vulnax999

iTrader: (7)

Come on Julian, get it done at that bloke in Southport ... good yet affordable job, so Jason says!

But then, Jason bought a UK car so maybe not that good judgement !

new boy

rich has pm mate!!

ads

John WRX

looks like im in and on first ( i hope )

sent the email now

RICH WILD

When I book Well Lane 10 at the end of the day on the 21st, I'll see about booking a Scoobynet/200+ day too and I'll let you know.

Cheers

Rich

RICH WILD

Well Lane 9 is now officially WELL BOOKED!

I have a full 25 runners and about 10 reserves, so no more applications please.

I have had a bigger response this time than ever before and hopefully we can make this one the best RR day so far.

I may even give up my own place again to let one of the reserves in if needs be.

I will post the full list up as soon as I have confirmation of all the specs.

Cheers

Rich

Redevilwrx

YHM!!!

new boy

richard has email as requested

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Hi Rich: Just seen this. Not been on the net for ten days or so. Would have liked to have run my WRX if I had seen it in time. Provided I am here I will come down to support the event.
John Banks, and others are calling into question the Well Lane figures and I will post a relevant thread for you tomorrow. Remember these guys are "experts", a couple of them may have run at Well Lane once but other pundits have never run there but they know it all and are well qualified to engage mouth piece and typing finger.

*Sonic*

Never had a problem with my figures on the rollers

In fact the last time we went, it was a honda day, and everyone (honda wise) seem to be complaining that they were all down on power from the last RR day they did

Rich put his wifes honda on the rollers, and it achieved IIRC 92bhp, and that is the book figure

Me, I replaced my damaged up-pipe, got less det than the previous week, and was up 5bhp

My car MY00 UK, PPP, Full Decat, Ported Headers, STi Intercooler, and I got 265bhp, sounds about right to me

Abdabz

It will be my first time on the rollers if I move off the reserve list and into the running list <fingers crossed> ... I was at Well Lane for a Vauxhall meet the other week and the figures that day seemed spot on... Phase 2's GSI Astra @ 240bhp matched forecasts etc...
I'm eagerly waiting the call up Rich .
Cheers
P

pum

rich im sure ads has been in touch with you about this!!!!
just got back from the usa and have sent ya an email!!

steve

RICH WILD

Hi Harv,

Sorry, I should have thought to ask you, but I'm trying to get as many newbies on as I can to give people who've only ever been once (or less) a go.

I have even given up my own space (again) for someone else.

I know what you mean about people slagging Well Lane and to be honest it REALLY makes me see red. You and I are both veterans of the place and we know how consistent it is, but most of the people who call it have never even been.

For the record, Sonic is spot on. I have run many standard cars there and seen them pull as near as dammit standard figures. In fact on every Well lane day I have tried to run at least one standard car as a benchmark. These are standard cars that I have actually used on RR days in the past.

Audi TT 225 - 223bhp (book 225)
BMW M3 Evo - 321bhp (book 321)
Toyota Rav 4 - 144bhp (book 140)
Honda Civic LSi - 92bhp (book 89)
Impreza Turbo MY00 - 215bhp (book 215bhp)
Renault Clio 172 -171bhp (book 172)

I could go on.

mick02wrx

Is there a list of the confirmed 25 places and reserves, as i dont know which list im on.

Mick

jonny gav

iTrader: (1)

Hi Rich, i think i will be coming down as a spectator as i have always enjoyed these RR days of yours in the past

its funny but it seems that some of the people slagging off well lane have never run their cars at well lane and are doing so for one reason only

i have a lot of print outs from my car from standard to the spec it is now.

car is a my95 wrx as you know.

spec 1-standard ecu with 2.5"exhaust, px filter and dawes set at 0.9bar- 262bhp

spec 2-power fc mapped by rc developments,de-cat down pipe,2.5"exhaust, sti 6 intercooler, walbro pump, fse reg, 440cc injectors and bmc filter, 1.25 bar of boost- 306bhp

spec 3-power fc mapped by Andy F,TDO5/06, ion headers, 550cc injectors, walbro pump, fse reg, full 3" exhaust, front mount intercooler, blitz SUS filter 1.25bar- 372bhp

spec 4-as above with changes to intercooler pipework, induction pipework, heat management and mapping 1.35bar- 419bhp

all runs using optimax and 1mil per litre of NF.

i for one am happy that the results are close enough to the truth. as i have watched my car (also Harvey’s and ninybobs) grow from standard to missiles.

the difference on the road with each change in spec was very noticeable as you will have noticed with your own car(s).

anyway, we can have a talk about it on the day with Barry and Ian.

see you at well lane

AndrewC

I thought we were all past the my local RR is more accurate than your local RR crap. As far as I am concerned as long as the RR is operated in a consistent way then any of them are useful for checking the development of your car and for comparing cars on any given day.

I am sure all RR operators will give you a list of cars which have made book figures (I have had this conversation at least 3 times with the owner of a RR in the NW) which may be true, but I still believe that the actual figures given are only useful for comparison purposes not for validation against engine dyno figures.

I'll be there as an independent observer

john banks

There is a difference between standard cars making standard figures, and very torquey cars making their torque higher up the rev range because of a mismatch between the RPM read from the vehicle or calculated from the rollers. There is also importance in showing compensation values that should be applied to quote power to DIN specifications.

Perhaps chassis dynos are best at what they were designed for - holding an engine speed and finding the highest torque output for given engine parameters on that single occasion rather than meaningless shootouts.

Ninnybobs

Would love to come down and spectate, if that is OK

Cheers

Martin

jonny gav

iTrader: (1)

if this is the case john, why are you telling everyone that your car makes 440bhp when you know this to be untrue???

john banks

I don't know it to be true or untrue, it is merely an estimate - a number for the pub, like rolling road days are - a bit of fun. It is wide open to debate and criticism, it isn't measured in anything like what a decent scientist would consider a carefully controlled environment. This is a limitation of the technique, not a question of the honesty of rolling road operators! I think it would run between 380 and 500 BHP on most rolling roads, I honestly can't be more exact than that, even then there is at least a finite chance that it would not run in that range, especially if there are uncontrolled variables like all rolling road runs are frought with. Anyone with any understanding of statistics (I have some having studied statistics and published peer reviewed papers with a reasonable level of statistical content in various disciplines) and a set of rolling road results from modified cars of similar and differing specs will appreciate what I am saying, the scatter is phenomenal. You don't even need to be an engineer to see that.

Having measured with road dynos in lots of situations (I mention this because it is relatively cheap to collect hundreds of these on a laptop, giving some statistical power, no comment on accuracy, validity, reliability compared with rollers ), trying to control conditions as best I could, but still highly flawed, I think it runs approximately the same power that it ran in similar situations before just without the methanol with the P450 instead of the 20G. There isn't a lot more on the table for reasons I've explained ad nauseum.

I don't put all the caveats I enclose in the first paragraph in every post referring to the power a particular turbo I've used might produce. By nature, an internet posting is usually brief and unqualified, otherwise everyone gets very bored, as I am sure they will with this one.

So when I say in someone's thread about 2.5s the results I got on 20G and P450 and say I think that the P450 is good for about xxx BHP on y octane, and the reasons why it doesn't do more easily, then it is an opinion, based on testing. That can be weighed by others and they can question it, ask themselves whether it is plausible (a key question for any claim in any discipline, otherwise statistically you can prove anything if you do a data trawl and look for correlations, you will find some by chance that look statistically signifcant if you do enough trawling), ask for qualifications and conditions and I will try to help where I can. Harvey clearly disagrees with it, and thinks the turbo is good for 585 BHP. I don't find this plausible on Optimax only on a 2.0 or 2.5 for reasons I've given - eg the unbelievable volumetric efficiencies and flows involved when considering data from Garrett and other comparable cars. Neither does anyone else I've spoken to, but understandably they don't want to get embroiled in a boring argument.

Harvey has said that he doesn't want to benchmark turbos for me. Understood, but his previous helpfulness and apparent openness lead me to believe he was doing - merely sharing his experience like I share with others. However, the information shared is strictly on his terms and he doesn't like it debated. That is a shame, as without trying to be arrogant, usually both parties can learn something. For example, discussions with Andy F are always tremendously useful, not least because of his ability to explain why he believes what he does.

It isn't personal as far as I'm concerned, Harvey has tremendous results which are far and away beyond anything I'll ever achieve. But anyone that shares data and results should be open to them being questioned rather than saying they are unquestionable. Unless they are saying it just to be pleased with their results, which is fair enough, I've posted 406 BHP on standard 2.0 internals, but I didn't post the other five results which all clustered around 5-10 BHP less Just like I'm very happy for you (jonny gav) to believe my car has 215 BHP.

And to set the record straight I think the iON P450 is a good choice of bolt on turbo for its quoted power level. There is more lag than a 20G, but it does pull harder I think I am safe to say.

Going faster than everyone else is a nice masculine game to play, we all like to win. Harvey is the winner with his results

I'm sorry Harvey that we don't agree, on the other hand I'm not as debate is healthy. I hugely respect what you've done with your car, you've done it well before everyone else and have (along with RCMS and BRD and others contributing to your project) pioneered a lot of high power tuning in the UK, along with others like Andy Forrest. I'm merely a learner and a copier.

Rant over, now I have to get on with my work so I can make pennies to go faster and copy better

john banks

Added to say, I think Mark Aigin (even though I had a lot of bad luck in a row, you have to try new things to come up with the winners and you can't fault him on that) has also contributed a lot to high power tuning as have Trout, Wallis, Christian R, Adam, even if it is early days, it is for us all. I'm sure that will set the cat amongst the pigeons but there you go. It felt unfair to single out a few and not others

David_Wallis

I've allways been following andy in the power figures.. closely.. Ill catch him up soon (Must buy some scottimax) was fun in the old days.

pum

rich have ya got us all down on the list that adam has sent you???
and when will the list be up?
cheer's steve(pum)

jonny gav

iTrader: (1)

john, what are you talking about???

i think you need to stop those self prescriptions

my point was, you, when asked always say your car is 440bhp based on RR results, according to your above post you know the figures to be untrue.

why use them as a reference if this is the case?

john banks

I could say I estimate it to be 440 BHP with a 95% confidence interval from 380 to 500 if you like, it would be nearer the truth than a simple "440 BHP". It is not truth or untruth, just expressing the known fact that the measurements are highly flawed, but what else do we have to work with? Perhaps I could get the confidence interval narrower if I was to specify certain conditions about the testing - ie a lot of variables that are controlled on an engine dyno, but there are still large errors to contend with. Otherwise people wouldn't take an engine to one engine dyno and then to another and get 10-20% differences between them with no apparent change in spec, yet there are examples of this happening.

So how do you measure the effects of a modification that gains power within the error ranges commonly seen? I don't think you can with much confidence on a lot of dynos unless you sit there under load on the dyno and tweak away. Even then manufacturers of go faster parts can easily produce gains from their device because they haven't controlled the areas of bias. You certainly can't between dynos or between days or different cars. That is why we have examples of results on x car on y dyno on z day that show unmapped standard cars running more power than a car with an exhaust and remap on other rollers.

Just a few of the variables to consider:

Ambient temperature
Ambient pressure
Petrol sample
Petrol octane
Petrol additives
Charge temperature
EGT
Engine Oil temperature
Engine Oil viscosity
Engine Oil age
Coolant temperature
Transmission wear
Transmission oil temperature
Clamping method
Wheelbase
Tyre wear
Tyre temperature
Tyre temperature
Tyre deformation
ECU learning/compensations
Clutch drag on coastdown
Gearing
Dragging brakes
Undetected slip
Calibration of rollers
Temperature of the rollers
Slippiness of the rollers
Different software in different rolling roads
Different reporting standards between rolling roads

I'm sure you could think of many more. Some are more significant than others. The more complex the system and the less time and budget you put towards making a measurement, the less precise the results. Rolling road results are amongst the least trusted because the method is cheap, quick and the whole setup complex.

jonny gav

iTrader: (1)

with all these variables i think that is pretty damn accurate don't you???

Pavlo

John,

I would say you can eliminate 95% of the effects of those variable with proper process, calibration and product (dyno) quality.

We will see.

As for Well lean, it's an analogue system they use, so the calibration can be way out for speed as well as torque (the only 2 things they actually measure). And as it's the same Maha unit that resides at Power Engineering, I expect it can suffer from the same problems with residual eddy currents on high power cars, especially if the roller speed is high. It maybe consistent, but I would say it's accurate.

Paul
(one time designer of engine dynos and their control systems)

jonny gav

iTrader: (1)

if the system is calibrated regularly this will not be a problem, i know well lane do have it calibrated regularly.

sorry but i can't believe it can be so accurately wrong with high power cars and so right on lower power cars.

we are all welcome to our opinions, it just gets on my nerves when some people are happy to use RR results as proof of their cars power and when its not going their way RR results are to be dismissed.

vulnax999

iTrader: (7)

And it used to be Scots vs Yorkies who argued about highest power/torque/best ways to get either, now got them at each other!!!

Us novices in the high power game read your threads with great interest with the aim of emulating you to some extent as funds allow ....


And RR days allow US to see how we are doing, as I think most people above said ... step 1,2,3,4 etc.


Hope to meet more of you whom I have read at this coming Well Lane, like Jonny Gav who has answered my naive Q's many times, JB if he's coming, chat again to Harvey etc.
Hope I can get to Andy.F before the RR day, to get PFC mapped though so I at least have some decent figures to talk about this time!!!!

Neil

Pavlo

There are problems with the way the dyno works that would be more pronounced at higher speeds. The Maha unit is an eddy current brake, so it's available torque is proportional to RPM ^2 but also subject to temperature in the rollers etc. There is also some problems with the early Maha/Sun software as used by both Power Engineering and Well Lane.

Going back to the list of variables that john mentions; the difference on RR days could be down to something as simple as the predominant weather at the different RR venues. There exist various types of correct, but not all apply equally well to a modern forced induction car. For instance in hot weather we know that some cars will be pulling timing on the ECU as well as suffereing from a loss in charge density. Correction factors only account for the charge density. If you add a humidity element to the correction, you would normal get a postive correct (above 1.0 or 100%) for running in increased humidty as the water vapour displaces pure air (you can't seperate the water from the air during combustion). However in turbo cars, increased humidty will almost always increase power.

There are also various ways to fudge the results, especially the flywheel ones.

Paul

R.B

I Dont know why you bother Rich you organise a good day out for the Lads and get nothing but **** for it

I will be there mate only if i can have 500 bhp please LOL

R.B