Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What are these DynoLog chasis dyno like compared to Dyno Dynamics?

Im not suggesting anything, just questioning? ;)

From the results i have seen on these dynos as opposed to dyno dynamics dynos:

1. They read lower then dyno dynamics dynos generally

2. You can't cheat the figures as easily as weather conditions are detected or dowloaded or something (can't remember exactly)

Just watched the video link(thanks R32_GODZILLA !);all I can say is "FAAAAARK!" Congratulations,Dave! Well,I'm off to the toilet;pass the Kleenex,someone? :whackit: !!

From the results i have seen on these dynos as opposed to dyno dynamics dynos:

1. They read lower then dyno dynamics dynos generally

2. You can't cheat the figures as easily as weather conditions are detected or dowloaded or something (can't remember exactly)

It all depends on how a DD dyno is configured as you have to put in your own weather conditions, hence shootout mode is used as a base sometimes. I can't tell you what the dyno at Ice would give as the car almost came off the rollers a couple times before we gave up trying and accepted a figure of 600+

The dyno at MAS takes weather readings 500 times per second during a run and makes the appropriate changes in the configuration to give an accurate reading.

It all depends on how a DD dyno is configured as you have to put in your own weather conditions, hence shootout mode is used as a base sometimes.  I can't tell you what the dyno at Ice would give as the car almost came off the rollers a couple times before we gave up trying and accepted a figure of 600+

The dyno at MAS takes weather readings 500 times per second during a run and makes the appropriate changes in the configuration to give an accurate reading.

What he said^^^^

Have ICE thought about getting different rollers or is it purely because of the power your car is putting down and the torque? Having said that i have seen some cars only making 230rwkw almost climbing out of the rollers due to some crazy lsd's they have been running (they weren't strapped down though).

You know you've got a really tough car when you can't get an accurate dyno reading from it :(

I would guess so. An Rb30/26 S15 in autosalon mag a while back with t51r spl was making a claimed 1600Nm of torque or more. My 33 made over 700nm of torque with a little under 400rwhp so i would believe that it's making this much torque.

What he said^^^^

Have ICE thought about getting different rollers or is it purely because of the power your car is putting down and the torque? Having said that i have seen some cars only making 230rwkw almost climbing out of the rollers due to some crazy lsd's they have been running (they weren't strapped down though).

You know you've got a really tough car when you can't get an accurate dyno reading from it  :)

The problem we have is that when the nos is injected, the power comes in so hard that the straps (3 of them) have trouble keeping the car down. The straps are tied to a bar attached to the dyno and it bends.

Is 1,550 Nm a true Nm figure? Is it comparable to the figures you read in the magazines.

AFAIK, this figure is accurate to the wheels. Magazines tend to quote torque at the fly as all tests are performed on an engine dyno.

There is another measurement of tractive effort but I have NFI what it translates to. All I know is that I'm making more than 13000Nm of tractive effort.

  • 2 months later...
:bonk: i have the record now lol

see you all at jamboree

heard about that.... congrats.

i have heard people saying that the car wasn't or couldn't be driven home though? what happened to it?

not taking the piss, i am curious as i don't know how long a motor could last with that kind of power?

Jamie

jas/slo32,

What was the total amount of power your car has made and was that in 4wd mode or Rwd mode.

Congrats btw and are you expecting more out of it or are you happy with what it is currently making.

i read on another forum it made 1070rwhp, correct me if i got it wrong.

i think its an auto gtst with rb30/26 in it if i am thinking of the right car.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...