Riptide

I hear a lot of skepticism when a person running their car at a higher altitude brings up their corrected ET. Not even necessarily claiming that it was the actual time the car ran, just bringing up the corrected ET.

The tech@nhra.com responded to my query. Here is what they had to say. First, about DA corrected times counting for records.
I then asked them:
They responded with this:
So there you have it. If you use the nhra tables in the link above then those are valid corrections that the nhra accepts for records.

Looks like it's good enough for the nhra.

2000AZ5.0GT

The problem is that Corrected times aren't true times. They're a "what if" scenario. Sure, if I were at a lower altitude, in cooler air, I MIGHT have run a 10.7 (the corrected version of my 11.07), but I DIDN'T, so me claiming that time is wrong, whether for a record or not.

There are a lot of variables thrown into a single run, not just altitude, so you can't magically change the times by a certain factor, just because of your altitude, and assume that it means the same thing.

It gives you a frame of refference as to what your car is capable of in better conditions, but that's about it.

99GTvert

AZ sums it up nicely.

Besides, if someone is like I RAN A 13.2 but shows a timeslip of 13.8, then wtf?

83gtragtop

Riptide, give up on Montana and move back to the bay, you wouldn't have to deal with this problem.

Projectquick

I say if you want to included something about your altitude thats fine, but correcting the time, like AZ said is presumptuous. The car does not, and never will run the corrected time at a track at altitude so why claim it does? To me saying something like 13.5(2000DA) is alright, but claiming 12.6 "corrected" is BS. I guess its all how its presented.

JD1969

Well do you race in those classes? If you don't then da correction is like **** on a bull.....useless. But by all means if it makes you feel better use it. A car runs what it runs and that is that.

grampa_stang

The main reason I don't post corrected times is because I have not actually ran the "corrected" time. I post DA' so everyone understands why my times are below normal/expected times.

Another thing....up in this DA/atlitude (6300'+ in the summer easily), I don't need DR's.
I'm sure if I went down to sea level (which gets me more HP) I'd need the DR's to run my "corrected" times of 13.0's

Projectquick

See, I like how he does it.

Riptide

lol are some of you guys sharing the same bong or what??

I think the point here is being missed. The NHRA themselves told me that the altitude corrected time, from an appropriate track such as mine, counts for records. So I'm sorry AZ I'm going to have to go with the NHRA on this one brah.

The point of these correction factors is to give you the time that you would have run if your track had been at sea level. All else being equal. These corrections are good enough for them to take seriously so they should be good enough for you too. Unless you think you're more of an authority on the subject than they are?

Ofcourse track prep for instance could be different if I ran at a DIFFERENT track that same day at sea level. That is completely beside the point.

I don't think Mishri or I or anyone else on here has ever to my knowledge done a corrected time and presented it as an actual. But it is a bit tiresome to hear the naysayers pop in and get after you for simply quoting a corrected time in context.

Bmr4life

I say screw DA corrected times. I look at them the same as someone saying their car would be faster if they had the driver mod. Until its done and proven, its all theory.

That's like everyone with a stock GT saying their car ran 12.8 because that's the best time anyone has ever done in a stock GT. In Theory, a stock GT should match another stock GT. But as we all know, they don't.