[Z OH 6]

Originally Posted by Jus Cruisin

I'll never understand "roll" racing.....

Less shock on the vehicle drivetrain launching from a dig. Less demand for sticky tires and a prepped track. In some ways its more functional than drag racing since a large part of that is traction limited.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by wnta1ss

Yes, if the correction factor used on the sheet was 1.27, then your TRUE hp was indeed 27% less than the sheet says.

I don't believe that's correct.

If you dyno at 800 actual hp and the dyno calcs the CF at 1.27, you're corrected power is shown on the dyno sheet as 1016.

1016 times .73 or 73% = 742 actual hp

[CW3SF]

Originally Posted by Camaroking98

yeah I'm aware of the power loss. Also, let's say the correction factor is 27%...would I be right to assume that my true power would be 740whp x .73 = my true whp?

There’s a couple of things that come in to play. First is the correction factor for the elevation. That’s the SAE number. You would be very close to that SAE number if these cars were N/A or turbo. But you’ll actually make more than the SAE on the supercharged car because at sea level you will make 2-3 lbs more of boost. That isnt accounted for in the SAE conversion. And lastly the DA. Sea level gets some fantastic DA and Colorado’s always sucks LOL.

[Camaroking98]

Originally Posted by CW3SF

There’s a couple of things that come in to play. First is the correction factor for the elevation. That’s the SAE number. You would be very close to that SAE number if these cars were N/A or turbo. But you’ll actually make more than the SAE on the supercharged car because at sea level you will make 2-3 lbs more of boost. That isnt accounted for in the SAE conversion. And lastly the DA. Sea level gets some fantastic DA and Colorado’s always sucks LOL.

right, so my numbers were SAE. 740whp SAE dynod at shogun speed. So I'm trying to figure out what I actually feel. Also I'm about to get upgraded to the maggie 2650 with the unlocked tcm and port injection from too high psi...some people are like "bro you're gonna need welds" and I just have a hard time believing that because sure...at 950whp at sea level I'll need a smaller wheel and drag radial, but here where we lose so much power I feel like I'd get away with keeping my 20 R888s

[CW3SF]

Originally Posted by Camaroking98

right, so my numbers were SAE. 740whp SAE dynod at shogun speed. So I'm trying to figure out what I actually feel. Also I'm about to get upgraded to the maggie 2650 with the unlocked tcm and port injection from too high psi...some people are like "bro you're gonna need welds" and I just have a hard time believing that because sure...at 950whp at sea level I'll need a smaller wheel and drag radial, but here where we lose so much power I feel like I'd get away with keeping my 20 R888s

You’re actually feeling about 600whp right now (uncorrected whp). Your dyno shop can give you that number. My car was a completely different animal taking it to sea level. Seriously on another level.

[Camaroking98]

Originally Posted by CW3SF

You’re actually feeling about 600whp right now (uncorrected whp). Your dyno shop can give you that number. My car was a completely different animal taking it to sea level. Seriously on another level.

thanks for the help! and yeah, having bought this car in indy and then driving it out 1000 miles, I certainly know the power difference. Pretty dang crazy!

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Camaroking98

right, so my numbers were SAE. 740whp SAE dynod at shogun speed. So I'm trying to figure out what I actually feel.

What was the CF on the sheet? Let's assume 22%. You just find the number (if it's not shown on the sheet) that equals 740 when multiplied times 1.22.

607 actual hp x 1.22 = 740 corrected hp

[Camaroking98]

Originally Posted by JSH

What was the CF on the sheet? Let's assume 22%. You just find the number (if it's not shown on the sheet) that equals 740 when multiplied times 1.22.

607 actual hp x 1.22 = 740 corrected hp

tbh all I know is that my SAE reading was 740 cuz that's what I asked to see.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Camaroking98

tbh all I know is that my SAE reading was 740 cuz that's what I asked to see.

That's OK. 607 is a good actual hp number.

[Camaroking98]

Originally Posted by JSH

That's OK. 607 is a good actual hp number.

I think so too! Also, even when I'm making 900+ SAE, I'm really only gonna be feeling like mid 700's to the wheel right? So my 325 R888s should be good enough grip on a summer day/night right? I shouldn't need to invest in a drag pack?

[wnta1ss]

Originally Posted by JSH

I don't believe that's correct.

If you dyno at 800 actual hp and the dyno calcs the CF at 1.27, you're corrected power is shown on the dyno sheet as 1016.

1016 times .73 or 73% = 742 actual hp

Of course what I said was correct. If the sheet shows a correction of 1.27, then quite obviously, the hp number is the corrected one, not the uncorrected. You seem to be assuming that he was given an uncorrected sheet, but that's not what he said.

Ok, so I found that Camaroking98 did have someone post that dyno sheet for him on the forum, 740.31 hp with env correction of 1.248 is what it said, that is SAE-corrected. Therefore, 593 actual hp is what it was making on that dyno in the Springs on that day.

[JSH]

You said:

Originally Posted by wnta1ss

Yes, if the correction factor used on the sheet was 1.27, then your TRUE hp was indeed 27% less than the sheet says.

His sheet shows 740 corrected hp.

27% less than 740 can be expressed in two ways:

(1) 740 x .27 = 200 - 740 = 540 actual hp, or,

(2) 740 x .73 = 540 actual hp

My point is, his true or actual hp is not 27% less than the corrected hp on the sheet.

Originally Posted by wnta1ss

Of course what I said was correct. If the sheet shows a correction of 1.27, then quite obviously, the hp number is the corrected one, not the uncorrected. You seem to be assuming that he was given an uncorrected sheet, but that's not what he said.

Ok, so I found that Camaroking98 did have someone post that dyno sheet for him on the forum, 740.31 hp with env correction of 1.248 is what it said, that is SAE-corrected. Therefore, 593 actual hp is what it was making on that dyno in the Springs on that day.

[USAFS197]

Originally Posted by Z OH 6

Less shock on the vehicle drivetrain launching from a dig. Less demand for sticky tires and a prepped track. In some ways its more functional than drag racing since a large part of that is traction limited.

I'm glad you said this. Of course we can all claim moral superiority when it comes to street racing or roll racing on open roads but, not everyone has reasonable access to a track and for many folks, traction is a limiting factor. I, for one, will never put a drag radial or slick on any vehicle I own as I still like to turn the car effectively. To that end, my alignment will also be suited for that. Roll racing allows folks like me to still partake and have fun by limiting the traction aspect to a degree.

Now, there's some drag strips that host roll racing events and I think that's fantastic. But, a 60-130 to me, will tell you far more about the car's performance in general, than a 1/4 mile will. It will largely take track prep and traction out of the equation and you're able to see a clearer shot of how the car can power through that range.

I'm running mid 4's 60-130 (I don't have a Camaro, sorry) with plenty of room to grow and for the most part, I don't care what many cars can run in the 1/4 mile. The only other metric i care about past that, is their 100-150 time.

[ZL1Atlanta]

Originally Posted by Z OH 6

Less shock on the vehicle drivetrain launching from a dig. Less demand for sticky tires and a prepped track. In some ways its more functional than drag racing since a large part of that is traction limited.

A fast car will have to be tuned to run a good 60-130 on the street - even with drag radials, and especially with PD blowers like this car comes with. But that same tune would not be optimal if you took it drag racing. So to say it's more functional is not really true because you are changing the vehicle's setup to be better at one or the other. Perhaps it would be true with a mid-9 second or slower car with a good tire, or a little quicker with AWD.