Hi everyone, I’m Chad. I went to the track and took my first timed runs last Friday, but the track had a few technical difficulties and I was hoping you guys could help me out with a time slip. The first run of my life ended up being 13.966 @ 103.96, second run I missed my forth gear shift (twice) so that one wont help much, and my third run timed 0.0 @ 0mph due to dew on the track sensors. My runs were fairly late at night so the track was cold and starting to get wet (hence dew on sensors). My question is what you guys think I would have ran on my third run using the little information that did show up on my time slip. My car is an lsd-less 03, stock two year old tires, stage 2 w/o toys, LFS tb, Borla, AEM srs. Thanks for your input.

__________1st________.3rd
60’_______2.251______.000
330______6.063_____.000
1/8_______9.126_____8.986
MPH______81.53_____82.33
1000_____11.762____11.633
¼_______13.966____.000
MPH_____103.96____.000

My 3rd run was against a Saturn Redline. He had a better reaction time by .363 (I suck) and turned 14.915 @95.97 and I still took him by about 3-4 car lenghts!

 

Ok, well since you didnt get a whole timeslip i will use the 1/8th mile to 1/4 conversion and give you a probable idea of what you might have run.....

9.126 X 1.5555 = 14.195 (you ran 13.966)

Based on the 1st half of the track, your car picked up fairly well and managed a decent time.

8.986 X 1.5555 = 13.977 (unknown time)

But looking just at the 1/8th mile numbers you gained almost 1 mph compared to the earlier run, if all goes well you should be faster than the previous run of 13.966 but since its not recorded, i wouldnt go saying your faster than 13.977, but that your car has potential to go faster.

Also you have great weather in the fall and that could have been the hot ticket for better et's and better mph due to colder and more compact oxygen molecules.

 

Thanks for the equation, that’s an interesting thing to know. We all know that theory’s almost never pan out like they should in real life so I was also looking for an educated guess from someone who has taken many trips down the track. I think the biggest problem was the first half of the track because it was starting to get wet and nobody could hook up. During my second run another srt-4 ran a 1/8 mile time of 9.077 and ran 13.488 @ 113.39. Using your equation he should have ran 9.077 * 1.5555 = 14.119 so I’m guessing that also shows that the first half of the track is where everyone was loosing their time. I wonder if I can make up my own equation to use in this situation. What do you think about this?

Actual time / by your equation’s prediction = adjustment multiplier
Then
Your equation’s prediction (third run) * adjustment multiplier = new predicted time

13.966 / 14.195 = .9839

13.977 * .9839 = 13.75

Now I’m happy. I know this is still not a great time or even a time that I could claim my car ran, but I just couldn’t live with that 13.966 as a personal best for my car all winter. Especially after that 3rd run which felt really good compared to my 1st. All in all I feel like it was a good first track day (night) experience given the conditions and can’t wait for them to reopen next spring. Thanks again for your input.

 

Looking at what's available. I'd say you got out of the hole a bit better, probably managed a 2.1 60' with a 5.9 330'... or pretty close to it. On the 13.9 run it took you 2.204 seconds to travel the last 320 feet of the track. If you add that 2.204 seconds to the 1000' time of the other slip you get 13.837