Does anyone know of a formula, website, physics professor, ect. that can give a rough idea of corrected times? In Salt Lake, the track is 4225 ft., giving me a slow time (16.15 @ 86.78). I'd be interested in seeing how that stacks up with all the times at 1000 ft. or less.

 

Yeap! Got just the site for ya. http://www.prestage.com/carmath/

Go down to the bottom of the page and click on the link "NHRA_Correction_Factors". That will give you a sheet of numbers to multiply your ET and mph in order to correct them to sea level.

It says you should be running a 15.31 @ 91.54 mph at sea level. And a rule of thumb is for every 500 feet high, you lose a tenth.

I know when I ran my car in Vegas (2100'), I ran a 16.13. When I ran my car in NC (47'), I ran a 15.73. So, that rule of thumb is pretty accurate on my part.

 

Thanks for the info - those corrected times sound about where I should be at compared with everyoone else.

 

I live in Utah too and having a SC here makes such a huge difference. With other cars hampered by the lack of air you can compensate and compete well. I'm selling my max, but I'll miss it. Sure wish i could get my hands on a turbo kit and compare it with a SC.

 

OK elivation adjustments are for *****'s
I get low 13's in high altitude and i dont adjust my time, because thats my time i know it and you cant change your time just because the air is thinner.... or at leats you shouldnt. why try to adjust your times unless you feel bad about your 17 sec in Washington state.
i ran a 13.6 in montanna. but i live in chicago. im not going ta adjust that time because i dont live at sea level.


later

 

First off, you should correct your time, not to just make your car seem faster. You correct it, in order to compare your times with other times at different altitudes.

 

Elevation corrections aren't an illusion. It is a proven fact that the same vehicle will run quicker at lower elevation. The air is thicker. While the effect is not as pronounced in forced induction vehicles, for naturally aspriated it can make a large difference. Why do you think air intakes and filters are such a popular and effective upgrade? More air.

 

I UNDERSTAND TEH CONCEPT OF ADJUSTING YOUR TIMES FOR ALTITUDE....
but why would you do that its not your time IF and ONLY IF you ran at that altitude would you run that time... IM just adding that the time you got is good enough for where you are... why adjust your time at all. if you didnt run it? why not tow your car or drive your car to a lower altitude and run it.... then you will have a time froma lower altitude. but then when you get back home your like "yup i ran a 14.2" but in actuality your runnin 15.0 at home so this guy that you pull up to in your PHAT MAXIMA (hes in his prelude) wants ta race ya he knows ya said ya pulled a 14.2 but really your runnin a 15.0.... why screw around with you times... a time is a time and its the time that you got at that perticular track...
oh and BTW, street cars dont run consistant times all the time. ive run low 13's one day (with the same bolt ons no changes to anything) and the very next day runnin high 13's with about the same react. times and 60' but the car just didnt want to run right that day...

 

I pretty much agree with you, but I'd like to add a few things. When you've got guys bragging that they are running stellar times in their Maximas, almost always you'll find them running in cold crisp air in a eastern coastal city (ie sea level). This actually goes for all the fastest imports/domestics. The fastest cars seem to be in the Eastern coastal cities. Why? The tracks stay open in the winter, the air can get cold, the humidity is relatively low (usually), the area is at sea level, and some of the baropressures are insane. I'm talking about 31.5-32+ baropressures which is almost like having 2psi of boost or running at 3000-4000 BELOW SEA LEVEL. I know this sounds like a lot of cheap a$$ excuses, but this is the truth. It irratates me when guys brag about their Maxima's incredible and rare performance and then go off saying it's their "incredible driving skills". It may be true for some, but for the most part, it has a lot to do with conditions. I'm not saying we shouldn't congradulate these guys, but some people give these guys WAY too much credit for something they have very little control over.

When I had my 94 Z28 auto (I/E/y-pipe/chip/light wheels) I was running consistent 13.8s@101mph with 2.1 60 foots at my track in KC in 50 degree weather. I went down to Houston for an F-Body event and was running consistent 13.4s@104mph with 1.9 60 foots. The difference? Sea level, crisp air (fall weather), good baro pressure, and a track that was like glue.

Timeslips are just like dynos. You can't compare what a Max in Ohio runs on the track/dyno to what another Max runs in Maryland. If you want a true comparison, both cars need to be run on the same track. And yes, some tracks are significantly quicker than others.

There is a reason why the NHRA does have correction factors. It's so guys that run on tracks throughout the country can adjust their ETs to a set formula to compare their results as a whole. There are also correction factors for humidity and temp.


Dave

 

I agree with the fact that you can't claim a lower time in a higher elevation, based on a correction. (Using the example of lining up against a Prelude at a light). The reason I started the thread however, was to try and find a way to compare my car with the many others on the website, as this is such a large gathering of maximas. For me to honestly compare where my car is at, I needed a correction formula. Now I know how my SLC max rates with those in CA or NY. I guess we all agree on the same facts.

Which brings me to another point - I do think elevations need to be posted in the 1/4 mile times section

 

NIce Ryan... you going out there again soon?

 

AGREED!

there should be post's of where everyone ran these "STELLER TIMES"
good point my bad. you should come out to chicago soem time and race at our new track....