E39 M5 runs 11.9@121 in the 1/4 - Page 12 - The Unofficial BMW M5 Messageboard (m5board.com)

Enzom · 20th December 2007, 04:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by THRILOS5

even with the 11.9 I know Ray is sleeping well and also I was happy with the way the car was running, I even told Ray if he wanted to leave and he insisted of running one more time, well that time yielded the higher trap speed for the S3
Enzom you were spot on about compromises in drag racing, dont ask me how I know just ask my 300zx

and also how hard is to squeze every single tenth out of a street car with a manual tranny, the lower you get in E/Ts the harder it is to gain any more time-speed out of the car

Did you forget that I had two 300ZX TT's.

I know, my friend. I know.

Multiowner - thanks. Even at Atco, it is hard to find a second.

THRILOS5 · 20th December 2007, 04:51

and we not getting any younger to keep up with the manual shifting

jfmccl · 20th December 2007, 05:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enzom

As in "Lighten up, Francis" from Stripes? Great movie, btw.

Exactly.

jfmccl · 20th December 2007, 05:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelster

Excuse me? Enzom has written a polite factual response to lscman's earlier assertions and addressed them in a thoughtful measured tone. Why are you now making this gratuitous one-word remark and what useful purpose does it possibly serve

1. Because I can 2. Because I'm a perpetual smart *** 3. Because a little levity injected into a otherwise serious debate is always called for 4. For my own amusement

Kelster · 20th December 2007, 07:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lscman

Kester,

I was offering some possible reasons why ATCO is a fast and favorable track, visited from afar. If you read my post, you will see that I pointed to elevation change as a "likely reason". Track surface, prep and other things surely come into play.

Not so fast my friend. My gripe with you is that you came out and specifically said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lscman

6) The ATCO track stage area is clearly at higher elevation near Jackson Rd, across from a housing plan. The ATCO trap section (finish line) slopes downward, ending in a low-lying swampish runoff water collection area...

Had you not made such a dogmatic pronouncement you wouldn't be getting all the flak that's been headed your way. The forgoing statement from one of your previous posts just isn't true and is based on incomplete knowledge/analysis and playing fast and loose with 'facts' to come up with a spurious conclusion to support your thesis.

I rest my case.

Lscman · 20th December 2007, 16:17

Kelster,

I reviewed the US Geological Study maps and several other's before making that observation. Topo maps do vary somewhat, but they all show significant fall along the track's length & this evidence goes well beyond the dogmatic. The property is not flat, period. The track begins on higher, dry ground and finishes well into a lowlying drainage area where trees don't even grow for miles up and down this dell. I can not ignore this fact.

It does not appear that the staging area was dug out to provide fill for the finish trap or runoff area & I've heard nobody claim or suggest that. As I mentioned before, I honestly don't know if the finish area was built up, so I assume not. This would be a substantial & costly undertaking that few drag strip owners see fit to finance. In my experience, drag track owners simply find ground that's level as possible and minimize earth moving efforts. When the land is not quite level, they place the trap on the downhill end to satisfy customers. Slow tracks get slow business. Owners are not morons and I didn't fall off the turnip truck last week. The track may be perfectly level and/or topo maps may be wrong. I doubt these possibilities based upon available information. Perhaps this is dogmatic in your eyes. I do see some discrepancy in various topo maps, but they all show the property slopes toward the watershed basin/dell at the finish (duh).

I understand that my steadfast approach to posting creates some frustration & pushback. That is good with me. I often take positions that are difficult to defend and play devil's advocate. This is how I sort out the truth and solicit thought. Folks occasionally dig and find fault with my posts. That's good too, so long as it's not as it's personal denigration. I'm really looking for alternative technical information that serves to help us find the right answer, not so much subjective personal characterization. This is where you and other's missed the target a bit. Some folks with good info sit silent until they hear something that's over the top or easily disputable. Somebody shows me a pic of the track showing the starting line dug out or finish line built up on some fill and I'll applaud.

CSBM5 · 20th December 2007, 16:23

The track starting line is very close to Jackson Rd, so if you look at the topo map, you'll see that over the length to the traps, there is no change in topo min increment (25 feet). Here is the link, and the finish line is right about where the word Atco is shown on this map.

What source are you looking at? (i.e. link).

Lscman · 20th December 2007, 16:53

I looked at a USGS map thru the library, delorme & several on-line. I will try to post some links later today. As I mentioned, topo sources show some disagreement, but this is all we have to go with at this juncture. The fall appears to be somewhere between 20 and 60 feet across the whole length of the track. How much occurs in the first 1/4 mile is difficult to estimate.

The topo link you posted is very shows a stream starting at 7 o'clock that collects water about 1/2 mile away (at a location that's actually LOWER than the starting line elevation) and then flows across the track finish, likely through a pipe. Do you see that? Water does not flow up hill. The grassy pictorals that begin at around 75% of the track are insightful.

Perhaps try google topo and satellite imaging. I think that showed some things.

CSBM5 · 20th December 2007, 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lscman

I looked at a USGS map thru the library & several on-line. I will try to post some links later today. As I mentioned, topo sources show some disagreement, but this is all we have to go with at this juncture. The fall appears to be somewhere between 20 and 60 feet.

The topo link you posted is very shows a stream starting at 7 o'clock that collects water about 1/2 mile away (at a location that's actually LOWER than the starting line elevation) and then flows across the track finish, likely through a pipe. Do you see that? Water does not flow up hill. The grass pictorals that begin at 50% of the track are insightful.

Yep, I see that, but that stream is about 1/4 mile AFTER the traps. Bring up Google Earth and look at where the starting line and trap is located in reference to the almost 0.8 mile track. I don't think there is any significant fall from the start to the traps. The track is flat to that point, the traps (finish line).

multiowner · 20th December 2007, 18:06

Mind you, I am not a Civil Engineer but most sites require both the removal and fill of spots to acheive a proper site. When driving on the return road after the traps, you can plainly see a different grade. This difference is not reflected in the finished dragstrip. People will always have something to say about everything. lSCman would like to believe the track is sloped to continue the debate and have someone to research this 100 different ways. I would like to believe that the design phase of a dragstrip would include picking the best location for the strip, drainage issue, parking sites, traffic control, ect.... I would like to end on this, Track prep is a costly item that most owners would rather not spend their money. The chemical is rather expensive. Atco has always prepared the track to be race ready. Other owners choose to skimp on prepwork unless its a money day.