The numbers just don't work. What I don't get is "why?". An 11.6 is plenty impressive. That's over a second and a half faster than my car ran, and right in line with his claimed power figures. Why insist that it's real once found out?
I'm curious about the race built 4 speed. What parts were used? How much did it cost? How long will it hold up? I'm also curious about the clutch setup. I'm guessing QM or Tilton.
------------------ '87 Fiero GT: Northstar, Getrag, TGP wheels, rear sway bar, rod end links, bushings, etc.
'90 Pontiac 6000 SE AWD: Leaking ABS unit fixed, load levelling rear suspension fixed, still slow
I'd like to hear about the clutch and race built tranny, too. But I have a feeling he won't be back to this thread, wanting to chat, after being challenged on the truth of the timeslip.
How do we even know if thats HIS timeslip. If he lied about the 10.6 whose to say that slip isn't someone elses? Believe me I would have been more then impressed if he ran a 11.6 but know with all this photoshop BS...can't believe anything now. Has anyone even seen this car or know this guy?
------------------ Earl Sessions 1985 Fiero w/ 1998 Supercharged 3.8 V-6 Best ET: 12.55 @ 107.19mph "NO Juice....Just BOOST!"
Personally, I think some of the comments made toward Matt were rude and uncalled for. He didn't say anything about V8s or V6s, he just made a very logical, well thought out, observation and pointed it out. I don't think that anyone thinks that a V8 can't be fast and the only way to go fast is to use a V6, that would be ridiculous...I'm sure R Runner's car really is capable of times like that, most likely better. But I think if anyone is paranoid or needs to grow up it is the people who posted after Matt, not him.
What does it mean in the bottem of the time slip about right being first by .7851? does this mean that right won by that much leaving the lhs at a 12.0791? or What does the right 1st mean??? Cause the numbers shown show the lhs car won!?!
The way I see it, in the last half of the quater mile, GT-X accelerated 44.75 MPH in 3.27 seconds. He did that with a claimed 508 HP and 540 lbs/ft of torque. Seems reasonable to me.
I hereby your !
I've seen video of a Viper doing similar things. His 1/8th mile didn't go so well, he did a lot of slipping and spinning, then he hooked up and finished with something crazy like 11 seconds and 146 MPH. I thnk the video is at http:www.racingflix.com
GT-X - My congratulations to you. Hopefully you can forgive our friends.
This is a very sad thread. Sad as in depressing. Why couldn't you have just posted the real times? I know I would be elated if I were in the 11s.
Anyway, some words from a guy who does Photoshop for a living:
The only real way you could tell that the numbers weren't faked (other than the math, but I'm talkin' on a well-thought out calculations and stuff, and on a REALLY GOOD Photoshop fake) would be to chemical test the inks on a real one and the said slip. Paper wrinkles can easily be added to the slip shown here, and you could also fake faded ink with it as well, just as easily. CaliKid's timeslip photo can also be altered very easily, even with MS Paint (seriously!). You could even go as far as to tape a real timeslip paper to another paper, then print on it using an inkjet printer to make it look real.
JazzMan's evidence: I compared them myself, using layers in Photoshop... the pixels are EXACTLY THE SAME. NO scanned image on the planet can do such a thing, and even without the math evidence, this is more than enough to prove this fake.
Personally, I think some of the comments made toward Matt were rude and uncalled for. But I think if anyone is paranoid or needs to grow up it is the people who posted after Matt, not him.
Edit: Sorry Im dumb
[This message has been edited by fierogt3 (edited 08-30-2003).]
Run the numbers again. He'd have had to AVERAGE almost 134 mph the entire last half of the 1/4 mile, yet his trap speed was only 2 mph faster than that.
No way, no how. The numbers just don't add up.
Even in your example, the Viper had a 146 mph trap speed. THAT might make it possible, but that still doesn't account for the 1,000' time to 1/4 mile time discrepancy.
Nope, never happened like the slip showed.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by John Boelte:
The way I see it, in the last half of the quater mile, GT-X accelerated 44.75 MPH in 3.27 seconds. He did that with a claimed 508 HP and 540 lbs/ft of torque. Seems reasonable to me.
I hereby your !
I've seen video of a Viper doing similar things. His 1/8th mile didn't go so well, he did a lot of slipping and spinning, then he hooked up and finished with something crazy like 11 seconds and 146 MPH. I thnk the video is at http:www.racingflix.com
GT-X - My congratulations to you. Hopefully you can forgive our friends.
Sorry I disagree...making a totally fake timeslip and making up that his car has his 10 secs. And saying he was the only one who would represent v-8's in the 1/4 mile is rediculous. He deserves everything he gets.
I think you're a bit confused
GT-X's name is Tyler, not Matt. Matt is the guy that first called bs.
What does it mean in the bottem of the time slip about right being first by .7851? does this mean that right won by that much leaving the lhs at a 12.0791? or What does the right 1st mean??? Cause the numbers shown show the lhs car won!?!
The timeslip has pretty much been debunked, both by direct observation of the pixels and by mathematics. The number probably represents the margin by which the right car won.
GT-X - My congratulations to you. Hopefully you can forgive our friends.
I invite you to look over the numbers I posted on the last page. According to his time slip, for him to do what the slip says he did, he would have had to go over 200mph, then slow back down. If you can find error in my math, please show me.
I won't argue photoshopping, because it can be done well enough not to be detected, but the numbers don't lie.
I'm a huge V8 fan and really want to see a V8 Fiero running 10's and 11's, but I have to hold a V8 owner to the same standard I would hold a V6 owner to. This timeslip just doesn't get it. And I would have been trilled with an 11sec pass, too.
------------------ You know you're an engineer when you have no life and can prove it mathematically.
The way I see it, in the last half of the quater mile, GT-X accelerated 44.75 MPH in 3.27 seconds. He did that with a claimed 508 HP and 540 lbs/ft of torque. Seems reasonable to me.
It may seem reasonable, until you start looking at how much time elapsed between the 1000 foot mark and the 1/4 mile mark. That distance is 320 feet. And the fake timeslip shows that he covered that distance in 0.962 seconds. Well, speed is miles per hour, or distance per time. This is a simple proportion, solving for miles gives us an average speed over that 320 feet of 226.8 MPH. That's how fast he would have to be going for the entire 320 feet to do it in 0.962 seconds. Since he showed a trap speed of 136.66 MPH, that means he would have had to slam on the brakes and lost almost 100 MPH in the last few feet of the final 320 feet of the track. And to maintain the average, he would have had to have been going well over 300 MPH in the first part of that 320 foot of track. Do you see where this is going? The more you look at it, the more squirrely the data gets. His acceleration profile would need to look like the stock market tech bubble to fit his data.
Look at the 4's... They are different... Why does everyone alway's have to doubt someone else's success??
Because there are other numbers on that very same piece of 'paper' that are exactly the same:
These are the numbers JazzMan was talking about, the 1/4mi times and trap speed from the left column. The 'borrowed' numbers are from the right column's 330 ft reading, and the far left column's "1000".
The pixel distortion is caused by the JPEG compression used on the original image. No distortion was caused what-so-ever from the GIF conversion. This GIF contains the exact pixels in the timeslip image, blown up 400% so you can see the similarities. The pixels you see are exactly as you would see them on the original JPEG image.
SmooothGT - I wasn't trying to flame anyone. I never mentioned anything about engines or comparisons between V6 or V8. I simply pointed out the obvious using his own data.
Borgio and sqoach - Thanks for sticking up for me. I appreciate it.
Once again another thread that I just dont understand. I mean come on we all are in this game together. Any engine can be modded to run good or even better than what people think. If I run a 13.5 I will be happy. Its a Fiero and we post and talk on here for a reason. Can we just stop the bsing about this. What I dont get is why this guy has to lie about this. Just have fun with your car and stuff. You built a beatiful engine and stuff just enjoy it all its an awesome setup.
-Amir
------------------
Maroon 1987 GT 5 spd: 2.8L Ferrari Red 1988 Formula 5 spd: 3800 Series II Supercharged In Progress.....
This completely ruins it for everyone. Who is going to believe any good timeslips now? I feel for Fiero X if he does post a 10 sec slip because no one will believe it or it will be scrutinized to death. Why would someone post false numbers when the 11 sec runs were impressive enuff. GREEDY! Now, I must say, I don't believe anything this character posted! I knew it was BS the moment I laid eyes on the slip. If you are an experienced racer, which many are on this forum you can tell the numbers are inaccurate. Which makes you wonder what made him think he could get away with this? I have to laugh at those that were congratulating him, what a laugh! The "right first" means that the right line crossed the finish line first. That car redlighted, so he had a headstart. Right there you can see the numbers are false. If he ran a 10.6, he woulda crossed first, or the margin woulda been closer.
If you look at the slips, his car is 3 tenths SLOWER then the car next to him until the final 1/4 mile time! Forget about reaction times, it doesn't matter! The time is from when you leave to the finish, reaction time has NOTHING to do with that.
[This message has been edited by NOS3800 (edited 08-30-2003).]
What's all the hub bub. No matter what you have somebody elses car will always be quicker/faster. Heck even John Force gets beaten at times. A SBC always can be hot rodded up to produce more power than a SC3800. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out(in the broad sense of the word I was rocket scientist). I have a SC3800 and prefer it over a SBC but I'm sure a worked on SBC will leave me in the weeds- so who cares. I get better mileage anyway. Any Fiero with over 200 RWHP is going to blow the doors off most any stock ( and a few nonstock) cars on the road.
Originally posted by NOS3800: Who is going to believe any good timeslips now? I feel for Fiero X if he does post a 10 sec slip because no one will believe it or it will be scrutinized to death.
Na, cause i back up my claims with videos. And I also will have everything 100% ready to go 10's and Im thinking of having our Kansas get together that month at the track, so Ill have the backup of about 15 guys from our club that can vouch for me. This will happen, and this will happen soon. Im excited. I just hope my tranny is excited as I am, cause its been getting lazy lately.
Fiero X just hit on the best solution - have credible eyewitnesses there when you do your damage.
Best case scenario have a few of your own posse, a few from another camp who are not so crazy about you, and a few who really don't give a flying fart. With a half dozen to a dozen reports from all three sides of the story there shouldn't be too much controversy.
Fiero X just hit on the best solution - have credible eyewitnesses there when you do your damage.
Best case scenario have a few of your own posse, a few from another camp who are not so crazy about you, and a few who really don't give a flying fart. With a half dozen to a dozen reports from all three sides of the story there shouldn't be too much controversy.
perk
You know, it's really quite sad that it even has to come to this, all this planning on who is going to watch you make your record setting pass. Oh well, it happens I guess.
------------------ The Raven :Under Construction "James" 1985 GMC Jimmy, 3.2L turbocharged intercooled hybrid
Man I feel like an idiot. I guess it's my fault, I thought people could be honest so I didn't bother looking for the flags on that timeslip. JStrickers math made sense to me. Which leads me to this question, why bother lying? A) You felt crappy about your LT4 not being able to hang with some of the other guys here? b) You don't have an LT4? C) A practical joke?
Ok so what is the RED pannel behind the engine thats mounted in the car. (Looks like a kit car, not a primer wing) And why when I right clicked to save the pic of the engine in the car, was it titled "ebay" I am no detective, just what I noticed.
I like this thread, it has made for an entertaining day. Thanks.
Ok while staying out of the timeslip debate. I have witnessed the LT4 in his car. I went and visited (my 1st time meeting GT-X) right before the 20th. I had only been on the forum a few weeks and he posted about having it in car. I mentioned I would love to see it and that I would be in Battle Creek in a weeke or so and he invited me to see it. It was in and running, Sunded very nice. He had some minor woork to do putting other areas of the car back together.
Nice catch Pete! I suspected he was full of crap about the whole car when he lied about the timeslip. That's why I said "If his horsepower figures are correct,". I thought about checking out the pic properties, but never got off my butt and checked the properties. Kudos to you!
Ok so what is the RED pannel behind the engine thats mounted in the car. (Looks like a kit car, not a primer wing) And why when I right clicked to save the pic of the engine in the car, was it titled "ebay" I am no detective, just what I noticed.
I like this thread, it has made for an entertaining day. Thanks.
Pete
I'll take a guess at it being the front of the decklid. If you look closely, you'll see the hump that all the notchback decklids (except the 84) have.
I did not mean to make anyone mad. I was simply glad that someone with a V8 had posted a timeslip (real or not, I will not debate). Maybe I have been reading the "worlds fastest V6" thread too much.
your 
