A suggestion...
Thread Starter
5th Gear Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,197
From: Louisiana
RE: A suggestion...
ORIGINAL: TommyV8
I like this.
It should be taken into account that weather conditions and track elevations have a big effect on how a car runs, so corrected times (although I don't personally use them) should be considered for a standard system. Obviously the same car driven in August in mile-high Denver will not run as well as in October in St Louis, even with equal drivers and traction. Only runs done in decent weather relatively close to sea level (my track is about 400 feet up, not too terrible) should be considered.
I like this.
It should be taken into account that weather conditions and track elevations have a big effect on how a car runs, so corrected times (although I don't personally use them) should be considered for a standard system. Obviously the same car driven in August in mile-high Denver will not run as well as in October in St Louis, even with equal drivers and traction. Only runs done in decent weather relatively close to sea level (my track is about 400 feet up, not too terrible) should be considered.
Like I said, it's just an idea guys. Anything to keep the mindless bickering to a minimum so some good debates can be had.
6th Gear Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,565
From: Jersey
RE: A suggestion...
ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z
Like it... only no partial mod lists and no 'its stock' skittles running in the 11s... 
ORIGINAL: Sleeper05
That way we can just send all the nubs there instead of bickering over 4 GTO vs GT threads at once.
That way we can just send all the nubs there instead of bickering over 4 GTO vs GT threads at once.
Anyway it's going to take alot of research for a best possiable time Vs. average times.But if someone's willing to put the time and efford into doing this it probably couldn't hurt.
5th Gear Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,758
From:
RE: A suggestion...
ORIGINAL: TommyV8
I like this.
It should be taken into account that weather conditions and track elevations have a big effect on how a car runs, so corrected times (although I don't personally use them) should be considered for a standard system. Obviously the same car driven in August in mile-high Denver will not run as well as in October in St Louis, even with equal drivers and traction. Only runs done in decent weather relatively close to sea level (my track is about 400 feet up, not too terrible) should be considered.
I like this.
It should be taken into account that weather conditions and track elevations have a big effect on how a car runs, so corrected times (although I don't personally use them) should be considered for a standard system. Obviously the same car driven in August in mile-high Denver will not run as well as in October in St Louis, even with equal drivers and traction. Only runs done in decent weather relatively close to sea level (my track is about 400 feet up, not too terrible) should be considered.
We should also add a category ranking a car 1-5 on bolt-on potential and 1-5 on boost/nitrous potential.
6th Gear Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,565
From: NC
RE: A suggestion...
ORIGINAL: Sleeper05
Corrected times would be a good standardization...but I don't wanna have to change my sig to say 12.31 and 111.9mph...
We should also add a category ranking a car 1-5 on bolt-on potential and 1-5 on boost/nitrous potential.
ORIGINAL: TommyV8
I like this.
It should be taken into account that weather conditions and track elevations have a big effect on how a car runs, so corrected times (although I don't personally use them) should be considered for a standard system. Obviously the same car driven in August in mile-high Denver will not run as well as in October in St Louis, even with equal drivers and traction. Only runs done in decent weather relatively close to sea level (my track is about 400 feet up, not too terrible) should be considered.
I like this.
It should be taken into account that weather conditions and track elevations have a big effect on how a car runs, so corrected times (although I don't personally use them) should be considered for a standard system. Obviously the same car driven in August in mile-high Denver will not run as well as in October in St Louis, even with equal drivers and traction. Only runs done in decent weather relatively close to sea level (my track is about 400 feet up, not too terrible) should be considered.
We should also add a category ranking a car 1-5 on bolt-on potential and 1-5 on boost/nitrous potential.
Administrator
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 16,186
From: yep
RE: A suggestion...
why dont we do this? because of we insinuate that anything not built by ford is quicker than any mustang, ever, the ford fan boys will freak out...and in the same manner, if we suggest that EVERY LSX powered car, ever built, doesnt run in the 12s completely stock, many of the GM fan boys will freak out..
6th Gear Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,565
From: Jersey
RE: A suggestion...
ORIGINAL: Ride Of The Month
why dont we do this? because of we insinuate that anything not built by ford is quicker than any mustang, ever, the ford fan boys will freak out...and in the same manner, if we suggest that EVERY LSX powered car, ever built, doesnt run in the 12s completely stock, many of the GM fan boys will freak out..
why dont we do this? because of we insinuate that anything not built by ford is quicker than any mustang, ever, the ford fan boys will freak out...and in the same manner, if we suggest that EVERY LSX powered car, ever built, doesnt run in the 12s completely stock, many of the GM fan boys will freak out..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
marko98gt
4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
3
May 11, 2010 09:34 PM
Missmy5.0
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
2
Mar 23, 2009 08:54 PM