1/4 Mile Leaderboard.

[richy rich]

WELCOME BACK DAVE

yes back mate

[Wodjno]

Fairly Technical Dave ! But nothing that i didn't really already understand

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

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

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

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

[enigma]

WELCOME BACK DAVE

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

[enigma]

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

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

[SGHOM]

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

we know.

[Kieran]

Dum di Dum.... Anyone want port and Cigars? The ship's galley has rang through to say they're ready...

[Alex]

Dum di Dum....

Copy Cat!

[SGHOM]

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.
It was then & it still is now.
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.

[enigma]

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.
It was then & it still is now.
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.

Race you tomorrow

[d i c k i e s]

hmmm battle!

[Kieran]

So anyway, now we're all done squabbling with each other...

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

http://www.clubvr4.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=27

[Physician]

Yea, I'll race you in your Saab as well Derek!

[valmes]

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?

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 ?
I wonder why locals (clubvr4 members) became so defensive of their times??? You feel it coming, right? Ha ha... j/k

[enigma]

PS: So the fastest is 12.49 ?

I dont think so

[Kieran]

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]

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]

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]

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! 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! 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]

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]

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..... rust! ..... 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.