TB993tt

I never realised quite how steep a 3% slope is until I did the run below just for fun.... the slope below is 4.2m in 307m so 1.35% and the difference it makes to a 60-130mph run (compared to flat) is about 0.5s....

A 3% slope is ridiculously downhill and I would think renders all the 6bling "wall of fame" 60-130s pretty meaningless unless everyone has a similar slope nearby.

No wonder everyones car has 700+hp

bbywu

Your corrections look off. Using RS38's little program on a 60-130 run,

db time corrected Slope(%)
7,26 7,78 -3,18
7,32 7,88 -3,33
7,36 7,74 -2,24
7,43 7,71 -1,6
7,53 7,57 -0,19
7,68 7,48 1,09

WhiteKnight

Toby,

6speedonline is completely a joke...

Some people writing their results and all others are praising the results without knowing the truth or questioning the facts..

Even moderators are biased and have problems on human relations

bbywu

I see a pattern:
http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/2444138-post82.html

Would you like a little cheese with your whine?

On a serious note...Toby...response to RS38's data corrections? 0.5 seconds seems fairly off compared to his corrected values. How did you come up with your numbers? The corrected values is based on a lot of assumptions on a dynamic environment. How did you get 0.5 seconds for your incline?

TB993tt

RS38 was predicting outcomes with various slope using math (I think) I am saying what I saw: On the flat I was doing 7.45s 60-130s and on the 1.35% slope as above you can see on the graph it took 7s flat.....

A 3% slope is more than double the one I ran down so instead of 4.2m in 307 it would probably be more like 8.3m in 275m and the 60-130mph would be even less than the 7s.....meanigless and not worth even trying, a waste of time unless one is trying to compete within the "rules" for a spot on the wall of fame on da bling

bbywu

The biggest problem I have with the algorithm is I believe it makes the assumption that the slope is continuous. I'm not sure if it is possible to calculate a correction factor with a road that has variable incline.

Were your two runs at 0% and 1.35% run on the same day and same conditions? It would be very interesting to see if your technique (shift point, and longitudinal acceleration curves) were similar. I have done several runs on the same day on the same straight and have been able to drop at least 0.2 to 0.4 seconds just on technique alone. 0.5 seconds with near identical longitudinal acceleration curves seems implausible, but of course I could be wrong.

TB993tt

Take the gear changes out and look at the in gear numbers like 60-100mph on the flat (relatively flat anyway) for mine in current tune takes about 3.4s on the 1.35% run it took under 3.2s....... the 3% is still a joke IMO

bbywu

I see what you are saying...however, it is a little hard to interpret...I'm flipping back and forth between rt and rl looking at two different tracings...one with metric, one with mph on different scales...
It looks like a some of the difference in over all time could have been made up with 1-duration of shift and 2-when you made the shift ie your mph and what part of your RPM range you made the shift.

cparkin

we are running ours at Englishtown a little later this month... i know both of you were interested.

eclou

Honestly the slope factor is a necessity since there has got to be some standardization of the conditions to make any sort of comparison. Yes 3% downslope will yield an advantage, but even more important are barometric pressure, altitude, temperature. Europeans will largely benefit from much lower temps than many of us in the southwestern US. The most obvious of the disparities to come to mind are the Vmaxs run ambients of 30-50F in the old country vs some of the 80-95F runs we collect here. Even if we were to standardize an acceptable range of run temperatures, then there would be the factors of windspeed and direction - last Texas Mile had a 20 mph tailwind vs the previous year's 20 mph headwind....

TB993tt

Gene
Of course that is understood - but 3% is a serious downhill, I don't even think I could find such a hill around here long enough to do a 60-130 ! It's just too much and makes runs done on the flat incomparable.....
Personally when ever I quote my 69-130 runs or any other run I always like to quote ambient temp and running weight and a comment on the surface which also makes a very big difference....

eclou

agreed - slippery surface conditions can make some difference especially when accel from a standstill or rough surface which can affect high speed stability. I just don't know where to draw the line though - 2%, 1.5%, 1% grade of slope? I think 3% line allowed the most data to be included and they do in fact divulge the slope with each measured point.

RS38

true, the tool assumes a constant slope during the acceleration. Of course this is not 100% correct but matches quite well in reality if you compare the corrected values of more than 3.

It could be done more precisly which would help alot to be more accurate on 100-300 kph runs.
but on 60-130 mph there are only 60-70 data samples from the DB to calculate and the height channel is not as accurate as the speed and distance.

WhiteKnight

I'm sorry i couldn't understand , why does that message bother you so much to write it to here?