Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth Saturday, August 18
2001 Volume 01 : Number
582
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:24:37 -0400
From: "Jason Barnhart" <
phnxgld@erols.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Back from a drag strip
Reaction time does not factor into ET at
all. You can sit at the line
(without tripping the laser ) for 20
seconds and still run 13s.
Philip - These times suggest that you drove
well but the car was down on
power. Sub 13.5s are not uncommon for
stock VR4s but you should be able to
turn traps above 100 mph. Were you
at a high elevation or was it very hot?
Rich - An easy way to tell what
turbos you have is how much boost you can
hold to redline. You'd be
lucky to hold 12 psi to redline even on a very
cold day and low altitudes
with stock turbos. If you can hold 15 psi, then
you've got at least
13Gs.
Jason
13.36 at 102.54 (88k miles, Weapon-R open element filter
and bad plugs and
wires)
12.802 at 107.87 (K&N, boost control,
unbolted downpipe)
12.82 at 109.40 (K&N, boost, downpipe, cat back and
clutch) Actually made 3
back to back passes with no more than 15
minutes between them running
12.82 - 12.89, all over 109 mph.
12.67 at 106
(same mods, better driving and heat) Drove 7 hours to the DSM
shootout
in 2000, hit 117k miles, ran the times and drove home.
- ----- Original
Message -----
From: "Joe Gonsowski" <
twinturbo@mediaone.net>
To:
"Philip V. Glazatov" <
gphilip@umich.edu>
Cc: <
team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent:
Friday, August 17, 2001 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Team3S: Back from a drag
strip
> Excellent times Philip, but I'd like to know what you mean
by "Here are my
> results net my reaction times:" Just curious if
you took some time off
your
> ET because of a less than perfect
reaction time (I've seen some do this).
If
> you didn't, those are very
impressive times given the trap speeds.
>
> Please post your whole
time slip including the 60 ft times.
>
> BTW - FWDs are not running
13s with simple mods unless "simple" includes
> nitrous.
>
>
Joe G.
> '92 R/T TT
>
> "Philip V. Glazatov"
wrote:
>
> > Here are my results net my reaction times:
>
>
>
>
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 (Run 3 G-Tech
reading)
> > Time, sec 13.927
13.514 13.685 (14.05)
> > Speed,
mph 95.24 99.31
98.47 (103.6)
> >
> > Philip
> > '95 R/T
TT
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:31:40
-0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip
> Gtech times are only ET times,
but the Gtech starts as soon
> as the car starts, rather than waiting for
a break light
> condition, so time may be a tenth or two longer than
track
> ET times.
My Gtech is usually optimistic by a bit, caused
by the car squatting the
back end and lifting the front under hard
acceleration. It tilts the Gtech
a bit more down, adding a bit to the
acceleration readings resulting in the
optimistic reading.
Your
mileage may vary....
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:28:44
-0400
From: Joe Gonsowski <
twinturbo@mediaone.net>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Back from a drag strip
Just so everyone is clear, I didn't
recommend subtracting RT from ET. I simply asked if this is what he was
doing because of the following:
1) He stated "Here are my results
net my reaction times:" why did he say "net my reaction times", what does
this mean?
2) 13.5 timeslip is impressive in a stock TT, usually better
than a 98 trap is reported with mid 13 timeslips.
3) he said his car
was feeling slow
4) It was his first time out, perhaps he doesn't know
that RT is completely independant of ET.
I've seen plenty of first timers
run in the 14s at ~98 mph. Just want to make sure he is interpreting his
timeslip correctly. Say he ran a 14.3 ET with a .8 RT @ 98, that means he
ran a
14.3 1/4 mile but he may have interpretted it as the 13.5 he
reported.
I just asked for some clarification.
Joe G.
12.236 @
113
http://people.mw.mediaone.net/twinturbo/homepage.htm"Zobel,
Kurt" wrote:
> Yes, just to clarify, your reaction time is time from
light goes green til your wheels/car break the timing light, and ET is break
timing light til break finnish line timing light.
>
> The winner is
the first to cross finnish line from green light, so includes both of above, but
is seldom/if ever included as a total time on time slips. Just 'first' or
'winner' is noted.
>
> Gtech times are only ET times, but the Gtech
starts as soon as the car starts, rather than waiting for a break light
condition, so time may be a tenth or two longer than track ET times.
>
Also, it measures instantaneous final speed vs trap speed, so will usually
report speed higher than track speeds. Slower time, higher speed with
Gtech just as Phillip indicated.
>
> Kurt
>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: cody
[mailto:overclck@starband.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 11:38
AM
> To: 'Joe Gonsowski';
team3s@stealth-3000gt.st>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip
>
> Reaction times have
nothing to do with ET. No one should do that
> whatsoever... You
could literally have a 30 second reaction time, and a
> ET of 9.5
seconds...
>
> -Cody
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:49:00
-0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Lucius <
stealthman92@yahoo.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip
The G-tech measures acceleration in
one direction. Point it up (or
down) and it measures the force of gravity at
your location. Move it
horizontal when it is pointed up and the reading will
not change
because there is no vertical component of the horizontal
movement.
Turn it to face to the sideways (lateral G measurement) and move
the
car forward and the reading will not change (or change very
little).
To measure car acceleration it is best to have the G-tech
horizontal.
If you have it tilted, the horizontal component will be reduced
and
the measured acceleration will be reduced. Distance traveled and
speed
is based on cummulative time at the acceleration rate. With a
tilted meter,
the G-Tech will think it takes you longer to get to 60
mph or 1/4 mile. The
G-Tech will never be optimistic, always
pessimistic.
Jeff Lucius,
www.stealth316.com- --- "Jannusch,
Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
wrote:
<snip>
> My Gtech is usually optimistic by a bit, caused
by the car
> squatting the
> back end and lifting the front under
hard acceleration. It tilts
> the Gtech
> a bit more down,
adding a bit to the acceleration readings
> resulting in the
>
optimistic reading.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17
Aug 2001 16:17:26 -0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip
> To measure car acceleration it is
best to have the G-tech
> horizontal. If you have it tilted, the
horizontal component
> will be reduced and the measured acceleration will
be
> reduced. Distance traveled and speed is based on cummulative
> time at the acceleration rate. With a tilted meter, the
> G-Tech
will think it takes you longer to get to 60 mph or 1/4
> mile. The G-Tech
will never be optimistic, always pessimistic.
The G-Tech starts level,
but the car induces a tilt to the G-Tech when
accelerating. As it does
this, a gravity component is introduced into the
acceleration reading causing
it to think my car is quicker than it is...
Front of
car
Back of
Car
________
----------| G-Tech
|----------
----------
Car at rest = zero gravitationally-induced acceleration
Car accelerating, with front rising and tail dropping:
Front of
car
Back of
Car
^
-----\
________
----|
G-Tech |----\
----------
-----
V
Car's acceleration force vector is ----->
Gravitational
force vector is
|
|
V
If G-Tech's measurement vector is: \
(exaggerated)
\
V
Then the two force vectors will read on the measurement vector as a
single
higher acceleration vector.
G-Tech gets tilted along with the
car so "front" is higher than rear.
Gravity causes an increased acceleration
reading on its single-axis
accelerometer causing it to believe the car is
accelerating quicker than
actual.
...so on my car it is typically
optimistic on hard enough launches. It
launches hard enough where the
rear sometimes hits the bumpstops and the
front pulls the struts to full
extension, so the angle of tilt is
significant enough to throw off the
reading.
So, yes, it can read optimistically.
If your car doesn't
sqat as much as mine does (fairly likely due to the
seemingly softer
suspension setup on the Spyder) then maybe this effect
isn't enough to throw
the reading optimistic enough to compensate for the
"roll-out" distance
before you leave the staging beams at the track (which
reduces ET's at the
track since you get a small rolling start before the ET
clock starts
ticking).
????
Probably not very important in the grand scheme of
things though. ;-)
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder
VR4
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:32:17
-0500
From: "Christopher Deutsch" <
crdeutsch@mn.mediaone.net>
Subject:
Alternative Performance Meter (Was: Team3S: Back from a drag strip)
Or
you can get one of these, which you can program to compensate for
different
degrees of squat:
http://www.race-technology.com/WebPage/FlashHome.htmlThis
performance meter should be more accurate than a G-tech, plus you can
hook it
up to your PC to analyze your data. Don't know if it's worth the
price
though. If your interested in getting one, I bought mine
from
Christopher Brown at:
http://www.cb-racing.com/Great
customer service! No were not related or in business together, just
a
great shopping experience!
You can email me privately if you have
any questions about it.
Christopher
- ----- Original Message
-----
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
To:
"'Jeff Lucius'" <
stealthman92@yahoo.com>; <
team3s@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent:
Friday, August 17, 2001 4:17 PM
Subject: RE: Team3S: Back from a drag
strip
> > To measure car acceleration it is best to have the
G-tech
> > horizontal. If you have it tilted, the horizontal
component
> > will be reduced and the measured acceleration will
be
> > reduced. Distance traveled and speed is based on
cummulative
> > time at the acceleration rate. With a tilted meter,
the
> > G-Tech will think it takes you longer to get to 60 mph or
1/4
> > mile. The G-Tech will never be optimistic, always
pessimistic.
>
> The G-Tech starts level, but the car induces a tilt
to the G-Tech when
> accelerating. As it does this, a gravity
component is introduced into the
> acceleration reading causing it to
think my car is quicker than it is...
>
>
> Front of
car
Back of
Car
>
>
________
> ----------| G-Tech
|----------
>
----------
>
> Car at rest = zero gravitationally-induced
acceleration
>
> Car accelerating, with front rising and tail
dropping:
>
> Front of
car
Back of
Car
>
^
> -----\
________
>
----| G-Tech
|----\
>
----------
-----
>
V
>
> Car's acceleration force vector is ----->
>
Gravitational force vector is
|
>
|
>
V
>
> If G-Tech's measurement vector is: \
(exaggerated)
>
\
>
V
>
> Then the two force vectors will read on the measurement vector
as a single
> higher acceleration vector.
>
> G-Tech gets
tilted along with the car so "front" is higher than rear.
> Gravity causes
an increased acceleration reading on its single-axis
> accelerometer
causing it to believe the car is accelerating quicker than
>
actual.
>
> ...so on my car it is typically optimistic on hard
enough launches. It
> launches hard enough where the rear sometimes
hits the bumpstops and the
> front pulls the struts to full extension, so
the angle of tilt is
> significant enough to throw off the
reading.
>
> So, yes, it can read optimistically.
>
> If
your car doesn't sqat as much as mine does (fairly likely due to the
>
seemingly softer suspension setup on the Spyder) then maybe this effect
>
isn't enough to throw the reading optimistic enough to compensate for
the
> "roll-out" distance before you leave the staging beams at the track
(which
> reduces ET's at the track since you get a small rolling start
before the
ET
> clock starts ticking).
>
>
????
>
> Probably not very important in the grand scheme of things
though. ;-)
>
> -Matt
> '95 3000GT Spyder
VR4
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:58:55
-0000
From: "Sam Shelat" <
sshelat@erols.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Rod bearing preventitive maintenance?
It must just be 1st gens
then cause my 95 VR-4 has 96,000 miles hits 15psi
every day, goes to 100mph
and beyond for minutes each day and still does 12
second 1/4 mile times all
on stock motor and turbos (three leaky
transmissions though). I thought
our motors were well built except when you
start upgrading turbos and
such.
Sam
- -----Original Message-----
From: Willis, Charles E.
<
cewillis@TexasChildrensHospital.org>
To:
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st <
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Date:
Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: Team3S: Rod bearing
preventitive maintenance?
>Jeff,
>
>What sort of TLC
do you think the previous owner gave your car for 53K
>miles? We've
had four of these monsters with various levels of restoration
>required.
Mike's current car has 120K miles - he bought it at about 60K
from
>a
meticulous fellow who always drove it fast, but not hard. Our
other
cars
>have 90K miles and 63K miles currently with (knock on wood)
no bearing
>problems. The first car Mike had was totalled at about
75K miles if my
>memory serves me.
>
>I just can't see
changing the bearings that frequently as a PM. If you go
>to that
much trouble, wouldn't you pop the heads and change out the rods,
>pistons
and rings?
>
>Chuck
>
>> -----Original
Message-----
>> From: Jeff Lucius
[SMTP:stealthman92@yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:20
AM
>> To:
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Rod bearing preventitive
maintenance?
>>
>> >> Geoff Mohler said:
>>
>> Honestly..this is the first ive heard of this "common
problem".
>>
>> Who said common problem? I didn't. Read
carefully. I said "weakest
>> link".
>>
>> And Roger,
I rarely have heard of our cars breaking rings or gouging
>> pistons
(at least here stateside). The most often *major* engine
>> complaint I
have heard of is rod bearings.
>>
>> While some here would
laughingly accuse our engine builders of being
>> morons (Hi Wayne), I
believe the problem is inherent in the design.
>> Don't blame our
engine builders or people like me who bought a TT
>> used (5 yrs old
and 53K miles, and had the rod bearings spin after
>> only owning it
for 2 months and 1000 miles), and say we either can't
>> build an
engine or don't perform proper maintenance.
>>
>> I do agree
(emphatically) that changing the oil often with a good
>> quality oil,
and preventing detonation, should go a long way to
>> prolong the life
of the bearings. I happen to change my oil (Mobil 1)
>> every 1000
miles or so. I felt bad when I changed it twice after 2000
>> miles
(after driving to Ohio and Norwalk, the DSM shootout, and again
>>
after driving back to Colorado).
>>
>> Jeff Lucius,
www.stealth316.com***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:51:23
-0400 (EDT)
From: Matthew Hull <
mh800597@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject:
Team3S: Stealth info
Hello all,
I had recently put my car up for
sale and I found a buyer for
13,000. I Thought it was worth more but I
was desperate at the time. Two
days before it was suppose to be sold
the ac belt broke off and got caught
in the drive belt and messed up the
timing belt. The final result was
that the engine was totally messed
up. I have the car at a dealership
right now and they are putting in a
used engine for 6K installed. The car
is a 94 Dodge Stealth R/T TT,
everything inside and out is in great
condition despite this belt
thing. I was wondering what you guys thought
it was worth now that it
has a new engine. (more-less)?? The car has 80K
miles on it and the
engine has 30K. I did all the matainance that was
needed the belt that broke
was only 11 months old, if anyone knows
anything about sueing or talking with
the belt company about the damage
that it caused engine. Thanks for all
your help!!
- -Matt
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:20:14
-0500
From: "Mark Wendlandt" <
stealth_tt@hotmail.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip
I have to agree with Matt on this
one...both theoretically and empirically.
Because the car squats there
is an addition gravity component added in. To
get an accurate measurement,
you would need 2 accels orthogonal to each
other(vertical and parallel to
the direction of movement). We can then find
each component of
acceleration...integrate it and find our velocity and if
you know time, you
can find distance...etc, etc. I thought that the better
ones (vericom)
had two accels, but I could be wrong.
I'm disappointed with my
g-tech. It is fairly consistent but inaccurate.
I've run it
several times at the track and it is ~.3-.5 sec fast in the 1/4
and about
7mph off(expected because of instantanious instead of the average
of the
last 60').
I put a lot more weight on the times posted from track events
than the times
posted with (g-tech) after them.
Anyone want to buy my
g-tech?
Mark Wendlandt
'91RT/TT
12.61@111 (Rockfalls Dragways)
>From:
"Jannusch, Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
>The
G-Tech starts level, but the car induces a tilt to the G-Tech
when
>accelerating. As it does this, a gravity component is
introduced into the
>acceleration reading causing it to think my car is
quicker than it is...
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:44:43
-0700 (PDT)
From: John Christian <
jczoom_619@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Rod bearing preventative maintenance?
Hi Andy,
Yep, on the
engine stand. Just pulled #4&3 pistons.
#4 is only slightly
cracked near the top land, but is
missing the two lower skirts--found those
in the pan.
Will be pulling the other 4 pistons on Sat.
Can see the
copper thru what is left of the babbitt on
the upper rod bearing
insert. Crank journals still
look good with bright mirror like
finish.
Guess its 'good' I blew a head gasket cause there
wasn't but a
few more miles to go before serious
damage occurred. Currently
93k.
Be of good cheer,
John
- --- "Andrew D. Woll" <
awoll1@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
John: How did you check the bearings with
> Plastigage - Is you
engine torn
> apart right now?
>
> Andy
>
=====
Please respond to
jczoom@iname.com'93 TT with Porsche
brakes and Supra TT rotors
12.4@109MPH
5/97 almost stock
http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/flats/4538***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:28:06
-0700
From: "Jim Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Back from a drag strip
The G-tech is great for testing mods ---- do a
roll on before and after a mod
and check max acceleration, you can even watch
the readout and get a
feel for overall performance. If you wish do a ¼
mile run to get the change
in performance, they are great for relative
performance. To think that it would
have an absolute accuracy better than a
track timing light is a bit foolish, on
the other hand it's a major pain to
run to the track every time you want to
check your performance level. With
the G-tech you can also wait to have the
same run conditions --- Temperature
etc.
If you want absolute accuracy go to the track ---- if you want
relative accuracy
and convenience use the
G-tech.
Jim
Berry
====================================================
- -----
Original Message -----
From: Mark Wendlandt <
stealth_tt@hotmail.com>
>
I have to agree with Matt on this one...both theoretically and
empirically.
> Because the car squats there is an addition gravity
component added in.
>
> I'm disappointed with my g-tech. It is
fairly consistent but inaccurate.
> I put a lot more weight on the
times posted from track events than the times
> posted with (g-tech) after
them.
>
> Anyone want to buy my g-tech?
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:50:45
-0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Stealth info
> ...the ac belt broke off and got caught in
the drive belt
> and messed up the timing belt. The final result
was
> that the engine was totally messed up.
That's strange.
A broken A/C belt shouldn't be able to hose up the timing
belt since the
timing belt is tucked safely away under a full set of covers.
Seems a little
suspicious to me...
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:06:05
-0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip
> I'm disappointed with my
g-tech. It is fairly consistent
> but inaccurate. I've run it
several times at the track
> and it is ~.3-.5 sec fast in the 1/4 and
about 7mph
> off(expected because of instantanious instead of the average
> of the last 60').
Yeah, I see similar results. My car
posted a 12.2 on the G-Tech, but that's
about the best I think my car
could've hoped for in its then-current set of
mods at the track with race
fuel and more boost. With 17 psi of boost and
pump gas with water
injection that seemed optimistic. But gee, that would
be great if that
was reality. ;-)
The +7 MPH is actually pretty poor accuracy-wise
and can't really be
explained by the 60' averaging. At 110 MPH that
last 60' goes by a lot
quicker than you can accelerate the 7 MPH of
error. The MPH number just
plain isn't accurate.
> I put a
lot more weight on the times posted from track events
> than the times
posted with (g-tech) after them.
Yeah, for sure. The G-Tech is okay
for estimates, and only if you do
several runs and average the runs throwing
out the best and worst. Then of
course you have to find a nearly
perfectly flat road to make the runs on or
the numbers can really get out of
whack. Its better than nothing, but the
numbers aren't necessarily
"real". Hopefully nobody ever really thought
they were.
:-)
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:50:21
-0500
From: "Mark Wendlandt" <
stealth_tt@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Back from a drag strip
Thanks for the comments Jim. The
problem is with the claims that G-tech
makes about the accuracy. I
never expected it to be as accurate as timing.
I just expected it to
live up to their claims(does this still make me
"foolish"?)
http://www.gtechpro.com/accu.html+-0.1
sec and +-1 mph
In practice, these just are not true...in my car or
Matt's(this leaves me to
believe others as well). People spend
thousands of dollars to get a half of
second increase in the
1/4...
Now if is was always exactly .4 sec(hypothetical) off then it
would be more
useful. If you put a K&N in or new downpipe that
will probably only give
you a tenth or two...it is in the noise level and
you will not see it in the
gtech(1/4mi run). Nitrous, BC or turbos and
I think that you will notice
this as they give a much larger performance
gain.
I do agree with you that it is more accurate doing roll-ons than
launches
and that you could do testing that way...When I bought it, I had
0-60s and
1/4s on my mind(these are the numbers that many post). Not
accurate enough
for these.
The device just does not live up to its
claims.
Now if you know this when you buy it(I didn't), you won't be
disappointed/surprised when you go to the track and numbers are way off(I
was).
"You get what you pay for"
Mark
Wendlandt
'91RT/TT
>
>The G-tech is great for testing mods
---- do a roll on before and after a
>mod
>and check max
acceleration, you can even watch the readout and get a
>feel for overall
performance. If you wish do a ¼ mile run to get the
>change
>in performance, they are great for relative performance.
To think that it
>would
>have an absolute accuracy better than a
track timing light is a bit
>foolish, on
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 07:15:49
-0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Lucius <
stealthman92@yahoo.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip
Yes, I agree Matt. I didn't think it
through - the reduced horizontal
component will be less than the increased
vertical component
(assuming none of our cars accelerate faster than 1 g :) )
so the
total vector will be larger. I should have drawn some little
pictures
or at least had a cup of coffee. :)
Jeff Lucius,
www.stealth316.com- --- "Jannusch,
Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
wrote:
> > To measure car acceleration it is best to have the G-tech
> > horizontal. If you have it tilted, the horizontal component
> > will be reduced and the measured acceleration will be
>
> reduced. Distance traveled and speed is based on cummulative
> >
time at the acceleration rate. With a tilted meter, the
> > G-Tech
will think it takes you longer to get to 60 mph or 1/4
> > mile. The
G-Tech will never be optimistic, always pessimistic.
>
> The G-Tech
starts level, but the car induces a tilt to the G-Tech
> when
>
accelerating. As it does this, a gravity component is introduced
>
into the
> acceleration reading causing it to think my car is quicker than
it
> is...
>
>
> Front of
car
Back of Car
>
-----------------ASCII art snipped--------------
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:08:19
-0700
From: "Jim Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Back from a drag strip
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Mark
Wendlandt <
stealth_tt@hotmail.com>
>
Thanks for the comments Jim. The problem is with the claims that
G-tech
> makes about the accuracy. I never expected it to be as
accurate as timing.
> I just expected it to live up to their claims(does
this still make me
> "foolish"?)
Foolish was an bad choice of words
--- overly optimistic would be a better
choice. I went to their web site and
looked at their advertising hype and would
have to agree that they are
misleading, dive, squat and roll are not mentioned
at all and can have a
significant affect on operation especially if you have a
softly sprung car. I
guess as a result of my engineering background and
cynical view of
advertising I didn't expect too much.
> Now if is was always
exactly .4 sec(hypothetical) off then it would be more
> useful.
If
dive and squat were repeatable I would assume the results would be
repeatable
also --- has anyone kept track of similar ¼ mile runs and the
G-tech
equivalent.
If you put a K&N in or new downpipe that will
probably only give
> you a tenth or two...it is in the noise level and you
will not see it in the
> gtech(1/4mi run).
I think the same applies
to ¼ mi runs also unless you're a serious racer, in
my case if I could get
within .3 on consecutive runs I'd be amazed, that's
why I'd use a roll-on to
check mods.
> The device just does not live up to its
claims.
Probably true --- I see they're in LA, not far from me ---- I
might give them
a call and ask about dive and squat and see what they have to
say for
themselves.
Jim
Berry
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 11:01:59
-0500
From: Gabriel Estrada <
typhoonzz@earthlink.net>
Subject:
Team3S: Stock brake replacement
Ok,
I have never changed the pads
before on my GT, but I can't imagine that is
going to be that hard. But
I'd like some advice on simple stock replacement
pads and what is the best
fluid to use that can be store bought for a car
that is never raced, just
daily driven.
Thanks in advance!
Gabriel Estrada
***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:54:33
-0500
From: "Philip V. Glazatov" <
gphilip@umich.edu>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Back from a drag strip
May I ask what a "roll-on" is? I could not
find it in the archives. Maybe
then I won't have to burn my clutch or speed
past 100 MPH. Thanks.
Philip
At 10:08 AM 8/18/2001, Jim Berry
wrote:
>I'd use a roll-on to check mods.
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:08:07
-0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Back from a drag strip
> If dive and squat were repeatable
I would assume the
> results would be repeatable also --- has anyone
kept
> track of similar ¼ mile runs and the G-tech equivalent.
I
think overall the results are reasonably repeatable, but if I make a run
in
Tour suspension mode versus Sport mode the results on the Tour run are
even
more optimistic. :-) I like those results the best.
Heh....
> I think the same applies to ¼ mi runs also unless
>
you're a serious racer, in my case if I could get
> within .3 on
consecutive runs I'd be amazed, that's
> why I'd use a roll-on to check
mods.
Its probably even tougher to get consistent roll-on acceleration
than a
dragstrip launch though (at least for me - you might be better at it
than I
am!). I'm thinking I might try out something like this
instead:
http://www.charm.net/~mchaney/roaddyno/index.htmlEssentially
what I'm really looking for when I'm not at the dragstrip is
engine output
power and not so much 1/4 mile time or acceleration data.
The
horsepower number on the GTech can be pretty iffy and since there's
no
datalogging you can't draw a plot of wheel horsepower later to use as
a
tuning aid.
Since I haven't found an AWD dyno anywhere remotely near
where I live
(Minnesota) maybe this will do something for me to at least get
some better
performance data than "Well, it seems really quick!".
:-)
Anyone played with that hardware/software? Opinions?
30
day money back guarantee, which is nice...
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder
VR4
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 14:29:37
EDT
From:
Sportsmobile101@aol.comSubject:
Team3S: Car wont start, please help.
Hi team, i drove home last
night in my 92 SL and it was working ok, but
this morning when i tried to
start it, it started but the rpm did not get
over 500 and then it just
died. So i fugured maybe my fuel pump had died,
but i checked that and
it is working fine, i replaced the fuel filter just in
case, but that didn't
do anything. Where should i start checking?? Any
advice is
greatly appreciated. Thanx in advace.
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:01:51
-0500
From: "Philip V. Glazatov" <
gphilip@umich.edu>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Back from a drag strip
Sorry, I did read my slips incorrectly.
Here are the original
slips:
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 (Run 3 G-Tech
reading)
Reaction 1.037
0.720 0.480
60
ft 2.536
2.246 2.031
330
ft 6.596
6.060 5.860
1/8
ET 9.869
9.229 9.106
1/8
MPH 75.63
76.90 75.79
1000' ET
12.623 11.947 11.855
1/4
ET 14.964
14.234 14.165 (14.05)
1/4
MPH 95.24
99.31 98.47 (103.6)
I raced at the Milan Dragway
in Michigan, the Great Lakes altitude??? The
weather was about 75 deg F and
I'd say 70% humidity. It got a little cooler
by the my last run. During the
second run I panicked and clutched it when I
started pulling away from that
500HP+ Camaro. ;-) I lost some time but
gained some speed I think. He still
got me in the end. My G-Tech was
surprisingly accurate during the one time I
used it.
Philip
'95 R/T TT
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:13:18
-0400
From: Joe Gonsowski <
twinturbo@mediaone.net>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Back from a drag strip
Hey Philip, many of us Michigan folks
have run at Milan and Lapeer dragway.
Next time you go, let the MI crew know
(we have an email list, contact "Alan C.
Sheffield" <
alan92rttt@mi3si.org> if you aren't on
the list yet). Even if my
car isn't running, I'll gladly go to watch,
help, take pictures, etc. Your ETs
can use some improvement, and you'll
get it with a better launch / 60 foot. A
1.8 60' will get you to ~ 13.8
which is typical although others in better
states of tune and aggressive
shifting have gotten to mid 13s stock.
Joe Gonsowski
Westland,
MI
'92 R/T TT
12.236 @ 113
"Philip V. Glazatov" wrote:
>
Sorry, I did read my slips incorrectly. Here are the original
slips:
>
>
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 (Run 3 G-Tech
reading)
> Reaction
1.037 0.720 0.480
> 60
ft 2.536
2.246 2.031
> 330
ft 6.596
6.060 5.860
> 1/8
ET 9.869
9.229 9.106
> 1/8
MPH 75.63
76.90 75.79
> 1000'
ET 12.623 11.947
11.855
> 1/4 ET
14.964 14.234 14.165 (14.05)
> 1/4
MPH 95.24
99.31 98.47 (103.6)
>
> I raced at the Milan
Dragway in Michigan, the Great Lakes altitude??? The
> weather was about
75 deg F and I'd say 70% humidity. It got a little cooler
> by the my last
run. During the second run I panicked and clutched it when I
> started
pulling away from that 500HP+ Camaro. ;-) I lost some time but
> gained
some speed I think. He still got me in the end. My G-Tech was
>
surprisingly accurate during the one time I used it.
>
>
Philip
> '95 R/T TT
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
End of Team3S: 3000GT &
Stealth V1
#582
***************************************