MPH VS RWKW u sure u want to go ahead?

by **Steady** » June 4th, 2009, 2:07 pm

Thanatos wrote:
Hiboost wrote:yes its only a few MPH out from each.... like i said it should be close to the MPH it should run.

The fact that there is ANY variation indicates that there must be SOMETHING other than the power of the car that can affect the MPH. In my case I'll be the first to admit it was shitty driving and poor tyre choice on my part...

what happens to power when you do succesive runs on a dyno?
what happens to power when the ambient temperature is different?

yes, other things affect mph, but on a decent run, it doesn't effect the mph as much as you seem to be claiming!!!!

by **Thanatos** » June 4th, 2009, 2:08 pm

Steady wrote:do more runs?
you are shitcanning something you've done 4 times.

the sprint, when it was running (shut the fukk up you kunts), did times ranging from 15.02 to 18 seconds, all around 90-92mph, except one with a missed gear.
60' ranged from 2.1 to 2.8

it made 130 on a dd in non shootout, and 151 on a shootout dd...

First of all, when did I shitcan anything?? I merely said it's not a straightforward comparison, that's all. I think they both have there merits, and if anything I would rather have a quick car than a powerful one. I've never said it's not possible to use MPH as an indication, I merely said there are a lot of variables that can affect it. If some of those variables are not present, then you have a more accurate comparison. Simple.

by **Hiboost** » June 4th, 2009, 2:08 pm

Thanatos wrote:
Hiboost wrote:yes its only a few MPH out from each.... like i said it should be close to the MPH it should run.

The fact that there is ANY variation indicates that there must be SOMETHING other than the power of the car that can affect the MPH. In my case I'll be the first to admit it was shitty driving and poor tyre choice on my part...

Imagine if I'd never run the 98+MPH pass... people would be saying that my car didn't have the power the dyno claimed because I'd only run a 94MPH. But clearly the car is capable of running a higher MPH than 94, it just didn't do it straight away and that was because of traction, slow gear changes, etc. etc. etc.

PERHAPS Shaun's car is capable of a higher MPH, but has yet to do it because of traction, slow changes, etc. etc. etc also??? PERHAPS the dyno is lying.
What I am saying is that no one is in a position to make that call yet....

At this point I would say that his MPH doesn't live up to his power output, that doesn't automatically mean the dyno is lying or Paul is lying, it COULD mean that the car isn't setup for the track or wasn't driven right or some other factor...

mate ive race several times with KING springs and street trim, how the **** then did i mannage the times that i did, suspension dose jack shit but for the takeoff...

by **Barnsy** » June 4th, 2009, 2:09 pm

........Buy a push bike

by **Gozza** » June 4th, 2009, 2:11 pm

we could still argue over the MPH. smaller sprockets. Light weight frames. Frames filled with helium. Helmet Density. Power to Age ratio of the rider

by **Thanatos** » June 4th, 2009, 2:11 pm

Steady wrote:
Thanatos wrote:
Hiboost wrote:yes its only a few MPH out from each.... like i said it should be close to the MPH it should run.

The fact that there is ANY variation indicates that there must be SOMETHING other than the power of the car that can affect the MPH. In my case I'll be the first to admit it was shitty driving and poor tyre choice on my part...

what happens to power when you do succesive runs on a dyno?
what happens to power when the ambient temperature is different?

yes, other things affect mph, but on a decent run, it doesn't effect the mph as much as you seem to be claiming!!!!

key words being "on a decent run". How do you know how decent the run was??

Dyno figures mean shit all unless it's on the same day on the same dyno, and even then take it with a grain of salt.

But MPH is not a perfect judge either, because there are things which can alter that as well. That's all I'm saying. I don't understand why people seem to think I'm personally attacking using the MPH as a guage for power, I'm not, I'm simply trying to point out that there are other factors that can influence that just as much (YES JUST AS MUCH, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT!) as dynos

by **SnyperEB** » June 4th, 2009, 2:12 pm

arm79 wrote:****... 3 pages already...

Things move quickly here.

LOL its not fordmods.

by **EFFalcon** » June 4th, 2009, 2:13 pm

Hiboost wrote:mate ive race several times with KING springs and street trim, how the **** then did i mannage the times that i did, suspension dose jack shit but for the takeoff...

no offernce, i respect what your car has done.
but you're joking right?
a good suspension setup will help a car get off the line.
the whole concept of weight transfer is pretty clear cut.

by **Dansedgli** » June 4th, 2009, 2:14 pm

That what he is saying John. Suspension helps with the takeoff but mph will still be similar at the end of the track regardless of suspension.

by **Hiboost** » June 4th, 2009, 2:14 pm

EFFalcon wrote:
Hiboost wrote:mate ive race several times with KING springs and street trim, how the **** then did i mannage the times that i did, suspension dose jack shit but for the takeoff...

no offernce, i respect what your car has done.
but you're joking right?
a good suspension setup will help a car get off the line.
the whole concept of weight transfer is pretty clear cut.

suspension dose jack shit but for the takeoff..

by **EFFalcon** » June 4th, 2009, 2:15 pm

Keep Firing assholes!

by **Hiboost** » June 4th, 2009, 2:15 pm

Dansedgli wrote:That what he is saying John. Suspension helps with the takeoff but mph will still be similar at the end of the track regardless of suspension.

Spot ON DAN +2 for ya

by **Steady** » June 4th, 2009, 2:19 pm

arm79 wrote:Quite some time ago I had a crack at Dan about some dyno figures he and Paul had achieved with the blue AU Dan once proudly owned...

didn't that AU blow the fukk up after Dan sold it? :lol:

by **ebturb** » June 4th, 2009, 2:23 pm

Steady wrote:
arm79 wrote:Quite some time ago I had a crack at Dan about some dyno figures he and Paul had achieved with the blue AU Dan once proudly owned...

didn't that AU blow the fukk up after Dan sold it?

along with a silver VR

by **EFFalcon** » June 4th, 2009, 2:24 pm

My bad, misread.
perhaps you should have said how did i manage the MPH

by **67rce** » June 4th, 2009, 2:26 pm

Fighting on teh internetz is like winning gold at teh special olympics, no matter what your still a retard

by **Sunboost** » June 4th, 2009, 2:30 pm

67rce wrote:Fighting on teh internetz is like winning gold at teh special olympics, no matter what your still a retard

This line makes baby jesus cry now :cry:

It's soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 2000 and late. Boom boom pow.

by **EFFalcon** » June 4th, 2009, 2:32 pm

chk chk boom

by **Gozza** » June 4th, 2009, 2:32 pm

yeah but im 2000 and 8 bitch - stop copying my swagger yo

Thread needs more Gary Busey

by **OED666** » June 4th, 2009, 2:40 pm

the batteries on my keyboard are dying.. + my F5 button is wearing out!

by **Revengelane** » June 4th, 2009, 2:59 pm

In my opinion dyno read outs/sheets mean fark all...... Dyno's are a tuning tool only with to many variables for an accurate or believe readout.

MPH represents HP........Times talk not dyno sheets.

by **ClassicAU** » June 4th, 2009, 3:11 pm

Thread needs more Buick Grand National

by **arm79** » June 4th, 2009, 3:13 pm

Mr. CVE wrote:Nah that's about right.

There will always be dyno figure arguments, and I am not overly fussed about them, however I was upset over what seemed to be a personal attack.

Soooo, what did miss?

No personal attack, more of making things "right".

And it would be good before making those kinds of comments that one does remember all the facts before making a nice story out of it. Which I'm sure you did, but just took a selected few details.. Ta!

by **oneredED** » June 4th, 2009, 3:15 pm

When I did my work experience at HSV in year 10, I spent 2 days working in their dyno room. The operator there, went on and on about "repeatability". He told me time and time again, that dyno figures are useless and easily manipulated unless you are able to control all variables which is impossible. Now to make up for that, they ran a reasonable sophisticated correction software (for the time it was anyways, SAE sumthing point sumthin IIRC) that would compensate for differing air temperatures/density etc etc. Now the only way the results would be comparable to dyno's elsewhere in the world, was if the dyno was the same, the correction software was the same, and the sensors were placed in EXACTLY the same position. Even then, the result was only ever used to compare with other results achieved in the same manner under the same conditions.

I do have a question though? How many operators actually put the IAT sensor in the inlet tract? I've seen a few places where most of the time it's sitting on the the inner quarter panel, and a number of times near the extractors/exhaust. If the dyno think's it's 50* air, and the engine really is sucking in 15* air... then a car that puts down 100rwkw suddenly gets corrected to say it makes 140rwkw. That's just stupid to me

EDIT: Further to that, since I forgot to actually add any sort of point to my long winded bullshit session, is that Snypers car went from 60orsomethingrwkw, to 230rwkw, on the same dyno. Assuming that the sensors where in the same spot, and the correction software was the same, it's reasonable to assume he gained 170rwkw from his turbo upgrade. The percentage increase in power output is ALL that can really be assumed from his results, comparability to other dyno's is a shitkunt idea.

by **holmsy** » June 4th, 2009, 3:21 pm

Hiboost wrote:Holmsey dose it matter who tunes my car? If u do know how to read ull READ it On MY SIGN

when did i ever say anything about who tunes your car?
far as i remember i didnt.

the point of all this is crap.
its a big shit fight going in circles.

simple point of it.
hiboost saying paul (mr.cve) makes the hallam dyno read high so he can claim he is getting more power for people

i am yet to see 1 single person with numbers from a random dyno and the same car with no changes to it with numbers from hallam dyno done by paul. that shows an increase.

i can tell you and have said it before. my car ran 154 on tdr dyno in geelong and on a similar weather day ran 140ish on the hallam dyno by paul.
no changes to it.

by **Hiboost** » June 4th, 2009, 3:25 pm

Still have noresponse from Mr.cve about me not knowing

by **holmsy** » June 4th, 2009, 3:26 pm

if you guys want some form of direct comparison of a car on seperate dynos
when i pick up my car from paul in a few weeks i am more then happy to get him to do a dyno run right there infront of me (assuming he has time)
and go straight to the nearest other dyno and have a run there to.
useless thread with next to zero facts in it.

by **t1MMy** » June 4th, 2009, 3:27 pm

holmsy wrote:when did i ever say anything about who tunes your car?
far as i remember i didnt.

I think he got you confused with me due to the similar avatar.

by **holmsy** » June 4th, 2009, 3:29 pm

so he needs to take a page out of his book and learn to read him self? :write:

by **LUXO_8** » June 4th, 2009, 3:34 pm

This thread is so hard to keep track of on my iPhone while Im supposed to be workng. Haha

by **Hiboost** » June 4th, 2009, 3:36 pm

Holmsy sorry got mixed up with timmy.

by **Gunns** » June 4th, 2009, 3:39 pm

Engine Dyno FTW.

+ Steering a car around a track has a lot more creadablitly in my book.
I don't care if you car can do 180mph down the 1/4. Do a 1 minute 44 around Winton and that in my book holds a lot higher than having a car that can only be quick in a straight line.

by **Hiboost** » June 4th, 2009, 3:40 pm

LUXO_8 wrote:This thread is so hard to keep track of on my iPhone while Im supposed to be workng. Haha

I'm in the same boat as u LOL I'm going home on the on the pc

by **Gozza** » June 4th, 2009, 3:40 pm

Gunns that's a void statement. Horses for courses mate and nothing to do with power figures in comparison with MPH

If you want to compete in track youd be an idiot to use an e-series as a base anyway

by **holmsy** » June 4th, 2009, 3:44 pm

Hiboost wrote:Still have noresponse from Mr.cve about me not knowing

im yet to see a response from you that actually gives any real reason to be attacking mr.cve's credibility

you have no proof on anything you have accused him of. and you choose to ignore any posts that give evidence against you
untill you get some proof not opinion. you are as useless as a nuns kunt.

by **Thanatos** » June 4th, 2009, 3:46 pm

Gunns wrote:Engine Dyno FTW.

+ Steering a car around a track has a lot more creadablitly in my book.
I don't care if you car can do 180mph down the 1/4. Do a 1 minute 44 around Winton and that in my book holds a lot higher than having a car that can only be quick in a straight line.

Smartest post in the entire thread :good:

by **Gunns** » June 4th, 2009, 3:47 pm

Gozza wrote:Gunns that's a void statement. Horses for courses mate and nothing to do with power figures in comparison with MPH

If you want to compete in track youd be an idiot to use an e-series as a base anyway

True but power to MPH is relative to the driver, the dyno operator and the conditions ......................................... This is what we are debating arn't we? Until all these veriables are minimize there will be no direct corilation between the 2.

E-series can make fun track cars just depends on what you want out of it.

by **Gozza** » June 4th, 2009, 4:00 pm

i don't know what the **** anybody is debating anymore

Fun and Competitive are two different things. A "few" exceptions come to mind. ( im speaking about lap times and shit. not drags)

by **Steady** » June 4th, 2009, 4:04 pm

A tuners worst enemy are the stooges who follow them :lol:

Why do people fall in love with their tuners, and jump to their defense at any given oppurtunity?
Fukk, all you've gotta say is "tuner y did a good job on my car, i'm happy".

Who is online