DavidHuff
Well-Known Member
You are are correct no mineshaft conditions, the DA was 300/500 on that day with a great track prep.So....
Not even remotely close to mineshaft.
Sponsored
You are are correct no mineshaft conditions, the DA was 300/500 on that day with a great track prep.So....
Not even remotely close to mineshaft.
So, you missed my point. The 500 puts the power down on the street much better than C and D is saying.I don't think anyone is debating that the GT500 is a lot faster than the ZL1 with that mph delta.
Putting that power down efficiently on the street is a valid test, though.
Dang. You’re a savage.Honestly, the plan is to hit everything as hard as we can, as fast as we can;
Dealer to dyno, shoemaker is in town he'll tune it, if we can get w track open we'll run it
Valid yes, useful no. What's the point of bad surface results if you can't compare it to anyone else's testing? Why even do a 1/4 mile in the first place? You can see from this thread alone is just adds noise to the otherwise useful data already out there.I don't think anyone is debating that the GT500 is a lot faster than the ZL1 with that mph delta.
Putting that power down efficiently on the street is a valid test, though.
Im with you. Its a common sense thing. Vs a magazine racer point of view. I could lose a zero to sixty battle. To a mid 13 second WRX on the street. And I'm making 750ish to the wheels. But at the drag strip. Im ripping off high 9s low 10s depending on time of year. And the same WRX isn't even in the same zip code. You'd think the magazines would have a drag strip. That would let them run for free. Just for the publicity. Hell even drag strip numbers are fuzzy with out context.Valid yes, useful no. What's the point of bad surface results if you can't compare it to anyone else's testing? Why even do a 1/4 mile in the first place? You can see from this thread alone is just adds noise to the otherwise useful data already out there.
Or just use some of that ad money to hit up a local strip. It doesn’t cost much. Simple. It baffles the mind.Im with you. Its a common sense thing. Vs a magazine racer point of view. I could lose a zero to sixty battle. To a mid 13 second WRX on the street. And I'm making 750ish to the wheels. But at the drag strip. Im ripping off high 9s low 10s depending on time of year. And the same WRX isn't even in the same zip code. You'd think the magazines would have a drag strip. That would let them run for free. Just for the publicity. Hell even drag strip numbers are fuzzy with out context.
Not doubting its a thing, just never seen it at any of the tracks near me is all lolI may have used “across the country” too liberally. It’s definitely in Florida and in some major strips in the southeast.
Learn something new everyday. I had just never personally seen it or seen it advertised at any of the local venues near me is all.You guys are joking right? Roll racing became a thing when cars became too powerful to launch on the street, and when people were tired of breaking drivetrain components. You have low tier events at dragstrips for $15, up to Nascar tracks that cost $250 and up. Different breed of cars to race at each repective level
]
Because it's a street car. It's not a drag only car. These cars will be driven on the street. Drag strip data is not the only useful data. Some of us could care less what the car does on a prepped surface.Valid yes, useful no. What's the point of bad surface results if you can't compare it to anyone else's testing? Why even do a 1/4 mile in the first place? You can see from this thread alone is just adds noise to the otherwise useful data already out there.
maybe, but the same metrics apply. they left out 60' on purpose, without that the ET is worthless, and the mph tells the storyBecause it's a street car. It's not a drag only car. These cars will be driven on the street. Drag strip data is not the only useful data. Some of us could care less what the car does on a prepped surface.
Cars are meant to be driven, particularly these ones.Dang. You’re a savage.
I promise that point is going over heads. As I type this.maybe, but the same metrics apply. they left out 60' on purpose, without that the ET is worthless, and the mph tells the story
whats the difference between a 2.0 60, 11.4 et/ 125mph and a 2.4 60', 11.4et/132mph? ill tell you, the driver, not the car lololol
True. I’m drunk coming in after a late night and a liquid breakfast, so forgive me. I hope it isn’t going over mine. When I first saw the time, I remember watching a few of the Vegas reviewers fudge up times by really being late off of the light. Let off of the brakes w/ LC and there seems to be a good fraction of a second before the car launches in a lot of the reviews. The last few DCT cars I’ve driven by Porsche or Audi/VW launch much earlier after brake release than the GT500 based off of the eye test. I’m guessing speed phenom factored this in on his launches because he seems to nail it at the light while many of the other reviewers appear to miscalculate the launch. Obviously many of them listed their times but excluded RTs. I know, different conditions, but I noticed a trend on quite a few of the Vegas reviews.I promise that point is going over heads. As I type this.
Could be true, but every test & tune that I've gone to doesn't include reaction time in the 1/4 mile time. You could literally eat a sandwich when the light turns green, then launch and get a good time. I would expect that Vegas was set up the same way, given the broad range of skillsets of the writers there for the event.True. I’m drunk coming in after a late night and a liquid breakfast, so forgive me. I hope it isn’t going over mine. When I first saw the time, I remember watching a few of the Vegas reviewers fudge up times by really being late off of the light. Let off of the brakes w/ LC and there seems to be a good fraction of a second before the car launches in a lot of the reviews. The last few DCT cars I’ve driven by Porsche or Audi/VW launch much earlier after brake release than the GT500 based off of the eye test. I’m guessing speed phenom factored this in on his launches because he seems to nail it at the light while many of the other reviewers appear to miscalculate the launch. Obviously many of them listed their times but excluded RTs. I know, different conditions, but I noticed a trend on quite a few of the Vegas reviews.
You could be on to something. Combining hot dog eating with drag racing. Hmmm.Could be true, but every test & tune that I've gone to doesn't include reaction time in the 1/4 mile time. You could literally eat a sandwich when the light turns green, then launch and get a good time. I would expect that Vegas was set up the same way, given the broad range of skillsets of the writers there for the event.
Analyzing a few numbers isn't rocket science. Only looking at the data that you believe is relevant, and making assumptions about the rest, is totally on you if that's what you want to do. But, I'm certainly not missing the point, because I'm looking at all the data and not crafting it to fit my desired perspective.I promise that point is going over heads. As I type this.