382.8bhp from a VF35 :)
13 October 2010, 10:28 PM
#511
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 October 2010, 10:37 PM
#515
Scooby Regular
I understand the rationale that at 44deg IT the 380hp the RR is putting out is likely to be an overly compensated guestimate but when the IT drops to 33deg why is the RR still putting out this overly compensated guestimate of 380hp, shouldn't it be tending more towards an actual which would of course be lower. At what point would the RR stop overly compensating, when the AT and IT were close to parity?
The compensation calculation is the compensation calculation regardless of the intake temp...... ASSUMING the place where the Intake Temp is taken is the same for all runs (regardless of temps) and the run is completed in the same way.
The rolling road software has no idea where you are shoving the probe for the inlet temps, but if the inlet temps don't actually match what the real inlet temp is.... the calculated figure is flawed soley because it is based on an accurate intake temp.
For example:
If you use the same place for the probe and the run is completed in exactly the same way, it does not matter one single bit what the inlet temp reads (within reason) the CORRECTED calculated figure should be the same.
Hence why the figure has been reportedly duplicated even though the Intake Temps have dropped from the first run, since I assume the run was completed in the same way and the probe placed in the same location..... the corrected calculation is doing exactly what it is meant to do.
Another words.... again assuming everything is being completed in the same way it does not matter whether you run in the artic winter or the boiling hot summer, the corrected figures should be comparable. This is the whole reason for correction.
In laymans terms (for example only):
Intake Temps = 30degs
Measured BHP = 200bhp
Corrected BHP = 220bhp (based on intake and atmospheric conditions)
Intake Temps = 10degs
Measured BHP = 230bhp
Corrected BHP = 220bhp (based on intake and atmospheric conditions)
Same car, same RR and same method. Only difference are the conditions but they would both equal the same corrected power, even though the measured power is different.
Measured power is what the car actually achieves for the conditions.
Corrected power is what the car would do based on a correction factor to allow you to get consistant power figures regardless of the atmospheric conditions, so you could compare like for like.
13 October 2010, 10:45 PM
#516
Scooby Regular
Sorry just to add to the above as I am sure this will be asked next!!!! 
So if the correction figure should provide the same results regardless of the intake temps, what the hell is all the fuss about?!!?
Simple.... If you stick the probe in a place that is not showing the real Intake Temp, like a bucket of boiling water, you are telling the software that the power that the rollers are actually measuring (which is nothing to do with the Intake Temp reading), was produced at 100degs. Based on the correction formulae it then thinks that "**** if it produces the power that I have just measured at 100degs as that is what your telling me, it would be a shedload more at 20degs" and whacks the corrected figure up.
It is absolutely imperative that the Intake Temp is the REAL Intake Temp that has been used to create the power that is being measured, else the whole correction thing is a total waste of time, as that is what it relies on as being factual (as well as other atmospheric conditions).
Here endeth the lesson!
So if the correction figure should provide the same results regardless of the intake temps, what the hell is all the fuss about?!!?
Simple.... If you stick the probe in a place that is not showing the real Intake Temp, like a bucket of boiling water, you are telling the software that the power that the rollers are actually measuring (which is nothing to do with the Intake Temp reading), was produced at 100degs. Based on the correction formulae it then thinks that "**** if it produces the power that I have just measured at 100degs as that is what your telling me, it would be a shedload more at 20degs" and whacks the corrected figure up.
It is absolutely imperative that the Intake Temp is the REAL Intake Temp that has been used to create the power that is being measured, else the whole correction thing is a total waste of time, as that is what it relies on as being factual (as well as other atmospheric conditions).
Here endeth the lesson!
13 October 2010, 10:55 PM
#517
Scooby Regular
13 October 2010, 10:59 PM
#518
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Sham, Wilts
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the dyno make any adjustments to the power figure for WHP?
So if like bluenose suggests, a comparable VF35 equipped car runs on the same dyno, do the IT & AT make no odds to the result?
So if a 'typical' VF35 makes 260-280 WHP and BigD's makes 303WHP then does that equate to a valid result for BigD?
So if like bluenose suggests, a comparable VF35 equipped car runs on the same dyno, do the IT & AT make no odds to the result?
So if a 'typical' VF35 makes 260-280 WHP and BigD's makes 303WHP then does that equate to a valid result for BigD?
13 October 2010, 11:02 PM
#519
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Sham, Wilts
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we find out the measured figure?!
Last edited by angry_boy; 13 October 2010 at 11:06 PM. Reason: added an I
13 October 2010, 11:03 PM
#520
Scooby Regular
Like I have just said, I don't know at which point the DD software adds the correction, so I have no idea if the wheel power is actual measured or actual measured plus correction.
13 October 2010, 11:09 PM
#521
Scooby Regular
@ Angry BoyJust looking at the WHP stated and the Flywheel figure stated, it would suggest that the WHP stated is infact corrected, as the flywheel figure seems to indicate a transmission loss of circa 21% which I believe is the DD figure used to calculate the flywheel figure for Subarus.
I suspect an appropriate tuner will pop along and confirm or deny this.
13 October 2010, 11:11 PM
#522
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry just to add to the above as I am sure this will be asked next!!!!
So if the correction figure should provide the same results regardless of the intake temps, what the hell is all the fuss about?!!?
Simple.... If you stick the probe in a place that is not showing the real Intake Temp, like a bucket of boiling water, you are telling the software that the power that the rollers are actually measuring (which is nothing to do with the Intake Temp reading), was produced at 100degs. Based on the correction formulae it then thinks that "**** if it produces the power that I have just measured at 100degs as that is what your telling me, it would be a shedload more at 20degs" and whacks the corrected figure up.
It is absolutely imperative that the Intake Temp is the REAL Intake Temp that has been used to create the power that is being measured, else the whole correction thing is a total waste of time, as that is what it relies on as being factual (as well as other atmospheric conditions).
Here endeth the lesson!
So if the correction figure should provide the same results regardless of the intake temps, what the hell is all the fuss about?!!?
Simple.... If you stick the probe in a place that is not showing the real Intake Temp, like a bucket of boiling water, you are telling the software that the power that the rollers are actually measuring (which is nothing to do with the Intake Temp reading), was produced at 100degs. Based on the correction formulae it then thinks that "**** if it produces the power that I have just measured at 100degs as that is what your telling me, it would be a shedload more at 20degs" and whacks the corrected figure up.
It is absolutely imperative that the Intake Temp is the REAL Intake Temp that has been used to create the power that is being measured, else the whole correction thing is a total waste of time, as that is what it relies on as being factual (as well as other atmospheric conditions).
Here endeth the lesson!
Cheers Iain
13 October 2010, 11:13 PM
#523
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Iain
13 October 2010, 11:15 PM
#524
Scooby Regular
Yes... this is showing that the idea behind the correction factor is doing exactly what it is designed to do, based on a like for like basis regarding probe position assuming real Intake Temps.
13 October 2010, 11:18 PM
#525
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right so my overall BHP corrected is 382.9?
So my IT was correct, the AT was correct, I dont understand where the flaw is, I think my car does exactly what it says on the tin.
If you dont like the figures then I cant help you but that is what she ran 7 days appart down to 0.1bhp, in my eyes it does not get any better than that really, she is consistent.
Cheers Iain
So my IT was correct, the AT was correct, I dont understand where the flaw is, I think my car does exactly what it says on the tin.
If you dont like the figures then I cant help you but that is what she ran 7 days appart down to 0.1bhp, in my eyes it does not get any better than that really, she is consistent.
Cheers Iain
13 October 2010, 11:22 PM
#526
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Iain
13 October 2010, 11:27 PM
#528
Scooby Regular
The only argument would be the validity of the inlet temps being the actual inlet temps and not say the temp of something else the probe was reading. The whole correction is flawed if this is not absolutely factual.
I suspect the expectation was for you to find out the probe was touching the inlet manifold for instance and over reading the intake temps, then rerun and found the probe in a correct position and drastically giving reduced intake temps for the same uncorrected who figure, thus giving a lower corrected figure.... And breathe! Lol
I suspect the expectation was for you to find out the probe was touching the inlet manifold for instance and over reading the intake temps, then rerun and found the probe in a correct position and drastically giving reduced intake temps for the same uncorrected who figure, thus giving a lower corrected figure.... And breathe! Lol
13 October 2010, 11:33 PM
#530
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only argument would be the validity of the inlet temps being the actual inlet temps and not say the temp of something else the probe was reading. The whole correction is flawed if this is not absolutely factual.
I suspect the expectation was for you to find out the probe was touching the inlet manifold for instance and over reading the intake temps, then rerun and found the probe in a correct position and drastically giving reduced intake temps for the same uncorrected who figure, thus giving a lower corrected figure.... And breathe! Lol
I suspect the expectation was for you to find out the probe was touching the inlet manifold for instance and over reading the intake temps, then rerun and found the probe in a correct position and drastically giving reduced intake temps for the same uncorrected who figure, thus giving a lower corrected figure.... And breathe! Lol
Cheers Iain
14 October 2010, 12:10 AM
#531
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really don't understand and this has now moved from being silly to a complete farce. A bit like the blind leading the blind but I am not sure whether Lewak is in front or behind you, presumably behind according to previous posts.
At least we have provided amusement for a few people for half a week.
At least we have provided amusement for a few people for half a week.
The figure I have is corrected so the 382bhp that is on the graph is the corrected figure and no further correction is required, if the 382bhp was not the corrected figure the corrected figure would have been higher would it not due to the high IT.
I find you quite rude and harsh Harvey, you dont know me from Adam and yet pass judgement quite happily, doubting both my abitities and the results I have achieved, that is fine I can deal with that. Like I have said already if you are not happy with the figures talk to someone who knows that car and has a little more cred' than me as you may listen to them.
In the mean time I may read those books and see if I can find the paragraph that states what I have done here is not possible lol and its me that needs to keep an open mind you make me laugh, what if what I am doing is working, what then?
At the end of the day I could run the car at 10 different dynos and get 10 figues roughly the same and you would still say it was flawed, thats just plain stubborn really.
I would like to pass a huge thanks to Len at Subaru4U for his time and effort today
Cheers Iain
14 October 2010, 07:50 AM
#535
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Salisbury
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well maybe i am just thick but given that the software corrects for the it/at the figure of 382 is fixed and will not change as it/at goes up and down. WTF is wrong with this?
14 October 2010, 07:54 AM
#536
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
May have to take my car to S4U, should run 360bhp there
Tony
14 October 2010, 08:07 AM
#538
So what both graphs are suggesting is that the air intake is receiving hotter air (for whatever reason) than is available and if directly applied to road use, suggests that you would not output as much power as is available.
From your spec, it looks like you've got a cone filter in the engine bay. Is there any kind of cold air duct to it and an enclosure to insulate it from the engine bay temps?
If not then this would be a development to help drop your drag times.
With the focus on IT readings, can any dyno operator comment on what the IT temp represents?
Is it the maximum IT seen in a power run or a reading at the start of the run with fans on.
Also, is there a continuous input of the IT into the power calculation through the run?
Lastly, is there a graph output of IT through a run for any dyno make?
From your spec, it looks like you've got a cone filter in the engine bay. Is there any kind of cold air duct to it and an enclosure to insulate it from the engine bay temps?
If not then this would be a development to help drop your drag times.
With the focus on IT readings, can any dyno operator comment on what the IT temp represents?
Is it the maximum IT seen in a power run or a reading at the start of the run with fans on.
Also, is there a continuous input of the IT into the power calculation through the run?
Lastly, is there a graph output of IT through a run for any dyno make?
14 October 2010, 08:07 AM
#539
So what both graphs are suggesting is that the air intake is receiving hotter air (for whatever reason) than is available and if directly applied to road use, suggests that you would not output as much power as is available.
From your spec, it looks like you've got a cone filter in the engine bay. Is there any kind of cold air duct to it and an enclosure to insulate it from the engine bay temps?
If not then this would be a development to help drop your drag times.
With the focus on IT readings, can any dyno operator comment on what the IT temp represents?
Is it the maximum IT seen in a power run or a reading at the start of the run with fans on.
Also, is there a continuous input of the IT into the power calculation through the run?
Lastly, is there a graph output of IT through a run for any dyno make?
From your spec, it looks like you've got a cone filter in the engine bay. Is there any kind of cold air duct to it and an enclosure to insulate it from the engine bay temps?
If not then this would be a development to help drop your drag times.
With the focus on IT readings, can any dyno operator comment on what the IT temp represents?
Is it the maximum IT seen in a power run or a reading at the start of the run with fans on.
Also, is there a continuous input of the IT into the power calculation through the run?
Lastly, is there a graph output of IT through a run for any dyno make?