^ yea I have been doing that (racing) for going on almost 20 years now.

 

^^^^This guy gets it.

 

Stone629 track prep doesn't figure in to this. Those corrections assume that is equal. It makes sense to do that. If it didn't work like that we could easily say your times don't matter either. Because you could go to another track at your same altitude and have different prep.

The point of the corrections is to basically say if we took your track on that day (same prep, etc.) and teleported it to a sea level location, the result would be x based on the results of your ET at the higher elevation. Or as AZ mentioned, the car should at least be capable of producing the corrected result.

Our track is an NHRA sanctioned track FWIW.

I'm sure next summer Mishri would be more than willing to make a road trip out there so you guys can either STFU or make him look like an r-tard. Someone should take him up on his offer. I won't even try - I drive a manual.

 

Just a question, if you ran the 12.9@ 107mph at a lower elevation track (I'm not at all saying you can't), what do you anticipate your 60' time to be? Also what kind of tires are you running?

I am very on board with correction factor when you are using some good tires, the ****ty DA reducing HP is most likely the limiting factor. If someone is pulling a 1.9 or 2.0 at high altitude on street tires, I don't think they should be expecting a much better 60' at a lower altitude with the extra hp on the same tire, as the tires are the limiting factor. Hence my question on how a DA adjustment affects 60' times, how does it modify it (it's quite possibly that the DA adjustment doesn't affect 60' time at all, a really good question to ask NHRA, if that were true, I think a lot more people would be more accepting of it)?

 

I know track prep doesn't figure into the DA correction equation, but when Mishri comes out and says that us lower elevation guys make excuses for not running high 12s when his car "should" run a high 12 "corrected", things like track prep do indeed play into it. I know what you're saying about the correction itself, I really do. I'm referring more to the fact that maybe Mishri isn't as superior of a driver as he wants to make himself out to be. No offense Mishri, I'm not trying to attack you man, just prove a point. I ran my 13.3 uncorrected. Corrected its a 13.0. You guys run what you run and know what your corrected ET is. BUT, that doesn't mean that you can pull off that corrected ET in the real world simply by driving to a lower track. The reason being is exactly what you said, the DA corrections are assuming identical conditions and the fact is those identical conditions do not exist.

 

I think Mishri is a good driver. He does drive an auto though so keep that in mind. No offense to my friend Mishri but I am more impressed with a person who has conquered a manual car vs. someone who drives an auto. And quite honestly I think Mishri would be willing to agree with that. It takes skill to drive an auto well. It takes even more skill to drive the manual.

 

Absolutely identical? No. But close enough that it shouldn't be hard to reproduce a time within about a tenth of a second of what those corrections factors indicate if they are accurate. He believes in them obviously as does the NHRA to some degree anyway.

All he needs to do is head over to the west coast, probably seattle area, at the right time of year and find a track at low altitude with good prep similar to ours.

To make it a good test he needs to have the same setup, down to the tires, that he had when he made his "reference" run at the high altitude track here.

Short of some ridiculous weather that pushes the DA up high at the sea level track, or terrible prep, it should be a pretty close test.

 

I can make a comment on what I felt. I drove my car from Utah to California last year. As far as from a dig...yeah it was quicker, not sure how much though. But, just like anywhere else...once she got up to 2500 rpms, WOW! There was night and day difference. Car felt way faster. I mean, I felt just as much of a difference (if not more) between 6000' to sea level as I did from stock to CAI/tune. In an auto with a Bama tune...that's saying a lot. I'm still kicking myself for not going to the track in Sacramento.

It really makes me want to move.

 

I have things keeping me here or I would. I don't ever want to live in California again as a full time resident. No way. Nice place to visit but... The chief thing about not moving is that my job isn't easily replaceable. I have a lot of benefits here (such as being able to surf this forum during the day) and freedoms that aren't going to be easily replaced elsewhere. Not to mention my job here pays a salary that allows me to do things that it may not in other more expensive areas of the country.

On the bright side at least I'm 2000' lower than frickin bandimere.

 

I sent the question to NHRA


If the correction factor adjusts only mph and then corrects ET accordingly, I don't think there can be much of an arguement against the validity of a corrected time (unless you are getting really nit picky and bring up losing traction between shifts).

If the correction factor does reduce 60' time in it's correction, then I think you have to go on more of a case by case basis on the DA correction validity, as tires have a strong limitation and its quite possibly you are maxxing out their ability at the high elevation without any correction.

I'll let everyone know how they answer.
Just my $.02