60-130 MPH: New performance measurement!
#1336
It is difficult to accept this is it not since isn't all the data extrapolated from the GPS readings - I have found the acceleration readings of the DB/PB to be very reliable - is there a possibility that you are doing your runs in a "bermuda triangle" type area which gives silly data ?
#1337
Addict
Rennlist Lifetime Member
Rennlist Lifetime Member
The absolute altitude data reported by a commercial non-differential GPS is not very accurate; this is a result of the deliberate "jitter" in the data supplied by the satellites and the geometry involved. It has nothing to do with the datum (WGS 84 or otherwise). Over a short period of time and reasonably short distance the change in altitude reported by a commercial GPS is sufficent for most purposes. Just do a google on gps altitude accuracy; here are a couple of links http://gpsinformation.net/main/altitude.htm and http://docs.controlvision.com/pages/gps_altimetry.php I particularly like the last sentence in the first link
#1338
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Here is a clip illustrating the inaccuracy of the "height" function - the DB thinks the same part of the track has grown 3 metres on the second lap !
From the graphs I have looked at the height function is pretty useless - I have seen graphs where the guy swore the roads were flat and it looked like he was testing in the alps !
It seems to me that "verifying" slope using the DB/PB is worthless - I guess you just have to trust people - most people know if the road they are using has a slope or not and for those that fool themselves - at least it makes them feel good
From the graphs I have looked at the height function is pretty useless - I have seen graphs where the guy swore the roads were flat and it looked like he was testing in the alps !
It seems to me that "verifying" slope using the DB/PB is worthless - I guess you just have to trust people - most people know if the road they are using has a slope or not and for those that fool themselves - at least it makes them feel good
#1339
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Interesting last few posts.
Now that Virginia's altitude has been established as being at or above sea level we know that the altitude shown by the device is wrong. I had mentioned this before, not only the altitude, but also the long Gs are out of whack..
The question is whether this has an impact on the run itself. IMO the answer is yes and no, it depends. If the device is showing this as a result of miscalibration (not given enough time to calibrate before the run or other) then the whole run can be wrong. If this is as a result of blind GPS spot, then maybe not.
I have seen the exact same problem in a run that was sent to me, where the 60-130mph was in less than 5 seconds. Altitude was screwed up, long Gs were screwed up, obviously the run, which was for a 520bhp stock weight car, was also screwed up. And if I am not mistaken the run was with an AX22 in this instance. I can get as many of those miscalibrated runs as needed.
A much more accurate measure of altitude is through calculations made off the data extracted and on excel. In most instances it is not needed, but when there is doubt, it certainly is needed.
I would hope that any validation of a run is taking all of this into consideration, and looking closely at inconsistencies such as positive Gs during a shift or negative Gs while the car is accelerating... Clear indications of a speed vs time problem as well, and therefore worth looking at beyond the graphs that the device shows.
There is a calculation that can validate the slope vs the acceleration, time and speed, since this is pure motion physics, the results cannot lie, unlike a GPS that are prone to blindness when it comes to altitude.
As TB is saying and has clearly showed in his graph, measuring the validity of a result based on altitude on this device or the AX22, is not accurate. long gs, and sharp looking speed vs time curves are much more indicative. As far as I am concerned, both devices have given me excellent results during my runs, with very accurate altitude and long Gs, I live in a good spot I guess
All of the above is irrespective of whether Scott's car is capable of those numbers, I think (rather I am sure) it is, but those graphs do not look good and seem to have a lot of reception issues.
Now that Virginia's altitude has been established as being at or above sea level we know that the altitude shown by the device is wrong. I had mentioned this before, not only the altitude, but also the long Gs are out of whack..
The question is whether this has an impact on the run itself. IMO the answer is yes and no, it depends. If the device is showing this as a result of miscalibration (not given enough time to calibrate before the run or other) then the whole run can be wrong. If this is as a result of blind GPS spot, then maybe not.
I have seen the exact same problem in a run that was sent to me, where the 60-130mph was in less than 5 seconds. Altitude was screwed up, long Gs were screwed up, obviously the run, which was for a 520bhp stock weight car, was also screwed up. And if I am not mistaken the run was with an AX22 in this instance. I can get as many of those miscalibrated runs as needed.
A much more accurate measure of altitude is through calculations made off the data extracted and on excel. In most instances it is not needed, but when there is doubt, it certainly is needed.
I would hope that any validation of a run is taking all of this into consideration, and looking closely at inconsistencies such as positive Gs during a shift or negative Gs while the car is accelerating... Clear indications of a speed vs time problem as well, and therefore worth looking at beyond the graphs that the device shows.
There is a calculation that can validate the slope vs the acceleration, time and speed, since this is pure motion physics, the results cannot lie, unlike a GPS that are prone to blindness when it comes to altitude.
As TB is saying and has clearly showed in his graph, measuring the validity of a result based on altitude on this device or the AX22, is not accurate. long gs, and sharp looking speed vs time curves are much more indicative. As far as I am concerned, both devices have given me excellent results during my runs, with very accurate altitude and long Gs, I live in a good spot I guess
All of the above is irrespective of whether Scott's car is capable of those numbers, I think (rather I am sure) it is, but those graphs do not look good and seem to have a lot of reception issues.
#1340
The elevation errors are due to inherent innaccuracies within the WGS-84 GPS Datum. Not the P-box. It has zero effect on acceleration times.
Here's further info from Gulfstream Aerospace.
Here's further info from Gulfstream Aerospace.
Last edited by M-Phibian; 05-03-2008 at 11:34 AM.
#1341
Okay guys,
So KPG told me that the 5.7 graph that I gave him was way too strange to validate (you were right TB). So, I did some more runs today.
I'm still on 93 octane, but I swapped out my BOV springs for stiffer ones to help me stay under boost longer between shifts. I ran a 5.52 with 2-shifts. I peaked at 1.15 BAR this time. The graph shows my shifts clearly. I sent it to KPG for validation. I'll post it once he validates it. I also have an in-car video of the run here: http://media.putfile.com/553-run
So KPG told me that the 5.7 graph that I gave him was way too strange to validate (you were right TB). So, I did some more runs today.
I'm still on 93 octane, but I swapped out my BOV springs for stiffer ones to help me stay under boost longer between shifts. I ran a 5.52 with 2-shifts. I peaked at 1.15 BAR this time. The graph shows my shifts clearly. I sent it to KPG for validation. I'll post it once he validates it. I also have an in-car video of the run here: http://media.putfile.com/553-run
Last edited by M-Phibian; 05-03-2008 at 11:42 AM.
#1343
Not Forgotten
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 1,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just done a quick run and thought i'd share, two people in the car with full tank of petrol, i can verify that the car weighed 1381kgs with the 930 lump in there and a full tank, this engine must be a bit heavier but i don't suppose it would be much, add the combined weight of me and her 145kg and you have a total of roughly 1530kg. I have a four speed box and this was done with one shift, 2nd to 3rd, and it took 7.75 seconds.
Can i send you the file Jean so you can have a look, PM me with your e-mail, i recently changed computers and now don't have it, cheers
Can i send you the file Jean so you can have a look, PM me with your e-mail, i recently changed computers and now don't have it, cheers
#1345
I just spoke with Bobby and it appears that we have a new 60-130mph record for the 996tt. Congrats Markski...great driving Bobby.
Now go out and get that quarter mile time
Congrats again buddy...
Now go out and get that quarter mile time
Congrats again buddy...
#1346
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Let's see them. I hope no funny fuzzy lines and the runs are non debatable. I have been hearing for ages about Bobby and know he is a motorhead but haven't seen anything tangible at all, zero, zilch, nada, niente, ma chi yet.
If anyone deserves to be the fastest, it definitely is Markski with all the effort he put!
If anyone deserves to be the fastest, it definitely is Markski with all the effort he put!
#1347
Let's see them. I hope no funny fuzzy lines and the runs are non debatable. I have been hearing for ages about Bobby and know he is a motorhead but haven't seen anything tangible at all, zero, zilch, nada, niente, ma chi yet.
If anyone deserves to be the fastest, it definitely is Markski with all the effort he put!
If anyone deserves to be the fastest, it definitely is Markski with all the effort he put!
#1348