When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Drag racing is boring. Wait 2 hours for an 11 second run. Wait another 2 hours for a second 11 second run. Boring. Road racing is brutal. Accelerate out of every turn as soon as possible. 30 minutes of non-stop drive it like you stole it.
I've done both. I've done quick quarter miles on bikes with the front wheel never touching the ground until I rolled off the throttle, or the bike never off the wheelie bars until I chopped the throttle, and I've done laps at Willow Springs, Sears Point, and Second Creek Raceway. Drag racing is boring. Sorry, but it's just my impression having both drag raced and road raced.
Maybe it does get boring to some after a while. But it obviously wasn't boring when you were doing it, or else why even bother?
I've also been into sport bikes. I do a lot of road racing. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate a good drag race. Road racing is brutal. But you can die just as easily in a drag race when you lose control and smack the wall at 150 mph.
I'm curious, have you even hit your speed limiter in your F? Since you claimed to be running bikes I'm guessing you have. I'm guessing most of these "road course" only guys posting in this thread haven't though. In which case they wouldn't have to ***** to hang with me on the road. But I'm only someone who can appreciate a good drag race. That means I am teh suck on the road...
Last edited by DaveGS4; 12-04-16 at 04:32 PM.
Reason: removed another personal comment.
I went drag racing mostly to tune main jets in carburetors. It's really good for that. The shop I built engines for in the early 90's built a drag bike that ran 9's at 148 mph. It was entertaining to ride, but just not my cup of tea. I have no fear of top speed in anything I have driven.
I went drag racing mostly to tune main jets in carburetors. It's really good for that.
So you are saying that drag racing is useful as a tool? Like I said in the very first post I made in this thread. Which is also the only reason I drag race anymore, because it's a tool for me. As I said in the first place.
The OP also used it as a tool. But there seems to be some question as to the data he used for his density altitude calculations. I don't know about that. I wasn't there and I haven't tried to look up the data for the dates and times of his runs. But if his data wasn't correct, then this whole thread is pretty pointless. In that case, I would recommend more runs with and without the intake using verifiable track conditions.
I don't see any benefit to posting in this thread anymore. It's completely off of topic now anyway.
You know what they say assumption is the mother of all bleep bleep bleep.
For me taking the car to a proper race track tells you more about the car than it ever will going down the strip.
It also improves you as a driver the more and more you do it the better you get in all aspects of performance not just putting your foot down and slotting gears.
Thats my thing with the strip it's straight lining its all it is.Granted setup reaction time and such count but I just feel you get a better reward as a driver at a track with corners.
To many here keep coming back to taking it to a "proper race track" vs. drag racing. And I will try to make this point once again. How many times a day while in the real world are you faced with a possible drag race vs. racing someone at high speeds through twisty roads ? I am going with that is overwhelmingly going to favor the drag race. No one here ( ME INCLUDED ) ever said that road racing is not more fun or show the ability of the driver and car more than drag racing, it's a matter of what occurs more often. I have every intention of taking my F to Sebring this coming year. I have road raced many times in many different types of cars ( just look at my YouTube page for proof ) and look forward to putting my car through its paces. Even as basic as some here think drag racing is it is quite apparent ( by even dedicated shop cars ) that drag racing isn't as easy as one thinks if you are looking to squeeze out the best et from your car and run consistent et's as well. Heck someone posted a time slip in this thread of their F going low 11's yet has a 60ft time of a car running mid to upper 13's ! lol
Of all the people on this thread who have questioned anything you have supposed, I am one who wants to believe in what you put forth. I have an nice, freshly cleaned, well-maintained K&N Typhoon intake and new airflow sensor sitting in my garage floor just waiting to be used if it made an overwhelming improvement. Based on the abundance of anecdotal evidence provided on the forum and my brief experience with Honda intakes, it made perfect sense to me that it was possible for an intake to make no more power or actually lose hp or torque when installed. Lexus designed a two stage intake for a reason. I don't know that reason and can only assume why. I assumed it was because it improved low-end torque. Trusting that Lexus conducted their testing thoroughly, I felt this was a reasonable assumption. I mean if it isn't true, then who cares about throttle body size, intake runner length, velocity stacks, or manifold design... just get the air/fuel right and you are set right? Nope, not even close.
On my particular car, the K&N appeared to lead to higher trap speeds, but slower ETs. This supported my assumption above. I too did some formal and informal testing quickly leading to some experimenter bias where my testing confirmed my hunches.... and then it didn't. The number of variables that I came up with that could have changed from run to run included things such as: density altitude, actual fuel octane, tire temp, tire tread depth, track prep, track temperature, KCLV values, transmission control unit values for TC lockup and shift speed, wind speed and direction, intake air temperatures, 0.1 - 0.3 second variances in times during back to back runs with the same everything, etc. That is just the data that I could have collected in a best case scenario. I haven't even gotten to the actual analysis of the data. Do I compare the best run to the best run, the mean (average) of 15 runs, the median (middle) of 15 runs, or should I use 5 runs or 25 runs? The possibilities are many.
Yes, it appears that you have compiled an enormous amount of data to the best of your ability but you have also omitted a lot of data. The sheer amount of data collected isn't what makes an experiment or test accurate, it is the accurate collection and inclusion of ALL RELEVANT data and the proper analysis of that data. The more I looked into the matter and began to research, I realized that there were a multitude of conditions and sensor values that affect the cars performance to the degree that I could not account for accurately. Of the data you collected, your method of collection is less than confidence inspiring and good enough for a "cool, maybe it works" conclusion, nothing more. Out of temperature, barometric pressure, and humidity, humidity has the least effect on density altitude. Droplets in the air from the lake are no more likely to have an effect on you DA than water droplets in the air from the onshore winds from the Gulf. There would likely be little difference in dew-point measurements at either location. Also, DA readings in your case appear to be taken from at least 2 different places and possibly 3. Gauges in some dudes trailer, the handheld weather All-In-One device, and possible readings taken by the track itself (not sure if this is what was meant) are mentioned. Taking measurements from more than one source isn't a big help considering the possible variations between devices and calibration errors (compounded if occurring together) that could occur. Now factor in all of the other variables collected in a similarly haphazard way and you can easily arrive at a 0.2s-0.3s difference in ET.
Given that, to say that your "research" settles everything is a stretch. As the unicorn, you believe that your experience and outcome supersedes all other research on the topic and the experiences of a host of others to the contrary and solves the topic conclusively in favor of the K&N. That is bold and probably not likely. If you were Yukihiko Yaguchi, you might be able to make a statement that bold, but you are not. You are barely aware of the complexity of the ISF drivetrain and related sensors. I hope that you do understand that I, and most others, did not have the intent of proving you wrong. We are simply trying to get you to understand that the answer to this question is bigger than a couple of trips to the track and some incomplete data collection and analysis. The real answer to this question, unfortunately, cannot be arrived at conclusively without a much much greater effort. In the absence of that effort, we rely on the collective experiences of the CL ISF community. This is really what I think most people just wanted you to understand.
Dude, I thought I was long winded. Pretty simple math here, I went .26 quicker and 2.5 mph faster in the quarter mile with as few variables as possible from my stock runs. Weather could have had up .09 at the best to do with that. That being said my car still trapped faster and went quicker by .17 if you took the best case scenario with the weather in to the mix. Everything is just conjecture after that. I went faster when almost everyone said I would slow down. This tells me proper tests were never done before or quite a few testers on here need to brush up on that simple drag racing.
If it's so easy, then let's see you go pull a 1.9xx 60' time at the strip.
The funny part is... almost all street races are basically a drag race. Maybe that's why nobody can ever beat me without a significantly faster car? Because they spend all of their time at the "real" track?
You should really know what you are talking about before you make blanket statements.
Preach ! Did you see the time slip posted with the 11.3 and the 2.2 60 ft time in this thread ? Must not be so easy to get those 1'9's after all I guess. And to think every tenth you drop in the first 60 ft. is two tenths dropped on the big end so that 11.3 should be a mid 10 second run ! Heck my low 1.9's means I am leaving little on the table which I am happy with.
You and I are truly a few on here that don't think road racing is the end all be all for our cars, I get the F was built for road racing and mine will see some, but as a good bi-product it's also fast in a straight line if you know how to do it.
Both tracks require tons of driver and vehicle skills. One isn't anymore challenging than the other by any means. Could ha e a never ending argument about which track takes more skill...lol.
But if I had to put my input on it, the drag strip simulates street driving moreso than a road course. 0 to 110-120 is much more realistic street wise than taking curves at near triple digit speeds and hitting 130-140-150+ mph.
The IS F is very versatile and can do both tracks very well from what I can tell.
Drag racing is boring. Wait 2 hours for an 11 second run. Wait another 2 hours for a second 11 second run. Boring. Road racing is brutal. Accelerate out of every turn as soon as possible. 30 minutes of non-stop drive it like you stole it.
I've done both. I've done quick quarter miles on bikes with the front wheel never touching the ground until I rolled off the throttle, or the bike never off the wheelie bars until I chopped the throttle, and I've done laps at Willow Springs, Sears Point, and Second Creek Raceway. Drag racing is boring. Sorry, but it's just my impression having both drag raced and road raced.
I have sat at the Texas Motorsports Ranch waiting to run a Ferrari, Indy Lite, and Formula Miata for hours before. Granted the track time after I waited was 30 minutes or so but there was ample wait time. Who waits two hours to run at the drag strip ? Get there early, make a few runs in the first hour, cool down the car, repeat. It's far from boring if you are out there really looking to squeeze out every tenth.
So you are saying that drag racing is useful as a tool? Like I said in the very first post I made in this thread. Which is also the only reason I drag race anymore, because it's a tool for me. As I said in the first place.
The OP also used it as a tool. But there seems to be some question as to the data he used for his density altitude calculations. I don't know about that. I wasn't there and I haven't tried to look up the data for the dates and times of his runs. But if his data wasn't correct, then this whole thread is pretty pointless. In that case, I would recommend more runs with and without the intake using verifiable track conditions.
I don't see any benefit to posting in this thread anymore. It's completely off of topic now anyway.
I had to make a slight adjustment to my DA #'s but it made a .02-.06 difference. I wrote the wrong weather on one of the slips when I got home. And I can't make runs with and without the intake in short cycles. That is the basis of this very thread, that the F will cancel out any benefit somehow from the intake but only after 500-1000 miles of driving with it on. Of which I debunked, like it or not to some.
Dude, I thought I was long winded. Pretty simple math here, I went .26 quicker and 2.5 mph faster in the quarter mile with as few variables as possible from my stock runs. Weather could have had up .09 at the best to do with that. That being said my car still trapped faster and went quicker by .17 if you took the best case scenario with the weather in to the mix. Everything is just conjecture after that. I went faster when almost everyone said I would slow down. This tells me proper tests were never done before or quite a few testers on here need to brush up on that simple drag racing.
Dude, just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. Your whole point of view is based on a DA/weather value that nobody but you can vouch for. As a result when another CL member looked up the DA values to verify your claims and did the math for you, you were suddenly in the Bermuda Triangle where everything is different than it is 10 miles away and nobody's gauges but yours work... All three of them. I am glad you chose the word conjecture because I don't think it means what you think it does. By definition, "noun: conjecture; 1. an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information." That is all you have put forth here, conjecture. Plain and simple, your car went faster with a better DA. Just like everyone else here. Congratulations.
This is the mod I came up with AFTER the dyno results from the cold air intake. When I was taking the parts from my trunk it hit me that this scoop should / could be added back on from the factory box to help direct more fresh air to the filter. This of course will not come into play until you start gaining speed. I am also going to close off the gap under the plate that holds the filter in place but allows engine air to be sucked into the filter which is the main knock on this mod..Additional mod to cold air intake I came up with after my dyno test results. Additional mod to cold air intake I came up with after my dyno test results. Additional mod to cold air intake I came up with after my dyno test results. Additional mod to cold air intake I came up with after my dyno test results. Additional mod to cold air intake I came up with after my dyno test results. Additional mod to cold air intake I came up with after my dyno test results. Additional mod to cold air intake I came up with after my dyno test results. Additional mod to cold air intake I came up with after my dyno test results. Additional mod to cold air intake I came up with after my dyno test results. Additional mod to cold air intake I came up with after my dyno test results.
12-04-16, 04:02 PM
Pretty simple math here, I went .26 quicker and 2.5 mph faster in the quarter mile with as few variables as possible from my stock runs. Weather could have had up .09 at the best to do with that. That being said my car still trapped faster and went quicker by .17 if you took the best case scenario with the weather in to the mix. Everything is just conjecture after that. I went faster when almost everyone said I would slow down. This tells me proper tests were never done before or quite a few testers on here need to brush up on that simple drag racing. 
x1000
