well....here it is.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,361
Likes: 0
From: las vegas
Originally Posted by Wisconsin S2k,Feb 13 2006, 03:22 PM
fer cryin out loud dave, why is it that I have to repeat myself every time you post.....
1.0 correction factor may not make any corrections. however, it IS POSSIBLE for a 1.0 correction factor TO BE THE APPROPRIATE CORRECTION FACTOR FOR THE GIVEN ATMOSTPHERIC CONDITIONS!!!!!!!
this is EXACTLY what happened in your case. I even posted the formula that shows you how to friggin calculate the appropriate correction factor FOR YOUR conditions. And guess what. the appropriate correction factor for your run WAS 1.03 (or 1.0 as the case is when you properly round it off).
but of course, I've already told you ALL of this. and somehow it just gets looked over as if it was never there.
you ran a dyno with the appropriate correction factor applied, even if it didn't make any corrections. this means that regardless of whether or not you used Standard, uncorrected, or SAE, it would have all turned out the same, because your correction factor was appropriate given the conditions.
the last thing you want to do to support your argument is quote someone who can't even grip the basic concept of how humidity affects density.
why should you have credibility? up until this point, not ONCE have you EVER backed up your claims. no dyno, no timeslip, no video of you at the track. not ONCE. so explain why you should have "tons" of credibility? this is the internet. you have to earn credibility. it's not just magically given to you because you say so.
no one ever wants to admit they are wrong about something. everyone likes to think they're right. that's human nature. but that doesn't mean they "dont want to admit you're better than them". come on, get off that crap, cuz that boat left a long time ago.
No i have never adjusted the ladder bars on a 7 second car. but then, what does that have to do with the S2000? once again, you bring up things that have NOTHING to do with the car we're talking about.
this is a bolt on, naturally aspirated, 2 seater roadster. this is not some 7 second monster, or even a fat pig domestic with some pussy soft suspension from the factory. this is an S2000, and many a mechanic with TONS of experience, has been humbled by something they tried to apply to the S2000 only to find out it doesn't work the same as their previous experience dictates. PM slowS2k or xviper if you'd like more info on that. It happens ALL THE TIME.
honestly, IMO, I think even two tenths is optimistic. I won't say it's not possible, though I have yet to see anyone say they have done that with the S2000 just from suspension mods. this is not an easy car to improve on. this is one of those proof is in the pudding cases, and I'll leave it at that.
so, 13.5 with your mods and power? maybe, but doubtful. it's a stretch from the 13.7 that a great driver can hit stock, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. generally 15whp and 15lb/ft more horsepower won't remove .2 seconds, but there's more to it than just peak numbers.
so 13.3 with suspension? doubtful. I wont say impossible, but again, no one has ever done it, but it hasn't been tried nearly as much as bolt ons. 13.3 is optimistic, but a timeslip will tell.
1.0 correction factor may not make any corrections. however, it IS POSSIBLE for a 1.0 correction factor TO BE THE APPROPRIATE CORRECTION FACTOR FOR THE GIVEN ATMOSTPHERIC CONDITIONS!!!!!!!
this is EXACTLY what happened in your case. I even posted the formula that shows you how to friggin calculate the appropriate correction factor FOR YOUR conditions. And guess what. the appropriate correction factor for your run WAS 1.03 (or 1.0 as the case is when you properly round it off).
but of course, I've already told you ALL of this. and somehow it just gets looked over as if it was never there.
you ran a dyno with the appropriate correction factor applied, even if it didn't make any corrections. this means that regardless of whether or not you used Standard, uncorrected, or SAE, it would have all turned out the same, because your correction factor was appropriate given the conditions.the last thing you want to do to support your argument is quote someone who can't even grip the basic concept of how humidity affects density.
why should you have credibility? up until this point, not ONCE have you EVER backed up your claims. no dyno, no timeslip, no video of you at the track. not ONCE. so explain why you should have "tons" of credibility? this is the internet. you have to earn credibility. it's not just magically given to you because you say so.
no one ever wants to admit they are wrong about something. everyone likes to think they're right. that's human nature. but that doesn't mean they "dont want to admit you're better than them". come on, get off that crap, cuz that boat left a long time ago.
No i have never adjusted the ladder bars on a 7 second car. but then, what does that have to do with the S2000? once again, you bring up things that have NOTHING to do with the car we're talking about.
this is a bolt on, naturally aspirated, 2 seater roadster. this is not some 7 second monster, or even a fat pig domestic with some pussy soft suspension from the factory. this is an S2000, and many a mechanic with TONS of experience, has been humbled by something they tried to apply to the S2000 only to find out it doesn't work the same as their previous experience dictates. PM slowS2k or xviper if you'd like more info on that. It happens ALL THE TIME.
honestly, IMO, I think even two tenths is optimistic. I won't say it's not possible, though I have yet to see anyone say they have done that with the S2000 just from suspension mods. this is not an easy car to improve on. this is one of those proof is in the pudding cases, and I'll leave it at that.
so, 13.5 with your mods and power? maybe, but doubtful. it's a stretch from the 13.7 that a great driver can hit stock, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. generally 15whp and 15lb/ft more horsepower won't remove .2 seconds, but there's more to it than just peak numbers.
so 13.3 with suspension? doubtful. I wont say impossible, but again, no one has ever done it, but it hasn't been tried nearly as much as bolt ons. 13.3 is optimistic, but a timeslip will tell.
now thats what im talkin about. explain/prove your point, without being rude or negative. nice.
yeah some of the stuff, is lame, im not much of a humidity/baro/scientific guy. i just know when i go to sea level, my car hauls ass. not just a little, its serious. like i added spray. so some of the stuff in here, i may not have been right (dont much care) but the part about me being faster than you.. im right..
anyways. lates. and for the majority of you, untill i see your dyno eclipse my numbers at same location/conditions, then you better step down. lates
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
From: Milford
Originally Posted by 24s2k7,Feb 13 2006, 02:30 PM
Look at all the views on this thread in less than one day!
Good numbers Vegas.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,971
Likes: 6
From: Dallas
Comment for Dave and whoever else: The difference between placing the sensor in the bung or at the tailpipes is not very much. Maybe .2-.4 higher reading off the tailpipe. My tuner tuned my car to 13.2 off the tailpipe before I bought the wideband.
Your 14.67 AF ratio is not because of the tailpipe placement. Either you dont know what the AF ratio was or just made up something stupid, I dont know. But if its really running 14.67:1, you have issues.
The things I commented on were the STD vs SAE correction factors and the AF ratio.
HOnestly, I havent even looked at your dynograph yet to study the curves and speculate whether it was nitrous.
Im saying that 215-220rwhp SAE corrected for your car is possibly considering you are not stock (right?). A car with 2-3 mods can get a 10-15rwhp increae even though on the s2000, its not easy.
And the last thing I commented on was that with 220rwhp even, you are not beating C5s and M3s on a regular basis unless you racing retards. I can bet you any amount of money that with me driving either of those cars, you wont be close.
Your 14.67 AF ratio is not because of the tailpipe placement. Either you dont know what the AF ratio was or just made up something stupid, I dont know. But if its really running 14.67:1, you have issues.
The things I commented on were the STD vs SAE correction factors and the AF ratio.
HOnestly, I havent even looked at your dynograph yet to study the curves and speculate whether it was nitrous.
Im saying that 215-220rwhp SAE corrected for your car is possibly considering you are not stock (right?). A car with 2-3 mods can get a 10-15rwhp increae even though on the s2000, its not easy.
And the last thing I commented on was that with 220rwhp even, you are not beating C5s and M3s on a regular basis unless you racing retards. I can bet you any amount of money that with me driving either of those cars, you wont be close.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,976
Likes: 0
From: Santa Clara, California
Originally Posted by kumar75150,Feb 13 2006, 03:50 PM
Comment for Dave and whoever else: The difference between placing the sensor in the bung or at the tailpipes is not very much. Maybe .2-.4 higher reading off the tailpipe. My tuner tuned my car to 13.2 off the tailpipe before I bought the wideband.
Your 14.67 AF ratio is not because of the tailpipe placement. Either you dont know what the AF ratio was or just made up something stupid, I dont know. But if its really running 14.67:1, you have issues.
The things I commented on were the STD vs SAE correction factors and the AF ratio.
HOnestly, I havent even looked at your dynograph yet to study the curves and speculate whether it was nitrous.
Im saying that 215-220rwhp SAE corrected for your car is possibly considering you are not stock (right?). A car with 2-3 mods can get a 10-15rwhp increae even though on the s2000, its not easy.
And the last thing I commented on was that with 220rwhp even, you are not beating C5s and M3s on a regular basis unless you racing retards. I can bet you any amount of money that with me driving either of those cars, you wont be close.
Your 14.67 AF ratio is not because of the tailpipe placement. Either you dont know what the AF ratio was or just made up something stupid, I dont know. But if its really running 14.67:1, you have issues.
The things I commented on were the STD vs SAE correction factors and the AF ratio.
HOnestly, I havent even looked at your dynograph yet to study the curves and speculate whether it was nitrous.
Im saying that 215-220rwhp SAE corrected for your car is possibly considering you are not stock (right?). A car with 2-3 mods can get a 10-15rwhp increae even though on the s2000, its not easy.
And the last thing I commented on was that with 220rwhp even, you are not beating C5s and M3s on a regular basis unless you racing retards. I can bet you any amount of money that with me driving either of those cars, you wont be close.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,792
Likes: 4
im on your side, you idiots.
i can take a stock car, and drop from .5 to 1 second off of its 1/4 mile ET.. how with suspension setup
if i sprayed, which i didnt, (boyracers2k was standing right there) i would have WAY more tq.
