In light of the numerous recent arguments over what certain cars in stock form qualify as (in terms of stock trim 1/4 ETs), I have come up with a suggestion. Certainly some cars can be potentially driven to really good times in comparison to what the average driver pulls, but it has been argued back and forth as to whether a car's average ET or its absolute best ET should be used as a standard for comparison. I say both numbers are important.......because one shows the car's potential, and the other let's us know what most of us probably will run in one when we get behind the wheel.

So here it is.....how about we adopt a standardize way of referring to cars' stock performance when doing comparisons? I'm thinking the following:

Example: S197 GT manual

Standardize form: 13M/13H/14L

Translation: Awesome superduper drivers can coax somemid 13's out of the car stock........your average good driver will pull high 13's........and your average Joe Blow will pull low 14's.

Here's my breakdown......low = .1to .3; mid = .4 to .6; and high = .7 to .9; I'd say have a separate "flat" (F) category for referring to cars that go 13.0 or 12.0 or 14.0

Ok. So does this sound stupid?...........or like a potentially good idea? I think it'd be a good way to eliminate alot of bickering that occurs when rating stock car performance in terms of 1/4 times. I think the fastest potential as well as the high and lowaverage times are all prevelant.

Or, at least does anyone have suggestions for how we could adopt a standardized stock ET rating system? This was just my suggestion for how to do it.[8D]

 

Excellent idea. I have always referred to cars in such terms as "best possible" and "normal" in my arguments.

 

Yea, there's just too much difference in opinion in this section from what I've seen. Some ppl like to quote the absolute best possible times, others prefer to quote average times. I'm just trying to come up with a way of accomodating both at once.........gives us more time to argue about other stuff

 

Why don't we start a database in the stickies section with a chart:

car. year. hp. weight. ave 1/4 (and mph). best 1/4
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

That way we can just send all the nubs there instead of bickering over 4 GTO vs GT threads at once.

 

why dont we just agree on one of the magazines and use their time as an "average" for the car is stock form.

if we let people post their own opinion of times will have a battle about that as well

edit: i like where you going here though

 

Like it... only no partial mod lists and no 'its stock' skittles running in the 11s...

 

You have a good idea here This Blood...But you will always have some idiot that will come in and say they seen a car doing a tick better than someones best quoted time, or the old saying "every S197 I've seen is running mid 13's"... Which may turn out to be lightly modded,but they assume stock....The arguing on ET's can never be controlled....

 

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.

 

heres a good one

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html