LQ

Yeah I know what you mean. Just don't appreciate being called a liar. It's okay though. I'm over it.

CA

 

CA and those in Colorado...where you running at Bandimere by any chance? Even if you weren't as has been previously stated ad nauseum by Dirt Bike Dave, Sal, etc, if you're at 5000' and have conditions like you mention...if you're running 14s ever, then you are doing well.

15.0/90mph sounds about right to me if I had to guess and an L owner was asking my opinion about what it would run at 5000+'.

I know Vipers at Bandimere run 13s on a good day. Seriously.

Like Lightningquick said...I'm glad I get to race where I do, even if its not at sea level and its hot, hot, hot during most of the racing season.

Anyway, CA at this point, I wouldn't panic. As long as the boost wasn't shutting down on you, and it felt like it runs when you're out on the street, then its probably running just fine.

I think tracks that are that high up in elevation should use some sort of correction factor when giving out their timeslips...or at least give people an idea, so they can do their own calculations. Just like you get when you go to the chassis dyno. There's the actual #s and then there are corrected #s. Levels the playing field and allows you to make changes to combos with quantitative data and feedback.

When we get a crisp day here in N. Texas and the BP is ~30.00+, I can see an easy 2mph gain and .2-.3 gain in ET on any of my vehicles. And even then, this air isn't nearly what you guys on the east coast get to run in at your tracks which are at or near sea level. I'd love to run at Englishtown, NJ someday.

------------------
Wes Tarbox
90 LX 5.0 (10.69 @ 134.7)--586rwhp/587rwtq
96 Cobra (12.63 @ 114.5)--390rwhp/441rwtq
99 Lightning (13.20 @ 103.3)--365rwhp/444rwtq
00 Expedition XLT 5.4
http://members.aol.com/Wa2fst/index.html

 

Wes,

Yeah I know. But the thing is that I ran under 14s. That is what this problem is stemming from. It is *impossible* for me to do that at Bandimere. *fraid not. But the answers given to me here today for the most part were helpful. Between the barometric pressure and my smooth move with the racing fuel and the F1s and what have you I am understanding a little bit better. What it seems to be is that I should have posted in Sep and said *AWESOME day at the track...WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH MY L* But whatever hehe

CA

 

What seems funny here, is christy is dealing with problems that most of us do not have, and people are taking out their slide rules to use as a lie detector. i have never raced at 5-6K ft alt, and i do know that at the strip , "stuff" happens. i'm starting to see why someone like high risk, who probably has the quickest gen2 lightning, rarely posts here,probably doesn't want his time slip scrutinized.

 

I wish I knew how I did it the first time...I'd do it again you can bet.
CA

 

well...if this makes any difference to you guys saying it is impossible to do at this altitude...3 buick grand nationals were running 11.8 all day long today, at 23.38 barometric pressure. So...there we have it! Yes, 3 Buick Grand Nationals were running 4 seconds faster than the Vette...and you wanna know why? cuz Forced Induction was I believe invented to deal with high altitude racing. Our trucks are not affected like a Vette, or a Camaro is by this altitude. In Denver, Turbo's and Supercharged units are top dog. That is why I was outrunning that vette today. Gotta love Denver.

In Summary...we should run very close to what we run at lower altitudes, due to our forced induction. Or at least, that's what everyone told me at the track today. however...the SUPER LOW barometric pressure, due to the storm rushing in, is what skewed everything...on a "normal" day at Bandimere, I think you will all be suprised at what us Lightnings run. We'll just have to see. We'll report back, as soon as we get more "hard data". HAHAHA!

 

23.80" - Ha! I don't know where they got that pressure, but all barometer readings are "corrected" to sea level. Standard temp - Pressure is 29.92" at 59 deg F. I suppose that it's possible that they used actual pressure but, if they did, they have to be the only place in the world that uses it! Pressure needs to be corrected to a known base to be used in comparisons. Unless their timing machinery takes pressure into account (and I don't see why it should), the reported 23.80 is meaningless. CA, check back for the corrected altimeter reading and base your comparisons on that. On the other hand, density altitude is going to affect your truck, supercharged or not; just not as much. At sea level, on a standard day, your supercharger is supposed to produce 8 PSI. At 5280 ft, on a non-standard day, as you reported, the blower can't spin fast enough within the RPM limits to pack the cylinders with the same charge of air-fuel as it could at sea level. Therefore, it really was a good day!

End of lesson.

adp
#1530
Black '99

[This message has been edited by adp (edited 04-23-2000).]

 

I, too am skeptical of a 13.58 at 6,000 feet. I'd have to see that to believe it.

This isn't a question of veracity, it's a question of physics and chemistry. Lower barometric pressure means reduced oxygen and horsepower.

Blown or not, an engine makes a whole lot less HP in Denver than in Detroit, and I'd be surprised to see an L run 13.50s here.




------------------
Regards,
Gordon

99.5 Red Lightning
Only driven on Sundays (1/4 mile at a time)

 

CA,Atom I believe you guys!
I was able to get 7 runs in on Sat at Union Grove in Wis.I was running consistant,14.1,14.2,14.0 times,I thought that i would break into the 13's but I didnt.Was I disappointed i didnt get into the 13's...Not really...I was good enough to beat most of the LS1's and LT1's that were running,and that made me happy.Even RobG,who has a chip,borla cat back,sal's filter had a tough time getting into the 13's,his best et was 13.8..so i didnt feel to bad.The main question here is did you have fun?Cause in the end that is what this is all about.I love racing my truck,It was sooooo much fun!

 

Grand Nationals run can run 10's and lower near sea level. Additionally they are turbo charged not ROOTS supercharged. Turbos can be set up to run great at high altitude, this neat device called a boost controller, set it to 26 psi and let the good times roll (with a big enough turbo). A Root supercharge would have to be overspun by a great deal to deal with the low pressure.


P.S. I personally saw High Risk's 12.29 @ 108 run as did a few other members of this board.

[This message has been edited by 2000Silverbulletonorder (edited 04-23-2000).]

 

Zor,

I did have fun being back on the track. That was great, meeting Eric was great, my times being so far off disappointed me. But thanks to most of you guys I understand now. I'm going to leave it at that. I'm actually surprised at some of the board. Like I said, I know what I ran. That's all that counts to me.

CA

 

Now,
When does it turn to 3 pages??????????LOL
I think a couple of more pst should do it

 

For the record, I'm not questioning CA's 13-sec timeslip. That's really not for me to do.

I was merely stating that 14s out of an L at 5000'+ is good. Yes, running a forced induction motor means the air quality has _less_ effect on the motor's output, but don't tell me it has little to no affect...that would be an inaccurate statement based on physics or simple experience.

I'm only trying to reassure CA that her L isn't running poorly b/c based on the facts of where she raced, the track conditions, the race fuel she used, etc...I don't think there's a problem with her truck... unless you have a bad rod-knock you just aren't telling us about, CA.

Have a good one,

------------------
Wes Tarbox
90 LX 5.0 (10.69 @ 134.7)--586rwhp/587rwtq
96 Cobra (12.63 @ 114.5)--390rwhp/441rwtq
99 Lightning (13.20 @ 103.3)--365rwhp/444rwtq
00 Expedition XLT 5.4
http://members.aol.com/Wa2fst/index.html

 

Might as well make it 3 pages.

Here is why I think it is possible to get a 13.56 time from a stock L at 5,860'.

She does 15.17 w/horrible conditions. In a mountain climate, weather variations can be extreme. Assume her September run was in great conditions - 10% humidity, 40 degrees, high pressure for the altitude of 26.5 or so. Those NHRA calculators show a 1.1 second difference for weather conditions alone.

Now we are fighting about 0.5 seconds, and there are about two dozen things that could combine for that, including:

She got a once in a lifetime perfect launch

Someone has the fastest stock L - could be CA

Maybe her L has a 'high altitude' computer code which was optimum for the Sept. conditions.

BTW, another member had previously posted a 13.9x, stock, at elevation.

Maybe CA will never break 14 again, but that doesn't mean she didn't do a 13.56 once.

 

Christy:
Shut them all up by simply scaning the time slips and posting them, they show the date, BP, Temp, and times and speeds. That would be enough to shut down all the questions, speculations, and "I don't think so's". Seeing is believing to most of these guy's and gal's.
You have also given me another reason to never live above sea level.