David Floyd

Yes, Arnold AFB

Pretty cool things go on out there.

DanaT

Todd, you are insane.

How can an estimate of 1/4 mile be more accurate than the actual timing that it took to run said 1/4 mile. A dragstrip measures from the time you trip the start lights to the time you trip the end lights. Can't be more accurate than that.

-Dana

toddk911

A. I know several people that have run at the track with G tech and times were with in hunderdths and some posted in here the same results. If you enter proper weight and install right, g tech is dead on. Problems result with this is not the case.

B. The trap speeds at the track are ESTIMATES and on G tech are actuall speeds. Which is the point of this thread, performance measure of the car, NOT the driver. Our higher trap speeds and NOT times show the potential of the car.

The track "in general" is not real world refelction of performance of our cars and certainly does not reflect much on the car, meerly the driver.

So your suggestion to "take it to the track" to test/show performance is insane

Andial951

Is the G tech the performance measuring unit that goes on your windshield and can calculate horespower, 0 to 60 and such? Where can I get one? How much?

Tomas L

I do think Tommy has a point here. The main purpose of dyno sheets is to get bragging rights among friends, rivals and on webforums....
What at least I want, is for my car to accelerate as fast as possible and then this is a better test than a chassis dyno. I agree that there is a problem with comparing the values due to different test conditions and more or less accurate measuring methods. Still the figures gives us useful information.

I'm not sure that I agree that the dyno is better due to being "proven scientific instrument with a calibrated weatherstation". First of all, it would be much better if the dyno were calibrated and the weatherstation not than the other way around which seems more common. I have a problem with dyno figures since not even their advocates seem to believe in them, there have been to many statements like this: "I made 666 rwhp on x-brand dyno and therefore I would have at least 777 rwhp on an z-brand dyno.
And since rwhp numbers are a selling point I don't think any dyno owner is upset if his dyno shows a little optimistic values.

Tomas

TurboTommy

Yes, Tomas; exactly

I could go on and illustrate, from a mathematical and physics standpoint, that ST's dyno figures are impossible to achieve given his configuration and probable airflow; but I don't feel like going up against a whole herd of sheep.

95Juan

can we get back to numbers please?

come on, 20-100 mph or 100-200 kmh. 0-60, 1/4 mile, ET, trap speed, something goddammit. i love how hardly anyone is posting numbers. chicken? (not you, ST, please dont send your car to eat mine )

95Juan

yeah, that's it. i have no idea how the hell it works (and i dont want to, all of you nerds). i believe it costs anywhere from 200-400 bucks (400 being top of the line model). try to find a used one in the bay area, you can find ANYTHING on craigslist. i think i'm getting a rhodesian ridgeback later this week from a trainer.... fun.

special tool

Oh don't worry, I plan on making the 100-200K run.I am just waiting until Ted can come to tape it because he only weighs 127 pounds.

I am going to run some serious boost.

DanaT

951obsession,

If you want 1/4 mile times, go to the sticky with the top times posted. People had to have actual slips to get on that....

-Dana

DanaT

Here is a cut and paste from the latest:
-Dana

>>>>>>>>>>>>


The categories are:

0 - 2,500cc

1. Badcoupe 12.32 ET/ 1.60 60ft / 111.00mph
2. Edman951 12.66 ET / 2.50 50ft / 117.00mph
3. Rage2 12.71 ET / 2.39 60ft / 117.21mph
4. Tomas L 13.24ET / 2.12 60ft / 106.90mph
5. MPD47 13.92 ET / 2.21 60ft / 101.00mph
6. Porshhhh951 14.01 ET / 2.0 60ft / 99.00mph
7. NZ951 14.10 ET / 2.40 60ft / 105.00mph
8. Meanmaroon951 14.20 ET / 2.2 60ft / 96.97mph
9. DanaT 14.50 ET / 2.56 60ft / 102.00mph
10. Daniel951 14.70 ET / 3.00 60ft / 100.00mph

2,501 - 2,800cc

1. Rage2 12.93 ET / 2.19 60ft / 111.62mph
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

2,801+cc

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Overall (irrespective of displacement)

1. Badcoupe 12.32 ET/ 1.60 60ft / 111.00mph
2. Edman951 12.66 ET / 2.50 50ft / 117.00mph
3. Rage2 12.71ET / 2.39 60ft / 117.21mph
4. Tomas L 13.24ET / 2.12 60ft / 106.90mph
5. MPD47 13.92 ET / 2.21 60ft / 101mph
6. Porshhhh951 14.01 ET / 2.0 60ft / 99.00mph
7. NZ951 14.10 ET / 2.40 60ft / 105mph
8. Meanmaroon951 14.20 ET / 2.2 60ft / 96.97mph
9. DanaT 14.50 ET / 2.56 60ft / 102.00mph
10. Daniel951 14.70 ET / 3.00 60ft / 100.00mph
11. 87uk944t 15.10 ET / 2.30 60ft / 95.10mph
12. Shortyboy 15.50 ET / 2.70 60ft / 97.00mph
13.
14.
15.

DanaT

>>>>>A. I know several people that have run at the track with G tech and times were with in hunderdths and some posted in here the same results. If you enter proper weight and install right, g tech is dead on. Problems result with this is not the case.<<<<<

As I said the track is right and the G-tech tries to estimate the track.

>>>>>B. The trap speeds at the track are ESTIMATES and on G tech are actuall speeds. Which is the point of this thread, performance measure of the car, NOT the driver. Our higher trap speeds and NOT times show the potential of the car<<<<<<

Again, wrong. The trap speed is not an estimate, it is an average speed as measured between two sets of timing lights. One timing light is 66ft in front of the final timing light. Your speed is the average speed you maintained over the last 66ft of the run. If a G-tech has some way to measure speed more accurately than speed = distance/time then I would really like to know. The only thing you can possibly argue about not accuarte is the measuring interval. Theroetically, that can approach, but never be zero any way you measure so EVERY form of measurment is based upon a dt.

Using an acclermeter is not the best way to measure velocity.

>>>>The track "in general" is not real world refelction of performance of our cars and certainly does not reflect much on the car, meerly the driver. <<<<<

The track is where RACING takes place. The Dyno is where BENCHRACING takes place. Which one is more real world? I can't wait to see this. Top fuel will all sho up and run one car at a time and time with a G-tech. The winner will be based upon G-tech results. Imagine F1. "Wow Schumi, I though you had him in that last turn, but no, his G-tech said he pulled more Gs than you did"

Bench racing at its finest.

-Dana

95Juan

95Juan

dana, i dont think the 1/4 is a really good measure of the 951's potential. although it is a good way to get a "real-number" that's undisputed, i like the idea of 20-100mph or 100-200 kph, where the driver's ability to launch (not easy on these cars without eating up an 800 dollar clutch) isnt such a huge factor. IMO, this is just about next to a real heads-up comparo.

pole position

If you are opening your owners manual you will see some acceleration numbers from a standing start , which is according to Porsche a" good measure of the 951's potential".