[Speedy1975]

Originally Posted by 17CamaroZL1

Well, the thing about the deep stage, you lose the running start you get on a more shallow stage, so not only would my 60 have dropped, but I would've trapped an even higher mph too. Probably would've went 128. I went .091 faster between 330 and 1/4 on that last run as is. A 1.76 60' for sure would've at least made my 330' time equal to that first run, probably faster, and I would've been traveling faster than my first run, all the way down the track, so I would've gained more than the .091 that I did. That's why a .1 gained at the start equals .15 to .2 by the finish. So even if we don't multiply and add to the gain, the 1.72 60 would've been .09 faster. Add that to the .091 that the car already ran from 330 on and you get .18, which would've dropped my 11.176 down to 10.995. If we do add the additional .05 to .1 difference you gain on the big end for a .1 faster 60, then you're looking at 10.945 to 10.895. So if I just hadn't deep staged it! DANG!! I'll definitely back up if that ever happens again. Lol!

Of course we don't know for sure that my 60' would've been a 1.72 if I hadn't deep staged. Even though it felt better, doesn't necessarily mean that it was. That's the only way I can find a bit of comfort in my screw up right now. Lol!

Yes! I would love to get a log of the car to see what it tells us.

I'm on board with the math, makes sense. I think you should try your case with Merc and get him to put you on the ZL1 list as 10.995

Originally Posted by grampa_ss

Bingo!
Deep staging hurts your ET, MPH and 60'.
Deep staging is good to lower your reaction time.
I like to just barely trip the 2nd staging light. Fastest ET that way. Leave on the 3rd yellow.

Agreed.