2rismo

Just to clarify, no-one is suggesting that there is a fixed loss for cruise mode - i.e. producing 35kW and losing 60kW would make for great fuel economy! The example that started this thread clearly means maximum horsepower at its peak on a chassis dyno as discussed on this and every other car forum every day of the year.

It makes sense insofar as you've proved my point for me. Throttle position plays absolutely no part in this discussion so referring to WOT is meaningless. Partial throttle position or throttle position, cruise, full load etc has no bearing on the subject at hand. The questions then, are: Q/ Does a car making 100hp at the crankshaft which produces 50hp at the wheels convert half of the original horsepower into other forms of energy? A/ Yes. Q/ Does increasing the crankshaft horsepower mean that there is extra load on the drive-line components? A/ Yes. However marginal, it must. Q/ Does this extra load increase the amount of kinetic energy converted into heat and noise and lost through the drive-train components? A/ Possibly. Short of drive-line failure, it must be a ridiculously small amount - probably not measurable. Remember that we're working in theory as we don't have a test vehicle for this discussion so we have to assume an unbreakable drive-train for the purposes of the discussion. Q/ Does this same car, now producing 1000hp but having the same drive-line convert the same, more or less horsepower into other forms of energy? A/ The same. Q/ What happens to the extra power (10x more in this example) produced by the engine and where does it go? A/ All of it with the exception of the original 50hp lost as sound or heat plus a ridiculously small amount of extra heat and sound from extra bearing load etc is transferred to the driven wheels. Absolutely, positively nothing like the doubling and tripling mentioned earlier.

Just remember who said you shouldn't argue with me....it wasn't me and I don't think an argument is necessary. Just so we're clear. I very much appreciate your very last statement. It's very different to that scenario, in fact. Running a stock RB25 turbo at 15psi is dramatically different to running the small amount of Nitrous as described in the first post. This is from experience and measurable EGT's etc not from guessing. For a number of reasons it can actually decrease the likelihood of exhaust wheel de-lamination. What I've said above is based on experience on more than just my car but certainly mostly on my car. However, these suggestions are very different to a sensible rule like the suggestion that you probably shouldn't run 15psi+ on a stock ceramic wheeled turbo for long periods (which I absolutely agree with). They are based on results and facts as well as undeniable measurements taken over a few years by myself and on the vast experience of those with many years more nitrous experience than myself. The same can be said of any modification so I hardly think that's a fair statement. Even if you did re-tune a car for nitrous, you wouldn't tune it with 10:1 AFR's - you'd stick it where it made the most power and safely. Just like too much ignition timing, boost, compression etc, low octane fuel makes for problems. One more thing on the ignition issue - if you'd genuinely like to understand why adjusting the timing for such low levels of nitrous oxide isn't necessary, please PM me and I'll explain it. Same as anything, when you understand a couple of key points it becomes really simple. It would surprise some to know that you can actually start putting extra timing in when using a moderate amount of gas!

Paul will set us both straight but I think he was making about 430kw @ all four when they maxxed out (or at least got to the point where Jim wasn't happy with them). I raced on Saturday and won the class. Didn't you see the photo I posted on the previous page?

You DON'T need an aftermarket ECU to support that level of Nitrous Oxide use in your car. You DON'T need a tune to support that level of Nitrous Oxide use in your car. You DON'T need a steel wheel on your turbo to support that level of Nitrous Oxide use in your car. You DON'T need larger injectors if you buy a 'wet' kit to support that level of Nitrous Oxide use in your car. You DON'T need to adjust your timing to support that level of Nitrous Oxide use in your car. You DON'T need a fancy progressive controller in your car to support that level of Nitrous Oxide use in your car. ==================================================================== You DO need '7' heat range spark plugs to support that level of Nitrous Oxide use in your car. (BCPR7ES @ 0.8mm) You DO need a reliable fuel pump to support that level of Nitrous Oxide use in your car. You DO need someone with half a brain to fit it and work out a tune (with the jets) to support that level of Nitrous Oxide use in your car. You DO need to bear in mind that you shouldn't be activating it under about 3000rpm to support that level of Nitrous Oxide use in your car. Adrian

BCPR plugs work fine in everything RB. What's the problem?

I think Paul was just taking the piss even if it seemed a bit full on, John. Can't wait to see the 'slot car' back at WSID sooner rather than later. Surely you can't STILL be the quickest and fastest Zed boat around? If so, give em another half a second to think about!! As for your last question, Paul didn't race as the car is still on the dyno waiting for fitment of some new injectors (I told him 770's wouldn't do the job) and as for his mate...well....

Still for sale.

An increased loss of energy yes, but through the drive train...no. Certainly not to the extent you suggest which is more than double the accepted (between us) value of about 60kW. If a drive train is worked harder it could get ever so slightly hotter or ever so slightly noisier but nearly three times as hot or three times as loud? I fail to see which component you're suggesting will be physically able to dissipate this extra energy.

For a 5-spd R33 GTST I tend to agree.

As you increase power dramatically, you tend to have to use better drive line parts, better bearings, lower drag gear sets etc so the point that there is an increasing loss associated with higher power is moot. I would say that the supporting mods req'd for a 1000hp car as used in my example would mean a decreasing loss through the drive train. Either way, it is misleading to suggest that a percentage loss is accurate in any way which is why I strongly object to it when it is given as “advice” to someone who hasn’t thought about it enough.

This has been done to death on this and other forums a million times. A search would most likely unearth my previous thoughts at greater length but put simply, any given combination of drive train components (from the flywheel/flex plate all the way back to the tyres on the road) will convert some of the kinetic energy from the crankshaft into other forms of energy (heat, sound etc) as it makes it's way to the driven wheels. Here's the key bit so pay attention... If my flywheel, clutch, gearbox, tailshaft uni's, diff, axles and tyres use 60 of my 200 engine horsepower then i will see approximately 140hp at the driven wheels. This is a 30% loss. If I up the crankshaft output to 1000hp but change nothing else I will see approx 940hp at the driven wheels. This is a 6% loss. To say that my unchanged drive train somehow magically absorbs 5 times the energy it did at 200 engine horsepower is ludicrous and surely must make plain sense to anyone who bothers to think about it. Therefore, to talk in terms of percentages is entirely flawed in every conceivable way when comparing cars.

All these percentages are nonsense. Did I imagine my previous post? Go and read it.

He was checked out for some neck and back pain but is okay from what the Ausrotary boys are saying.

Forget 100kW+ drivetrain losses guys and girls. Also forget % based losses as it's a fallacy. 146mph is incredible though - awesome work!

Simply the dumbest statement in this thread. A given drive train will convert (not absorb, not remove, not hide) the same amount of hp/kW regardless of the engine power. Some of this energy is converted into noise but most of it is turned into heat energy and dissipated through the drive train components including everything from the flywheel to the tyres. To say that a drive train will somehow magically absorb triple what it does from the factory just because the engine horsepower increases by that amount is laughable. Imagine 50kW of heat coming off of your drive train in total and then imagine what 150kW of energy would do to those components. Ever stood next to a 2kW heater?

How'd the car go on the weekend Campbell?

Check it out...

Guilty

288kW-ish

Lee ran a 9.88 @ 134 with a 1.43 60 footer on radials!! Awesome stuff from a nugget with a broken gearbox (supposedly). Grydge runs saw 1st and 2nd gear come back and the car took off like a bullet. Awesome stuff! I loved caning the GTi's and Pulsars but they were all top blokes and great sports. Well done to the bowling club special on the 9, the win and the championship!! This was the most relaxed days drag racing i think i've ever had.

It was only right towards the end of last season that the consistency came. Before that I almost always backed off to 12.0 for consistency.

I will buy you a replacement NA motor for you for the turbo one.

Does the part number tell you anything? I don't know what it suits but I imagine it's for a 34 GTR.

Tell me when the media fleet is getting some new stuff in that we can take for a week or so. I wanna plan a road trip.