Finally found a combo for 11's
07-24-2008, 12:26 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Elkridge, MD
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if that was a race in the mountains i am guessing that was at least 4k feet elevation and if the weather was in the 80's his time converts to a 10.57@128. Now that is something to be extremely proud of
07-24-2008, 05:51 PM
#20
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Fort Lupton Colorado
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5800 feet at bandimere speedway. No nitrous, just fuel on a stage III pump. I know at lower elevation it would do better but since its a forced induction motor It wont be that much difference I dont think. Judging by a trap speed HP calculator I'm making 745 to the ground, I'll have to hit the dyno up soon!
07-24-2008, 10:03 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OutofSight- Great run. Do you have RP gauge? I'm just curious because I'm running a Stage 3 from II and I still cannot maintain rail pressure. Just wondering what pressure your running.
07-24-2008, 11:39 PM
#23
Registered User
Stang, Times will obviously improve at lower elevation but that calculator you're using has too high of a correction factor for a turbo diesel application. I could see him dropping a tenth or three but not 1.2 seconds.
Now a naturally aspirated engine, altitude and temp will really kill HP and thus you could have a 10% correction factor. IIRC turbo forced induction motors are less than half the correction factor of a NA induction motor.
Now a naturally aspirated engine, altitude and temp will really kill HP and thus you could have a 10% correction factor. IIRC turbo forced induction motors are less than half the correction factor of a NA induction motor.
07-24-2008, 11:50 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Elkridge, MD
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah i did some reading and realized that it doesn't effect turbo vehicles as much as a naturally aspirated engine so i was wrong, but under what other people are telling me corrected he is a little over 3 tenths faster at sea level.
07-25-2008, 01:03 AM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would usually lose around .2 sec from here in Boise to RMR in SLC. There is about 1800' difference in the tracks. From here to sea level it is .1 second or less. So I would guess Allan would run at or slightly under 11.5 at sea level.
07-25-2008, 05:30 AM
#26
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Fort Lupton Colorado
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-25-2008, 09:59 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fort Collins CO
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think you should try a run with my smarty, I was there and had it with me but didnt get a chance to catch up to you guys. I was a little to busy buying go fast parts. But those are some really nice times!