here it is.
[QUOTE=steve c,Nov 18 2005, 02:56 PM]
Another lie. This is a concept I am actually a bit familiar with having run some of my cars in Denver at Bandimere elevation 6000 feet and those same cars at Gateway elevation < 600 feet. The converters have in my experience always been a bit optimistic, but there are so many variables in the equataion, who really knows. F/I cars of course throwing things way off the mark as they make their own atmosphere.
The reality is that conversions are a bit of a grey area, temperature and dew point needing to be factored in, but here is a good simple conversion:
Las Vegas Motor Speedway is at 2100 above sea level.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/altitudecorrection.htm
To convert your timeslip ET and MPH to sea level. Multiply applicable factor times your ET or MPH.
(Example: You ran a 14.4 @ 103 MPH at 5000' elevation track. The correction factors are .9367 and 1.0661 for 5000'. (14.4 * .9367) = 13.50 , (103 * 1.0661) = 109.80 MPH. So the correct timeslip would be 13.50 @ 109.80 MPH at sea level)
Altitude above Sea Level (Feet)
Another lie. This is a concept I am actually a bit familiar with having run some of my cars in Denver at Bandimere elevation 6000 feet and those same cars at Gateway elevation < 600 feet. The converters have in my experience always been a bit optimistic, but there are so many variables in the equataion, who really knows. F/I cars of course throwing things way off the mark as they make their own atmosphere.
The reality is that conversions are a bit of a grey area, temperature and dew point needing to be factored in, but here is a good simple conversion:
Las Vegas Motor Speedway is at 2100 above sea level.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/altitudecorrection.htm
To convert your timeslip ET and MPH to sea level. Multiply applicable factor times your ET or MPH.
(Example: You ran a 14.4 @ 103 MPH at 5000' elevation track. The correction factors are .9367 and 1.0661 for 5000'. (14.4 * .9367) = 13.50 , (103 * 1.0661) = 109.80 MPH. So the correct timeslip would be 13.50 @ 109.80 MPH at sea level)
Altitude above Sea Level (Feet)
and jsap1 is on the money. it has nothing to do with any one single person's opinion here.
the one with the uphill battle and the ONLY one who has to prove anything he says is Dave (Vegas). why? because he's trying to claim that he has somehow found out secrets to modding the S2000 that no other engineer, tuner, or company has been able to find out, and they somehow work magically for him. never mind the fact that no matter how much you open up an engine, it's VE won't go over 100% and it simply won't draw in any more air than what is needed.
the one with the uphill battle and the ONLY one who has to prove anything he says is Dave (Vegas). why? because he's trying to claim that he has somehow found out secrets to modding the S2000 that no other engineer, tuner, or company has been able to find out, and they somehow work magically for him. never mind the fact that no matter how much you open up an engine, it's VE won't go over 100% and it simply won't draw in any more air than what is needed.
Originally Posted by steve c,Nov 18 2005, 01:56 PM
Another lie. This is a concept I am actually a bit familiar with having run some of my cars in Denver at Bandimere elevation 6000 feet and those same cars at Gateway elevation < 600 feet. The converters have in my experience always been a bit optimistic, but there are so many variables in the equataion, who really knows. F/I cars of course throwing things way off the mark as they make their own atmosphere.
The reality is that conversions are a bit of a grey area, temperature and dew point needing to be factored in, but here is a good simple conversion:
Las Vegas Motor Speedway is at 2100 above sea level.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/altitudecorrection.htm
To convert your timeslip ET and MPH to sea level. Multiply applicable factor times your ET or MPH.
(Example: You ran a 14.4 @ 103 MPH at 5000' elevation track. The correction factors are .9367 and 1.0661 for 5000'. (14.4 * .9367) = 13.50 , (103 * 1.0661) = 109.80 MPH. So the correct timeslip would be 13.50 @ 109.80 MPH at sea level)
Altitude above Sea Level (Feet) Elapsed Time Factor (ET) Trap Speed Factor (MPH)
2100 .9757 1.0255
14.0 X .9757 = 13.6598 or 13.7 rounding up @ 105.625.
Even these numbers would be a stretch and of course very, very unlikely. But you have to wonder why this guy who says he owns 2 drag cars is a master mechanic with years of drag racing experience (yet does not understand the concept of bracket racing) would not know how to arrive at a proper conversion.
My guess, he pulled that number out of his ass much as he has every other number about his car. By the time this blowhard really does make it to a track -- if ever -- I have no doubts he will have installed a 50 or 100 shot and not tell any of us. The sad part here is he has lied to much in the past that there is very little chance he will ever be honest in the future.
The reality is that conversions are a bit of a grey area, temperature and dew point needing to be factored in, but here is a good simple conversion:
Las Vegas Motor Speedway is at 2100 above sea level.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/altitudecorrection.htm
To convert your timeslip ET and MPH to sea level. Multiply applicable factor times your ET or MPH.
(Example: You ran a 14.4 @ 103 MPH at 5000' elevation track. The correction factors are .9367 and 1.0661 for 5000'. (14.4 * .9367) = 13.50 , (103 * 1.0661) = 109.80 MPH. So the correct timeslip would be 13.50 @ 109.80 MPH at sea level)
Altitude above Sea Level (Feet) Elapsed Time Factor (ET) Trap Speed Factor (MPH)
2100 .9757 1.0255
14.0 X .9757 = 13.6598 or 13.7 rounding up @ 105.625.
Even these numbers would be a stretch and of course very, very unlikely. But you have to wonder why this guy who says he owns 2 drag cars is a master mechanic with years of drag racing experience (yet does not understand the concept of bracket racing) would not know how to arrive at a proper conversion.
My guess, he pulled that number out of his ass much as he has every other number about his car. By the time this blowhard really does make it to a track -- if ever -- I have no doubts he will have installed a 50 or 100 shot and not tell any of us. The sad part here is he has lied to much in the past that there is very little chance he will ever be honest in the future.
yellow quoted me in correctly. i told him the average person runs 7 tenths slower NA here than anywhere else.
so once again the dense steve C has taken misinfo and turned it into more misinfo.
i wonder how you get through life steve, you sound so ignorant, and arrogant.
some good info for you guys. launch determines ET. strictly. i have launched my drag car, pulled 2 gears, and shut it down. still ran 12s, but at like 80 mph. why the launch covered ground. steve has no idea what any of what im saying means, thats obvious. then i run full power all 4 gears, still run 12s, and yet pick up 30 more mph. these are laws of dead stand still take offs. inertia, laws of kinetics etc.
steve is clueless. my car went NOWHERE, when i ran. spun for the first 100 feet. where do you think my ET went. right out the window. and still, i picked it back up threw it over my shoulder, and ran a 14.0. imagine if i would have launched full on with traction? but i cant here, without tires. so ive given up. until i either get tires, or go to a track who preps for radials, on say a T&T nite.
more info. same as when we street race, its called blowing your ET out the window. thats how 13 sec cars, beat 11 sec cars from a dig at the street races. the guy with the high powered car, gets excited, overuses his right foot, and drops himself right down into the 13s. and the slower car hands him his ass. very few people will understand this. its the launch. this is why my little vw, is never beat. big v8s just cant apply the same power it took to run 10s on full traction, at the street. so they get handed by a high 11, low 12 car.
again, all the crap steve talks is in vain. i have more knowledge about drag racing, than he will ever accomplish.
one day i strictly made a comment, about LS1s running here, and he has based all his crap off of that. cause he THINKS he knew what was going on. look, when you go out, ill say it again. you run as hard as you can, and tune the car to do so. or your a veteran and your car is already dialed. you go out, and have 3 chances to get a baseline, from which to dial in on. you wanna pick the fastest of your 3 runs, and try to repeat it, so that you wont break out if you go slower. NO ONE, goes out and runs a second slow for a reason, how the hell would you control the throttle that well with your fott? usually people will sandbag, and dial on the window faster than they are, and then hit the brakes at the end if they are in front. i watched a pack of LS1s run mid 14s all nite long. from test and tune, trials for best ET,and then when they ran for money. steve cryed when i said this. sorry its true.
he thinks that thats what they were supposed to do.. LOL. no, thats all they could run. again, iill say this, so stupid can get it, no one goes out, and says to themselves, i run 12.40s,. i think ill putt it tonite, and try for 14s. then try and stay consistent there. way too much ego is involved, people run as fast as they can go. pedal to the metal.
i know, thats what i do. hehe. so, anyways. before you guys listen to this guy, go bracket race for yourself. or better yet, come up here and talk to some people who have ran at our track. and for gods sakes, steve C makes a pretty good afront that he knows something, trust me on this one, and all my trophys. he has no clue. late dave
Originally Posted by Wisconsin S2k,Nov 18 2005, 03:45 PM
and jsap1 is on the money. it has nothing to do with any one single person's opinion here.
the one with the uphill battle and the ONLY one who has to prove anything he says is Dave (Vegas). why? because he's trying to claim that he has somehow found out secrets to modding the S2000 that no other engineer, tuner, or company has been able to find out, and they somehow work magically for him. never mind the fact that no matter how much you open up an engine, it's VE won't go over 100% and it simply won't draw in any more air than what is needed.
the one with the uphill battle and the ONLY one who has to prove anything he says is Dave (Vegas). why? because he's trying to claim that he has somehow found out secrets to modding the S2000 that no other engineer, tuner, or company has been able to find out, and they somehow work magically for him. never mind the fact that no matter how much you open up an engine, it's VE won't go over 100% and it simply won't draw in any more air than what is needed.
check it, what do you know about flame propagation, VS Hp produced.
example, say i added material, yes added to the intake ports, to create a different swirl, what do you think would happen. max Hp would go down albeit marginally, but torque would come up. thats just one example. what id i moved the injectors back on the stock manifold, to the plenum, so the fuel had further to tumble? are you getting the point yet? the stuff i do, and try, is stuff the s2k millionaires you seem to speak of, havent tried. all theyve done is remove material. port as large as they can, sory wont work. stock cams are matched to the ports. all you can do with this car, is make it easier for it to get air. it WILL make power if you do so. its like removing friction. but you wont even have that idea, its IMPOSSIBLE to you. try and be more positive sometimes, youll be surprised what you CAN accomplish. when you dont follow in others footsteps.
Vegas...Do you realize that you are just digging yourself in deeper? Sometimes you have to learn when to stop. Now would be that time...give it up until you have some numbers to come back with.
I'm pretty sure I speak for a lot of members when I say we are tired of reading your useless banter.
I'm pretty sure I speak for a lot of members when I say we are tired of reading your useless banter.
Originally Posted by S2oooNvegas,Nov 18 2005, 05:59 PM
LOL. let me say something for matt, so he can rest tonite. matt, bigfishs already said it all. just cause someone takes an unconventional approach, and gets unconventional results, why is it you put them down.
check it, what do you know about flame propagation, VS Hp produced.
example, say i added material, yes added to the intake ports, to create a different swirl, what do you think would happen. max Hp would go down albeit marginally, but torque would come up. thats just one example. what id i moved the injectors back on the stock manifold, to the plenum, so the fuel had further to tumble? are you getting the point yet? the stuff i do, and try, is stuff the s2k millionaires you seem to speak of, havent tried. all theyve done is remove material. port as large as they can, sory wont work. stock cams are matched to the ports. all you can do with this car, is make it easier for it to get air. it WILL make power if you do so. its like removing friction. but you wont even have that idea, its IMPOSSIBLE to you. try and be more positive sometimes, youll be surprised what you CAN accomplish. when you dont follow in others footsteps.
check it, what do you know about flame propagation, VS Hp produced.
example, say i added material, yes added to the intake ports, to create a different swirl, what do you think would happen. max Hp would go down albeit marginally, but torque would come up. thats just one example. what id i moved the injectors back on the stock manifold, to the plenum, so the fuel had further to tumble? are you getting the point yet? the stuff i do, and try, is stuff the s2k millionaires you seem to speak of, havent tried. all theyve done is remove material. port as large as they can, sory wont work. stock cams are matched to the ports. all you can do with this car, is make it easier for it to get air. it WILL make power if you do so. its like removing friction. but you wont even have that idea, its IMPOSSIBLE to you. try and be more positive sometimes, youll be surprised what you CAN accomplish. when you dont follow in others footsteps.

everything you have tried has already been tried by people far more knowledgeable and with far more resources than you or I. and their attempts have proven the physics of it simply won't do anything for our cars. you are trying to convince us that it magically works for you, however. you're not the only person with knowledge pertaining to such tricks of the trade, so don't think that you are trying anything new, because you're not.
you're not a mechanical engineer, so don't tell me you were able to "improve the swirl effect in our engines by adding stuff to our intake ports".
God forbid a mechanical engineer even read this post.
[QUOTE=Wisconsin S2k,Nov 18 2005, 05:19 PM] i will say this again for the 1000th time.
everything you have tried has already been tried by people far more knowledgeable and with far more resources than you or I.
everything you have tried has already been tried by people far more knowledgeable and with far more resources than you or I.
i was recongnized as fastest street driven 1.6 liter aircooled in the USA. thats old news
Okay folks, let's recap.
S2000Vegas:
Has a 9 second VW.
Has two drag cars.
Makes 275hp with his magical 3 mods S2000.
Outruns C6's
Is faster than M3's
Is faster than 9096 911's.
Is a master mechanic
Has good friends that own a dyno shop.
His car runs 13.2's at 107 based on a make beleive 14@103@ 2100 feet elevation run and some magical conversion.
He has outsmarted thousands of engineers, years of development and millions of dollars spent by Honda and lines his intake with a magical substance that increases his horsepower by increasing the swirl.
And now ... da da dum HE HAS THE FASTEST STREET DRIVEN 1.6 LITER VW IN THE UNITED STATES!
Next up, vegas is going to capture Bin Laden by himself through his network of expert spies ...



