quote Originally posted by CowsPatoot: I took the video. There is certainly no camera trickery there....the only way that time would not be accurate is if the timing at Milan Dragway was innacurate. It was his second pass of the night. First pass he pulled high 12s after shutting it down just past the launch when the other car blew the engine (I have that video too, but have to wait till I get home to get it). I can't comment on whether he is BSing about the amount of juice.....I never verified that. I just wanted to make sure I understand what you are saying here. A member posts a photo of a timeslip that shows all his numbers, plus a video that matches that timeslip perfectly, and you are still questioning it? Edit....I appologize for my harshness there. I now see what you mean by "is actually an image icon from the forum". He originally posted the actual timeslip here: http://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...1/HTML/069402-3.html

He is not saying that the time didn't read on the board, he is saying that something in the timing system didn't work correctly. Here is a great example you said that his first pass was a high 12. That is probably about right for the mph he was pulling. If you could please post that run, and if possible the 1/4 et, and mph, but most importantly his 60 ft. This will deffently anwser if FieroX assumptions are correct. I will tell you this I deffently think he is right go look at cars that go 12.2 and compare there time slips to DH. He is way slow i mph, so the oly way to make that up is to come out of the hole like a bullet like a 1.51 60 ft, and hate to say it his wasn't close.

quote Has anyone factored in altitude? Altitude does have an effect on ¼ times, so I am interested in knowing the altitude of the tracks where the times were taken. Here a couple of calculators I found check them out and give your opinions about them. Feel free to add any interesting info you have about ¼ mile time and altitude. I am in Denver and Bandimere is west of Denver at around 5,860 feet above sea level so for example if you ran 12.5 at sea level you may run a 13.5 at Bandimere

Altitude has nothing to do with this heres why. Obviously the lower the altitude the denser the air, thus more horse power ad torque. Though it effects et and mph linear, so at sea level with dry air he might run 12.0@115 and at altitude with moist air 13.5@102. The problem is mathematicly his car with not run a 12.2@108 with a 1.85 60 ft. His car probably ran like a 12.7@108. The mph and the et just dont add up. If you wanna test it tell him to to ru his car back to back. I bet it would't run a 12.2 ever.

quote Originally posted by HC: That would only be correct for naturally aspirated motors. Everybody at the top has a snail or a blower.

This statement is incorrect, altitude still effects boosted cars trust me I know my vr4 here in wichita will run 12.40's multiple times, I went to colorado and at same setup even with 2 more lbs of boost could't get into the twelves. It just the lack of oxygen compared to normal altitude. Just remember all a power adder is a way to ram more oxygen into the engine, but if there oxyge isn't there it doesn't matter how much air is push into the motor it will make absolutely no difference.


Anyways I would like to see a video of DH car running anywhere near what the one pass was, because I bet that video does't exist. I would bet that his car is a 12.70 at best.

[This message has been edited by riceviper (edited 12-04-2008).]