed at anyone who has used a G-Tech and Submitted a time :|

Which is basically saying everyones a liar ??

I recorded a 3.0 second 0-100kph on my rsm the other day as I had inadvertently altered the settings.....................

If you run on a gradient you will get a different time, if you hit a bump you will get a different time. Its not that people are liars its that the unit cant take into account the different conditions. Yes they are a fun guide, but its not like comparing apples with apples!

Axeboy
04-10-2006, 05:07 PM
I understand where Zentac is coming from, am i think people are taking it the wrong way...

I doubt anyone here would, but ive seen it happen... we have a Gtech ranking at overclockers and you post a pic of the result...

Needless to say we have 1.2 micras beating the 9 seconds to 60... hmmm!


But chill lads, i see what he saying, and its not directed at anyone!!

Wodjno
04-10-2006, 05:11 PM
I recorded a 3.0 second 0-100kph on my rsm the other day as I had inadvertently altered the settings.....................

If you run on a gradient you will get a different time, if you hit a bump you will get a different time. Its not that people are liars its that the unit cant take into account the different conditions. Yes they are a fun guide, but its not like comparing apples with apples!

I know it's not that people are Liars ! It's that some people are suggesting that other people maybe running there car down hills to better there 0-60 or 1/4 mile times. This is suggesting that people ARE LYING ! Maybe People with FTO's like to wind up other people with FTO's :thinking:
I have completed literally 100's of 0-60 run's with the Gtech and i can nearly tell you the 0-60 time without even looking at the Gtech. And when you Pull a Sub 5 0-60mph you can feel it in your head as the kick of the line is pretty incredible. :2thumbsup As i think you well know Dave ! I can quite "HONESTLY" say that i have never pulled a Sub 5 on the Gtech without felling that Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus Chriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiist feel you get when it Wup Asses you up the road ! And if i did pull a Sub 5 without the feel of that kick then i would know summat was wrong with the Gtech ! Granted that nothing can be accurate all the time. But test were done with the Gtech, against the RSM and the Pod, and if i remember they were not a million miles away.
One thing i seem to notice though is ? That if the equipment don't cost a fortune then it is said to be no good :inquisiti
So are we to believe the figures from Bruntingthorpe ??

enigma
04-10-2006, 05:18 PM
Dont make me get technical on your ass! Its all about how the gtech measures the 0-60 time that leads to the inaccuracy. The results from Bruntingthorpe because of the way in which they were conducted are more indicitive of real performance. The RSM has an advantage over the Gtech as it has a speed input that it can use and correct based on the g sensor reading.

Wodjno
04-10-2006, 05:28 PM
Dont make me get technical on your ass! Its all about how the gtech measures the 0-60 time that leads to the inaccuracy. The results from Bruntingthorpe because of the way in which they were conducted are more indicitive of real performance. The RSM has an advantage over the Gtech as it has a speed input that it can use and correct based on the g sensor reading.

:happy: Get as Technical on my Ass as you wish ? /pan

Bruntingthorpe was done by GPS was it not ?

Does this also take consideration when it calculates speed, 1/4 mile and 0-60 mph times /Banana

valmes
04-10-2006, 05:40 PM
I recorded a 3.0 second 0-100kph on my rsm the other day as I had inadvertently altered the settings.....................

If you run on a gradient you will get a different time, if you hit a bump you will get a different time. Its not that people are liars its that the unit cant take into account the different conditions. Yes they are a fun guide, but its not like comparing apples with apples!

Try that 3 sec run with correct settings... even downhill as suggested by zentac. I am sure you will have to find a cliff to fall off in order to hit that good of a time on CORRECT settings with G-sensor in good working condition. Then try getting consistent with those times.

Now guess what, on a dragstrip, if "you run on gradient" or if you "hit a bump" you will get a different time... since not all dragstrips are the same. In different weather condition, aka temperature, humidity etc. you will get different times... Even if two different people will run the same car - you will still get a different time. How much of a difference is a difference... for a car enthusiasts web site???

Apples to apples you say? Why not "face to face?"... after all internet is weird in this respect. How do you know I am a VR-4 owner? May be I am laying about that as well?

I did all the adjustments and compared my RSM with electronic measurement equipment that is used for local Drag Racing events. It was within +/- 0.02 sec at most. Is that accurate enough?

We do agree that the only way it can get ridiculously unreal times is when you have settings messed up, right?

The thing is, it can be either done "inadvertently" or "on purpose"...
so, what were you saying again? :inquisiti

I am "building" my car for 3 years now... I've been through couple big accidents that set me back for quite a while... I've ruined two differentials, 2 set of turbos and I'm on third engine now... not counting every other "good thing" that happened along the "learning curve".

Don't you think it would be much easier for me to just dial in incorrect "Tire adj" settings, Weight and find a good hill to run off... 3 YEARS AGO???? Than to go through all this to just brag? :inquisiti

If you don't want to accept other people achievements, that's fine with me, but calling me a person who can "inadvertently" dial in wrong settings on Apexi RSM is quite a statement... that MAKES me "touchey"... :speechles

Axeboy
04-10-2006, 05:47 PM
Chill Valmes...

We all know you dont have a legnum, and that you are a super-geek thats a dab hand with paintshop pro...

enigma
04-10-2006, 06:11 PM
:happy: Get as Technical on my Ass as you wish ? /pan

Bruntingthorpe was done by GPS was it not ?

Does this also take consideration when it calculates speed, 1/4 mile and 0-60 mph times /Banana

OK

The Pod and other venues that are set up for 1/4 mile events use a series of beams at specified distances along the track. When you break the start beam the clock starts, and when you break the beams up the track the timing gear gives you a time. You ALWAYS cover a distance of 1/4 mile at these venues every time you visit as the timing lights are always in the same place. To measure your speed there are 2 timing lights a fixed distance apart. Using the equation:

Velocity = distance/time

your average speed over this known distance can be calculated. This is where your terminal speeds may be a little out from what you expect at the Pod as the second terminal speed beam is after the finish line, so you need to keep on the gas until you pass it.

Bruntingthorpe did indeed use GPS, but it was not the same standard as used in your TOM TOM, it was far far more accurate (so much so that I can see the lines people took around the bends). Using many samples per second the timing system uses the same equation as above ie:

Velocity = distance/time

As it knows with very high accuracy the exact position of the GPS device the velocity at any given moment can be calculated. Because it works in 3 dimensions it would even have taken account for anyone that decided to use the width of the runway in there timed sprints. Because it knows your velocity at any given moment it can also therefore determine when certain thresholds are passed, like for example 60 mph. It then looks at the time, looks back at the time the first movement was noticed, takes one from the other and voila a 0-60 time. For the 1/4 mile time, well it measures distance accurately so it knows when you have travelled exactly 1/4 mile from your inital point of rest.

The RSM uses a different set of inputs and equations. It has a speed input from the gearbox so it knows how fast you are going at any given time (as long as you set it up correctly) It also has an acceleration input. To measure the 0-60 times it uses both of these, primarily it uses the speed sensor though. When it senses a change in speed from 0 to anything more than about 0.5mph it starts the clock. As it has a speed input it can easily work out how long it takes to get to 60. It is quite clever though as it will also use the acceleration input to compensate for wheelspin......how? Well using a couple of equations of course. At any given time it knows your speed and the time elapsed so it can calculate what the acceleration should be using the equation:

Final Velocity=Initial Velocity + Acceleration X Time

or

Acceleration = Final Velocity - Initial Velocity / Time

Now as it also has an acceleration input it can determine whether or not the calculated acceleration and the actual acceleration are the same......it does this many times per second. If the calculated acceleration is significantly more that the measured acceleration then you have wheelspin. Easy! If it is less then something is wrong!

To measure 1/4 mile times it uses the speed signal input with the following equation:

Distance = Velocity / Time

Again taking measurements many times per second, so at any given moment it knows how far you have travelled since the previous given moment. Now again it will use the acceleration input to ensure everything tallys up:

Distance = 1/2 x Acceleration X Time x Time

And correct as approprite.

Now on the the Gtech. It has only one input and that is acceleration. Unfortunately it is the acceleration of the unit rather than that of the car (unless you have it rigidly mounted) This is where the problems start. Mount your Gtech on your windscreen and turn it in to the mode to measure Gs and give it a little tap......you will see the Gs change drastically. Now drive along with it in this mode and see what happens to the Gs as you drive along Britains fantastic roads. Now the screen update is quite slow, in the background the processor is getting loads more samples per second. So what? Well this as you will remember is the only source of measurement that the gtech has. To figure out your speed it uses the equation:

Final Velocity = initial Velocity + Acceleration x Time

If the Acceleration measurement is disturbed this can have a profound effect on the calculation. If you dont believe me I will perhaps put together a spreadsheet for you.

Similarly it uses the equation:

Distance=1/2 x Acceleration x Time x Time

To work out how far you have travelled, and shaking or erroneous readings will cause errors to be introduced. The reason that the results from testing at the Pod may have led you to believe that the units were giving reasonable results is probably more to do with the track surface than anything else.

Then there is the issue of gradients. If you start off on a level bit of road and then find during your run the gradient changes this will also affect your time. As you know from setting the unit horizontal before a run the acceleration sensor is quite accurate! Contrary to Richards post you will probably find that you get better results going uphill than down as the sensor will read a higher G than you are actually pulling that will affect the equations. Go downhill and the readings will be lower so it will take you longer to reach the target. It may be marginal with the difference in actual acceleration up and down a hill though. Now if you start to think about the effects of bumps and suspension settings along with the secure method of fastening the unit to the windscreen you may start to see the point!

So in summary, all of the methods of measuring times and speeds use input data and equations to work things out. Where the other methods always use a known physical input (speed or distance) the Gtech suffers from using data that is at best questionable pervesely due to the accuracy of its measuring device. On a similar bit of road you will always be able to get a good comparison, but comparing times from your test track and my test track and anyone elses test track, let alone different peoples car can only ever be a rough guide.

Technical enough for your ass? :|

Wodjno
04-10-2006, 06:24 PM
OK

The Pod and other venues that are set up for 1/4 mile events use a series of beams at specified distances along the track. When you break the start beam the clock starts, and when you break the beams up the track the timing gear gives you a time. You ALWAYS cover a distance of 1/4 mile at these venues every time you visit as the timing lights are always in the same place. To measure your speed there are 2 timing lights a fixed distance apart. Using the equation:

Velocity = distance/time

your average speed over this known distance can be calculated. This is where your terminal speeds may be a little out from what you expect at the Pod as the second terminal speed beam is after the finish line, so you need to keep on the gas until you pass it.

Bruntingthorpe did indeed use GPS, but it was not the same standard as used in your TOM TOM, it was far far more accurate (so much so that I can see the lines people took around the bends). Using many samples per second the timing system uses the same equation as above ie:

Velocity = distance/time

As it knows with very high accuracy the exact position of the GPS device the velocity at any given moment can be calculated. Because it works in 3 dimensions it would even have taken account for anyone that decided to use the width of the runway in there timed sprints. Because it knows your velocity at any given moment it can also therefore determine when certain thresholds are passed, like for example 60 mph. It then looks at the time, looks back at the time the first movement was noticed, takes one from the other and voila a 0-60 time. For the 1/4 mile time, well it measures distance accurately so it knows when you have travelled exactly 1/4 mile from your inital point of rest.

The RSM uses a different set of inputs and equations. It has a speed input from the gearbox so it knows how fast you are going at any given time (as long as you set it up correctly) It also has an acceleration input. To measure the 0-60 times it uses both of these, primarily it uses the speed sensor though. When it senses a change in speed from 0 to anything more than about 0.5mph it starts the clock. As it has a speed input it can easily work out how long it takes to get to 60. It is quite clever though as it will also use the acceleration input to compensate for wheelspin......how? Well using a couple of equations of course. At any given time it knows your speed and the time elapsed so it can calculate what the acceleration should be using the equation:

Final Velocity=Initial Velocity + Acceleration X Time

or

Acceleration = Final Velocity - Initial Velocity / Time

Now as it also has an acceleration input it can determine whether or not the calculated acceleration and the actual acceleration are the same......it does this many times per second. If the calculated acceleration is significantly more that the measured acceleration then you have wheelspin. Easy! If it is less then something is wrong!

To measure 1/4 mile times it uses the speed signal input with the following equation:

Distance = Velocity / Time

Again taking measurements many times per second, so at any given moment it knows how far you have travelled since the previous given moment. Now again it will use the acceleration input to ensure everything tallys up:

Distance = 1/2 x Acceleration X Time x Time

And correct as approprite.

Now on the the Gtech. It has only one input and that is acceleration. Unfortunately it is the acceleration of the unit rather than that of the car (unless you have it rigidly mounted) This is where the problems start. Mount your Gtech on your windscreen and turn it in to the mode to measure Gs and give it a little tap......you will see the Gs change drastically. Now drive along with it in this mode and see what happens to the Gs as you drive along Britains fantastic roads. Now the screen update is quite slow, in the background the processor is getting loads more samples per second. So what? Well this as you will remember is the only source of measurement that the gtech has. To figure out your speed it uses the equation:

Final Velocity = initial Velocity + Acceleration x Time

If the Acceleration measurement is disturbed this can have a profound effect on the calculation. If you dont believe me I will perhaps put together a spreadsheet for you.

Similarly it uses the equation:

Distance=1/2 x Acceleration x Time x Time

To work out how far you have travelled, and shaking or erroneous readings will cause errors to be introduced. The reason that the results from testing at the Pod may have led you to believe that the units were giving reasonable results is probably more to do with the track surface than anything else.

Then there is the issue of gradients. If you start off on a level bit of road and then find during your run the gradient changes this will also affect your time. As you know from setting the unit horizontal before a run the acceleration sensor is quite accurate! Contrary to Richards post you will probably find that you get better results going uphill than down as the sensor will read a higher G than you are actually pulling that will affect the equations. Go downhill and the readings will be lower so it will take you longer to reach the target. It may be marginal with the difference in actual acceleration up and down a hill though. Now if you start to think about the effects of bumps and suspension settings along with the secure method of fastening the unit to the windscreen you may start to see the point!

So in summary, all of the methods of measuring times and speeds use input data and equations to work things out. Where the other methods always use a known physical input (speed or distance) the Gtech suffers from using data that is at best questionable pervesely due to the accuracy of its measuring device. On a similar bit of road you will always be able to get a good comparison, but comparing times from your test track and my test track and anyone elses test track, let alone different peoples car can only ever be a rough guide.

Technical enough for your ass? :|

/Welcome2 WELCOME BACK DAVE /Welcome2

richy rich
04-10-2006, 06:35 PM
/Welcome2 WELCOME BACK DAVE /Welcome2
yes /Welcome2 /Welcome2 back mate

Wodjno
04-10-2006, 06:35 PM
Fairly Technical Dave ! But nothing that i didn't really already understand :happy:

But the issue here was a Statement that seemed to imply that times could and Can be altered(or cheated) :speechles

At the end of the Day, we know that people can Lie or Exagerate, Stretch the Truth :thinking: That is up to the individual and if they decide to do this, then they know themselves that they are only kidding themselves. /pan

The Gtech thread was created to for a bit of fun between Events :2thumbsup And i am sure it was successful and enjoyed by all who took part :d

But to Say that GTech times are totally inadmissible to show how fast a car can get from 0-60mph or complete a 1/4 mile is Bo!!ocks /yes

enigma
04-10-2006, 07:18 PM
/Welcome2 WELCOME BACK DAVE /Welcome2

I have not been anywhere, I have been here all along.

enigma
04-10-2006, 07:19 PM
But to Say that GTech times are totally inadmissible to show how fast a car can get from 0-60mph or complete a 1/4 mile is Bo!!ocks /yes

Not totally inadmisable, but not all together accurate repeatable or standardised.

SGHOM
04-10-2006, 07:21 PM
I have not been anywhere, I have been here all along.

we know. :thinking:

Kieran
04-10-2006, 07:23 PM
Dum di Dum.... Anyone want port and Cigars? The ship's galley has rang through to say they're ready...

Alex
04-10-2006, 07:24 PM
Dum di Dum....


Copy Cat!

SGHOM
04-10-2006, 07:36 PM
you lot can get as technical as you like. I proved my car to be the fastest known galant in the world at japshow back in October. :2thumbsup
It was then & it still is now. :evilgrin:
until someone can come up with a car worthy of the name "galant/legnum" & run it down the strip in under 12.49, then in my opinion, & the opinion of the 50 or so members at JF11, my car will remain at the top of the leaderboard. /Devil5 ;) ;)

enigma
04-10-2006, 08:03 PM
you lot can get as technical as you like. I proved my car to be the fastest known galant in the world at japshow back in October. :2thumbsup
It was then & it still is now. :evilgrin:
until someone can come up with a car worthy of the name "galant/legnum" & run it down the strip in under 12.49, then in my opinion, & the opinion of the 50 or so members at JF11, my car will remain at the top of the leaderboard. /Devil5 ;) ;)

Race you tomorrow :2thumbsup

d i c k i e s
04-10-2006, 10:23 PM
hmmm battle!

Kieran
04-10-2006, 11:44 PM
So anyway, now we're all done squabbling with each other... /grr

What do people think of my suggestion in post #27?

http://www.clubvr4.com/forum/showpost.php?p=190905&postcount=27

Physician
05-10-2006, 02:28 AM
Yea, I'll race you in your Saab as well Derek! :bananadan

valmes
05-10-2006, 02:45 AM
Chill Valmes...

We all know you dont have a legnum, and that you are a super-geek thats a dab hand with paintshop pro...


Did I give you that idea? :oops:

Very good technical description by Dave... and quite long too.

I do agree that the best way to get "believable" results is to run down the SAME strip (for everyone), but that's might not be possible for everyone involved in this discussion! Hence, I also do believe that Apexi RSM, if setup correctly, can be used to get a very accurate indication of a cars performance... G-TECH, in my opinion, is less accurate for 0-60 times (more so for 1/4 mile) due to its design, but even with a greater error factor it still is an indication of how car performs.

Within the margin of error for my last run (12,89) recorded by Apexi RSM, it can be anywhere from 12,86-12,92 sec. Quite close in my book.

In fact if I ran the same time on local dragstrip (and we are building one right inside the city limits... should be working next year with measurement equipment by "Race America") - you can still question the times, due to different surface condition, temperature, gradient (incline?) and so on!

... we can get silly questioning each other ...

Even if some competition is a good thing to get people moving in the right direction, this webclub is for sharing info on VR-4s and everything related, not attacking each other.

So here is my little suggestion - just add an additional field in this table that can state HOW the timing was done or/and even apply a correction factor to a submitted time, then everyone should be happy! You can even grade this factor based on how much you trust that person... just a thought.

PS: So the fastest is 12.49 ? /Hmmm
I wonder why locals (clubvr4 members) became so defensive of their times??? You feel it coming, right? ;) Ha ha... j/k

enigma
05-10-2006, 07:22 AM
PS: So the fastest is 12.49 ? /Hmmm

I dont think so ;)

Kieran
05-10-2006, 08:14 AM
Even if some competition is a good thing to get people moving in the right direction, this webclub is for sharing info on VR-4s and everything related, not attacking each other.

So here is my little suggestion - just add an additional field in this table that can state HOW the timing was done or/and even apply a correction factor to a submitted time, then everyone should be happy! You can even grade this factor based on how much you trust that person... just a thought.



That's a good idea Val - I like it.:)

enigma
05-10-2006, 08:23 AM
OK, a quick spreadsheet that I knocked up........it is loosely based on the Bruntingthorpe 0-60 data (although not exact as I dont have the data to hand)

Have a play with the acceleration numbers and put in some spurious values.

I put in 17 spurious values (out of 475) over the run and the 0-60 time dropped by 0.3 seconds. I was quite conservative with my 1.2 G values as well.............

enigma
05-10-2006, 08:25 AM
That's a good idea Val - I like it.:)

You can already tell the Gtech times as the only data that is filled in as the time and speed.

The RSM gives some intermediate times, but not all.

All times recorded at a dragstrip will have a 60ft time, as this is one of the most important and useful bits of data.

Kieran
05-10-2006, 08:35 AM
You can already tell the Gtech times as the only data that is filled in as the time and speed.

The RSM gives some intermediate times, but not all.

All times recorded at a dragstrip will have a 60ft time, as this is one of the most important and useful bits of data.

I know!/yes But, seeing as one of the sticking points has been over measurment, then having it declared allows people to judge for themselves if they feel the time is valid or not. Which is roughly what Nick suggested way back at the start of this thread!:rolleyes3 You forget - those of us who have experience of a Gtech/RSM/Strip will find it easy to identify what method/device a particular time is measured from, but not everyone does.

Whilst we're on the subject... what about the suggestion in post #27?

enigma
05-10-2006, 08:48 AM
Whilst we're on the subject... what about the suggestion in post #27?

Dont see the need for 'special vehicles' as there is nothing particularly special about them. Dereks car would also have to fall in to this category if it was introduced as at the time of his run it was not exactly 'normal'. Standard or modified is covered anyway, as is the fact that some people dont drive Galants/Legnums.

Kieran
05-10-2006, 10:52 AM
Dont see the need for 'special vehicles' as there is nothing particularly special about them. Dereks car would also have to fall in to this category if it was introduced as at the time of his run it was not exactly 'normal'. Standard or modified is covered anyway, as is the fact that some people dont drive Galants/Legnums.

But you can't search/filter at the moment. At the moment, the 1/4 table is difficult to use as a comparrison because of this.

I also totally disagree with your thoughts on the 'Special' category. I would argue that the FTO and your Frankegnum are very special..... Rich's is a one off, as was yours. Derek's car doesn't fall into the Special category as they could be re-assembled back to road-spec in a couple of hours. All that was different about Derek's car (on top of his road-going spec) was a partially stripped interior, one missing headlamp and NOS - Whereas the Frankegnum was a shell with skin doors and boot, no p/s or a/c, no dashboard or heater assembly, no clocks and a pop-riveted steel plate over the moonroof housing.

It'd be like me shoving Ariadne's engine in Goldie or PapPap and stipping one of those to the bare.....:uhoh2: rust! :embarasse..... it would be neither a VR-4 or a Colt Galant anymore - and therefore would have to go in the special category, rather than the 'Galant' category.

enigma
05-10-2006, 11:07 AM
Derek's car doesn't fall into the Special category as they could be re-assembled back to road-spec in a couple of hours. All that was different about Derek's car (on top of his road-going spec) was a partially stripped interior, one missing headlamp and NOS - Whereas the Frankegnum was a shell with skin doors and boot, no p/s or a/c, no dashboard or heater assembly, no clocks and a pop-riveted steel plate over the moonroof housing.

Still only a couple of hours to reassemble ;) It also never proved its full potential............................

There is no real need to filter the results there are that few in there it makes it a pointless exercise at the moment.

colVR4
05-10-2006, 11:10 AM
Just have a column with timing method. People can put G-tech, RSM, official drag strip, etc...take what you want from it then.

enigma
05-10-2006, 11:21 AM
Just have a column with timing method. People can put G-tech, RSM, official drag strip, etc...take what you want from it then.

Just need to display the track name field as it is already in the database.

Throbbe
10-01-2007, 03:30 PM
PMSL at this thread (and sorry to resurrect it, I was looking at terminal times to see whether I needed a helmet at Santa Pod).

It's only a bit of fun, surely. Even with Santa Pod timing gear and a reasonable consistency (usually no more than 0.1 second variation across a day) my average times would vary from one day to another by over 0.3 secs if there was a headwind, for example. Talking to the big boys (13 second Scirocco owner) their mileage was much the same. Track preperation/cleanliness also has an impact (I suspect this accounts for US tracks seeming to get better times, as they take it more seriously).

I'll add a nay against the 'class' idea, for reasons already touched on. It just adds another variable for people to argue about!

WildCards
10-01-2007, 04:49 PM
You wait until my little 205 annhilates all of yo standard asses with it's 1.6 litre 115bhp might. Mwuhahahahahaha!

Kieran
10-01-2007, 04:58 PM
I wonder what time Skarloey would run?! /Devil5

Lillywotsername
10-01-2007, 05:00 PM
I wonder what time Skarloey would run?! /Devil5
Or my spazcort type car..... If it managed to finish the 1/4 mile in one piece/pan /pan

Kieran
10-01-2007, 05:16 PM
/Devil5 Wanna race, Lilly? /Devil5 /Devil5

I'll leave you in a cloud of black smoke!:afro:

Wodjno
10-01-2007, 05:34 PM
/Devil5 Wanna race, Lilly? /Devil5 /Devil5

I'll leave you in a cloud of black smoke!:afro:

I'll Bring on the PUG /toycar

60 bhp :pimp2:

Well Originally :speechles

White Lightning
10-01-2007, 05:37 PM
Kate's Ka would do all of them ... /rally

Wodjno
10-01-2007, 05:38 PM
Kate's Ka would do all of them ... /rally

If you could see your way through Mine and Kierans SMOKE WALL

Lillywotsername
10-01-2007, 05:39 PM
Maybe Rich needs to get this lancer on the road asap..... at least it has an auto box so no gear changes necessary. /rally /rally :speechles :speechles
Might be in with a chance of at least keeping up/help

Wodjno
10-01-2007, 05:45 PM
Maybe Rich needs to get this lancer on the road asap..... at least it has an auto box so no gear changes necessary. /rally /rally :speechles :speechles
Might be in with a chance of at least keeping up/help

YEAH RIGHT


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Wodjno
10-01-2007, 06:13 PM
If you could see your way through Mine and Kierans SMOKE WALL

I reckon we could even beat the Jet Car in a SMOKE WARS type tournament :evilgrin:

zentac
10-01-2007, 06:25 PM
I cant believe Im still top.... comeone some one give me a new target to aim for!

Wodjno
10-01-2007, 06:27 PM
I cant believe Im still top.... comeone some one give me a new target to aim for!

October will soon be here :evilgrin:

enigma
10-01-2007, 06:28 PM
October will soon be here :evilgrin:

My car will kick all your skinny asses (again)

Wodjno
10-01-2007, 06:33 PM
My car will kick all your skinny asses (again)

Not with only 1 wheel turning it won't /pan

And don't call me Skinny :speechles

Kieran
10-01-2007, 06:39 PM
My car will kick all your skinny asses (again)

But will it be anything resembling a Legnum (or a Galant)?!

No (again).

eheheheheheheeheheheee!/Devil5 /toycar

Bet it won't be very shiny either! :afro:

Wodjno
10-01-2007, 06:42 PM
But will it be anything resembling a Legnum (or a Galant)?!

No (again).

eheheheheheheeheheheee!/Devil5 /toycar

I think he has taken on board PSB's suggestion :inquisiti

And if he has :thinking: He will be the fastest on the day /toycar

Kieran
10-01-2007, 06:44 PM
Oh, for sure... I will be disappointed if Dave doesn't beat the current top time by at least a second! He'd better do with all that grunt! :inquisiti

enigma
10-01-2007, 06:46 PM
I think he has taken on board PSB's suggestion :inquisiti

And if he has :thinking: He will be the fastest on the day /toycar

No LSD required - Now where is my welding gear.......................... :scholar:

Wodjno
10-01-2007, 07:05 PM
No LSD required - Now where is my welding gear.......................... :scholar:

Not that Suggestion /pan

This 1


looks good dave :afro: sounds even better , just 2 suggestions though
1) get an LSD
2) buy some braces /runs and hides as daves bigger than me /help


Then drive to the finish line :thinking:

Attach the Braces to the finishing post... Then use all the grunt of the car to reverse back to the start line and attach the rear of the car to a conveniently placed hook on the floor:scholar:

Then when it go's Green, hit the release button and "Hey Presto" 10second 1/4 :evilgrin:

enigma
10-01-2007, 08:36 PM
Funny how the fastest 4 UK cars have all been in my garage................

Braces shouldn't be required Glenn, calculations suggest that sub 10 should be possible :scholar:

Wodjno
10-01-2007, 10:02 PM
Funny how the fastest 4 UK cars have all been in my garage................

Braces shouldn't be required Glenn, calculations suggest that sub 10 should be possible :scholar:

Agreed :2thumbsup Sub 10secs is possibly on the cards :happy:

But i still think PSB was right about the braces :scholar:

zentac
11-01-2007, 12:06 AM
October will soon be here :evilgrin:

yeah but by october I want to be in the low 11's

Wodjno
11-01-2007, 12:09 AM
yeah but by october I want to be in the low 11's

Good luck with your venture :pimp2:

I got plenty of Giggle Gas here as well you know :evilgrin: