So that 7.88.....

Rob posted recently about racing at higher elevation, and it's little effect on overall ET and MPH. And IIRC some of his faster times weren't at sea level.
 
displacedtexan said:
So other elevations are false?
Click to expand...

No but they have only raced in the flat lands of America, to me 100 ft isn’t squat I know for a fact I’m slower at higher altitude. Racing at 623ft I ran a 7.81 at 3812ft I ran a 7.92, identical set ups, as close to identical shift strategy, and staging. Weather was colder at higher elevation by 8 degrees and humidity was almost identical. There is a direct correlation of FTASL to ET. So my point is I’d would be impressed if they ran the same time at a track with a substantial elevation change
 
Justappumped24v said:
No but they have only raced in the flat lands of America, to me 100 ft isn’t squat I know for a fact I’m slower at higher altitude. Racing at 623ft I ran a 7.81 at 3812ft I ran a 7.92, identical set ups, as close to identical shift strategy, and staging. Weather was colder at higher elevation by 8 degrees and humidity was almost identical. There is a direct correlation of FTASL to ET. So my point is I’d would be impressed if they ran the same time at a track with a substantial elevation change
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be any more impressed. I hear they sell air density in a bottle now.
 
I'd be impressed if people from the mountain west would quit acting like the rest of the country is at sea level.
 
May 4, 2016. Rocky Mountain Raceways - West Valley City, UT USA. Track Elevation: 4226 feet. 8.503 with ~500hp less power. Definitely not a direct comparison, but interpolation is possible.
 
Imagine if that truck was mechanical.
*shrugs*
Big deal, punch in some tunes and go fast.
LOL
 
My truck is much slower, but in my experience with the same set-up during a season racing at RMR, Bandimere, Woodburn (true sea level), and Firebird the ET was very close. This was back when running fuel only and 90-100 psi of boost. The MPH was higher at the high elevation tracks (less air to push a brick through) but the ET was similar when the 60" was comparable. I can see spooling affecting 60' at the high D/A tracks which will affect ET.

I have also raced a supercharged gas car and N/A gas cars at a few of these same tracks and picked up .3-.4 between 5k D/A and 1k D/A tracks. My opinion is the high boost makes up for the thin air if the set-up is working well. Just my .02 of experience.
 
Timbeaux38 said:
Also in Before Wade drops by to attempt to Say nitrous is not atmosphere in a bottle.
Click to expand...
Well...
TGmuCFh
 
joefarmer said:
Definitely not a direct comparison, but interpolation is possible.
Click to expand...

Don't you go interpolating anything around here, mister. We are good folks and don't take kindly to such behavior.
 
I raced at high elevation in Bandimere once... Once.....


B Fire - YouTube




LOL I drove it there from Louisiana. Ended up having an uppipe leak that the elevation exposed and I couldn't get my turbo to spool so was using the spool-in-a-bottle. Actually ended up getting 2nd in my class and drove it all the way home.

Coming from one of the flattest areas in the US and being under sea level, I could definitely feel a big difference driving over there vs at home.

Good times. :D

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top