Originally posted by elgorey
You guys sound like the people who think programming is memorizing syntax.
There is absolutely no way to learn solid fundamental programming practice and software engineering without a Computer Science degree. I have worked with plenty of "programmers" whose only real education was reading a few books and maybe a certification but they had plenty of experience. Sure they knew syntax, but couldnt program their way out of a paper bag. And if the dev environment changed, they were lost. You say you value experience more than a degree, but what do you think computer science majors do in classes, sit there and talk about programming?:lol: Hell no the programs that CS students write coulndnt even be understood by the book learners or "certified" guys.

but hey, maybe thats why your company only makes 1/4 mil a year....
My company brings in 1 million a year on a system that I designed over the course of a summer interning while in college. And its still growing.


anyway thats enough off topic, back to dyno records and turbos


I know so many programers with degrees that don't know **** either. I think it is just the computer indestry. Alot of people who joined up thinking they would make alot of money :)

I have interns with CS degrees that we wouldn't hire on because they came out of school knowing nothing.


Sorry to get off topic :)

-Zach

Originally posted by zyounker



I know so many programers with degrees that don't know **** either. I think it is just the computer indestry. Alot of people who joined up thinking they would make alot of money :)

I have interns with CS degrees that we wouldn't hire on because they came out of school knowing nothing.


Sorry to get off topic :)

-Zach

Exactly....

I have ACTUALLY run across people with BS's in CS, WITH MCSE's to boot... and I had someone stop me one day when I was putzing around in XP... and asked me:

"Hey what was that you just did?"

I said...

"What do you mean?"

He said...

"That screen you just had.. how'd you do that?"

I said...

"What this?"

He said...

"Yeah! That's cool, never saw that before..."


/sigh...

Guys... I hit ALT-TAB to switch programs....

So yes... I will continue to hire the way I have ;), continue to groom excellent IT personal, and continue to make my profit in the B2B outsource business with half a dozen people ;)

Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com

Originally posted by elgorey
You guys sound like the people who think programming is memorizing syntax.
There is absolutely no way to learn solid fundamental programming practice and software engineering without a Computer Science degree. I have worked with plenty of "programmers" whose only real education was reading a few books and maybe a certification but they had plenty of experience. Sure they knew syntax, but couldnt program their way out of a paper bag. And if the dev environment changed, they were lost. You say you value experience more than a degree, but what do you think computer science majors do in classes, sit there and talk about programming?:lol: Hell no the programs that CS students write coulndnt even be understood by the book learners or "certified" guys.

Exactly. Most of the people that disagree haven't had that experience. I also agree with Jorge that some people go through weak programs (esp pub schools) and come out know didly.
----

Also, why would TXS go to dyno at pruven?! I mean, you are calling BS on them, so you have to prove them wrong. Why would they even waste their time going somewhere else to dyno (taking time away from busines), JUST to show a few people on the net?

I am officially renaming this the "My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad" thread

and FWIW, there is a big difference between bringing in $1M a year, and netting $250k a year (it's nothing to sneeze at).

Guys,

I am not going to enter a slanging match about specific shops, however maybe I can at least explain how you have varying chassis dyno numbers around the world. (Incidentally my numbers regarding U.S./AUS H.P. on the APS thread were intended as a joke!!)

United Kingdom
The 15 AWD chassis dynos on the U.K. were all until very recently a 20 year old SUN design, now sold under the MAHA name. They all perform the same fancy extrapolation back to supposed flywheel H.P., which is what an Englishman will always quote you. How real are the numbers? It’s any one’s guess. Recently a Dyno Dynamics has been installed in the U.K. and I believe a DTS unit is going in very shortly. How they will be calibrated, in order to avoid the sort of discussion going on here, relative to the SUN/MAHA units, is any also one’s guess.

Australia
There are around 15AWD chassis dynos in Australia, also. 12 Dyno Dynamics/3 DTS. It is impossible to compare numbers between the two brands, however within the brands, the numbers are comparable, so long as the test conditions are!!. I do not propose to spend the time here describing how test conditions can vary the results, however believe me, 20% variation is not uncommon.
Correctly tested on a Dyno Dynamics dyno, a stock 01/02 WRX will show 90-94kW, or 120-125 H.P. at the wheels. (I.E. 60%of the flywheel numbers).
Now, both dynos have the capability to extrapolate back to flywheel H.P. and in the case of the DTS, I think reasonably accurately. However these units are quite new and I have no personal knowledge just how accurately. Any extrapolation from the Dyno Dynamics units would be very questionable and consequently the Australian aftermarket almost always uses the wheel numbers, normally in kW.

U.S.A
Here the situation is even more confused than the U.K. and Australia. The U.S. has a number of different brands/types of chassis dynamometer and none can be compared, one to another. Varying test conditions just further complicate comparisons.
1. Dynojet. This is the U.S. aftermarket standard for 2WD units, however there are not many of their AWD units out there yet. These units typically read approximately 90% of flywheel numbers, at the wheels. They are an inertia absorber and effectively useless for serious work, however they are cheap, hence their popularity.

2. Mustang. This is an old time U.S. manufacturer of a basically good quality machine. It is a true load absorption dynamometer and in the hands of a skilled operator, perfectly satisfactory. On a 2WD vehicle, it will typically read 80% of the flywheel numbers. On an AWD vehicle, more like 70% of flywheel.

3. Dyna-Pac. This is a Kiwi unit which bolts the absorbers, directly to the wheel hubs. It is starting to gain some popularity in the U.S. I have no personal experience of it, however a good distributor of ours in Aukland had the very first one ever sold and has had 4 units since. If that sounds a little strange, just let me say the manufacturer has used the shop in question as their field development site!!
He tells me these units usually read around 90% of flywheel H.P. in 4WD mode. However, they do also have the supposed capability to extrapolate to flywheel H.P., simply by a keystroke decision. In fact an operator still getting used to using the machine, could be easily reading this supposed flywheel number, thinking it is a wheel number.

In summary, I hope you all understand my comments on the APS thread. Forget chassis dyno numbers. Get an accurate car weight and use your trap speeds!!

Now just a couple of points I noticed through this thread.

1. The 140mph Aussie WRX. Yes, it races with a starting line weight under 2,700lbs.

2. Jon (in C.T.) was completely correct in his fuel injector flow analysis. Assuming the fuel pump can deliver the fuel at the higher pressure, a given injector flows basically the same at 20psi boost/63.5psi fuel pressure as at zero boost/43.5psi fuel pressure. (The later being the way an injector is flow rated).
Consequently, the fuel flow calculation done for the subject WRX does support a 330 flywheel H.P. output.

3. The guy with the 3,000lb car running 117mph using a VF22 has done well, but not particularly so. He is making almost 370 flywheel H.P. However, I have personally seen 360, so I can believe his number. I would be curious to know how many passes he made at the weight/mph. I do know a VF22 will not do 4 consecutive laps of our local road race circuit, at those power levels.
Over redline is over redline, whether it is an engine or turbocharger. You can get away with it for a while, just not indefinitely. We like our customers to get some life from their parts.
Also, just remember, no other VF series turbo will make within 10% of the VF22, except for the current VF35, which is about 5% down.

Dave
APS

You guys sound like the people who think programming is memorizing syntax.

*looks over at his bookshelf*

Design Patterns
OO Theory
RUP

yeah...all I look at is syntax...

good luck finding RUP in college..or having a decent package like Rose to learn on. :lol:

and guess how many hours of college I have... ;)

Originally posted by APS
Guys,

3. Dyna-Pac. This is a Kiwi unit which bolts the absorbers, directly to the wheel hubs. It is starting to gain some popularity in the U.S. I have no personal experience of it, however a good distributor of ours in Aukland had the very first one ever sold and has had 4 units since. If that sounds a little strange, just let me say the manufacturer has used the shop in question as their field development site!!
He tells me these units usually read around 90% of flywheel H.P. in 4WD mode. However, they do also have the supposed capability to extrapolate to flywheel H.P., simply by a keystroke decision. In fact an operator still getting used to using the machine, could be easily reading this supposed flywheel number, thinking it is a wheel number.

In summary, I hope you all understand my comments on the APS thread. Forget chassis dyno numbers. Get an accurate car weight and use your trap speeds!!

I have a question regarding the dynapac that TurboXS uses...

If this unit reads 90% of flywheel H.P. Why did the stock run on this dyno yield 165-175 peak h.p.? Shouldn't it have been closer to 204h.p. (90% of 227) give or take a few?

Also if the other dynos in our country are 80-90% of flywheel H.P. why are they also yielding baselines (stock cars) around 165-175 H.P.?

Also why are all the dyno's over here yielding nearly the same hp for our lightly moded cars like Shiv's stage0 or TurboXS stage 1, 2? Why do we see so much consistancy in the numbers of all of our cars at most all of our dyno's with the same given mods? Are you saying that everything stays acurate until we suddenly get cars with high hp? Sounds to me like you are trying to dis-credit the power we are making in the U.S. ;)

When you look through this message board and examine as many dyno charts as I have you will find quickly that our dyno's are quite acurate and reliable and can even be used for rough comparison give or take 10-20%. :mad:

-Jonathan

Jonathan,

I have already said I shall not get into a slanging match. I have been in the industry for over thirty years and discrediting by company or country is not my style.

1. U.K. I personally inspected all AWD dynos except one in April this year. I can assure you that the information is current.

2. Australia. We have the first commercially installed Dyno Dynamics AWD unit in the country (8 years ago). We are used as their field software development site. We also know the owner of DTS well (ex MOTEC engineer). Again, this information is correct.

3. U.S.A. I have worked in the U.S.A. on and off for many years. I can assure you the Dynojet/Mustang information is spot on. As I said in my previous post, I have no personal experience of the Kiwi Dyna Pac. However, my source in Auckland has basically performed the same function for Dyna Pac as we perform for Dyno Dynamics. I.E. Their field product evaluation site. I have no reason to doubt his information.

However, you have missed the point of my post. I was attempting to point out to all here, the futility of comparing absolute numbers obtained from chassis dynamometers. Period. Just do not do it, it is unsupportable by any form of professional engineering.
As I have said here and on the other thread, quit keyboard racing. Get an accurate car weight with you in it, (trucking depot or landfill) and go get a trap speed. Forget you r E.T., not everyone is an experienced drag racer. However, experienced or not, your trap speed will tell you the true story.

As for your comments about what various dynos are showing at various shops around the U.S.A. stock, lightly modified, or otherwise, I shall let the intelligent here draw their own conclusions.

That said, there are some absolutes you can keep in mind, regarding compressor air delivery and injector fuel flow, given certain parameters. I suggest you have a look on my posts on the APS turbo thread.

Dave
APS

P.S. We are a professional engineering group who has worked continually on WRX since 1996. If we were not substantially ahead of 2-3man shops which started playing with them last year, there would be something wrong, now wouldn’t there.

I happened to talk to APR today, the Audi/VW chip company.

They dyno a stock S4 at about 210 hp to the wheels on their Dyna-Pac. (claimed factory 250 hp) About a 16% loss.

This makes the TurboXS stock baseline seem a little on the low side.........

Kevin

i don't get it... HAppy used an equation to challenge the Turboxs and Teague dyno number.. but when used against him... it says he doesn't beleive in the equation... WTH??? what kind of challenge is that then!!

Shammy,

I think you either mis-read, or misunderstood my post.

I BELIEVE THE EQUATION. I DON'T BELIEVE MY DYNO FIGURE.

The equasion I used, supports 300~330bhp FLYWHEEL depending on VE, and BSFC.

The BSFC equation TXS used (corrected) supports circa 330bhp FLYWHEEL.

Believe what you want.

Happy.

Edited because I can't spell :rolleyes:

then are you saying that the vast majority of the dynos out there are wrong or incorrect? Because like the injector equation, it is a low estimation... I'd rather put my trust in a dyno that directly reads the wheel movement of a car (even though argued as inaccurate) then some ESTIMATION of unprovable flywheel horse power with an equation... you are arguing that they don't have 400 flywheel... they never said they did... they are showing a dyno result of the wheels... unless you take out the engine and then dyno that... you shouldn't compare...

btw physics doesn't do **** a few years ago they couldn't explain why a Bumble bee could fly... and they still teach three states of matter....

Shammy,

I don't want to get involved in talking about the TXS results, specifically.

I'm no dyno expert. Read the post by Dave/APS.

I think you will agree that a turbo engine needs a certain amount of fuel, air, and boost, to produce a given power level, on an engne of a given capacity.

It's also agreed that the power will vary due to VE, BSFC, etc'. There are limitations to just how much figures can vary.

If you want to believe the dyno figures, that's fine.

Happy.

And someone else in this thread has reported that even engine dyno results can vary wildly depending on the dyno.

Another thing I don't see how a bench dyno can replicate the exact power made in the car. Things like intake temperatures, flow on the intercooler(or lack of it) etc will all play a part.

I'm sure even if it went on an engine dyno, that calibration and conditions such as cooling and other factors would then be disputed.

this is why dyno figures are only useful for showing a baseline vs changes, before/after numbers are close enough to be called accurate.

If you bolt a buncha crap onto your car and go get it dyno'd, youll get an idea of how much power your making ATW, but it will only be dead on accurate for that dyno in whatever state of calibration its in for whatever weather/pressure it is at that time.

Its not really an exact science, but (for the most part) arguing over numbers isnt much more than splitting hairs.


Taking a buncha cars down to a dyno and doing runs and compairing cars sounds like great fun to me tho! Other than tuning, thats the best use of a dyno imo!

Originally posted by APS
Jonathan,

I have already said I shall not get into a slanging match. I have been in the industry for over thirty years and discrediting by company or country is not my style.

1. U.K. I personally inspected all AWD dynos except one in April this year. I can assure you that the information is current.

2. Australia. We have the first commercially installed Dyno Dynamics AWD unit in the country (8 years ago). We are used as their field software development site. We also know the owner of DTS well (ex MOTEC engineer). Again, this information is correct.

3. U.S.A. I have worked in the U.S.A. on and off for many years. I can assure you the Dynojet/Mustang information is spot on. As I said in my previous post, I have no personal experience of the Kiwi Dyna Pac. However, my source in Auckland has basically performed the same function for Dyna Pac as we perform for Dyno Dynamics. I.E. Their field product evaluation site. I have no reason to doubt his information.

However, you have missed the point of my post. I was attempting to point out to all here, the futility of comparing absolute numbers obtained from chassis dynamometers. Period. Just do not do it, it is unsupportable by any form of professional engineering.
As I have said here and on the other thread, quit keyboard racing. Get an accurate car weight with you in it, (trucking depot or landfill) and go get a trap speed. Forget you r E.T., not everyone is an experienced drag racer. However, experienced or not, your trap speed will tell you the true story.

As for your comments about what various dynos are showing at various shops around the U.S.A. stock, lightly modified, or otherwise, I shall let the intelligent here draw their own conclusions.

That said, there are some absolutes you can keep in mind, regarding compressor air delivery and injector fuel flow, given certain parameters. I suggest you have a look on my posts on the APS turbo thread.

Dave
APS

P.S. We are a professional engineering group who has worked continually on WRX since 1996. If we were not substantially ahead of 2-3man shops which started playing with them last year, there would be something wrong, now wouldn’t there.

I don't claim to be one of the intelligent people you speak of but I don't care if George Bush Jr. tells me that dyno's in the US are running 90% of flywheel I won't believe it. You show me one stock WRX that runs at or around 208whp on these dynos and I'll believe you. That's a far cry from the 165hp that we commonly see. Even Shiv's 2 wheel drive conversion didn't register 208whp.

Most dyno's I've seen on this board have shown around 70% of flywheel hp.

-Jonathan

Jonathan - I thnink you are missing dave's big picture, which is to say that by and large, thedyno is not the be all answer to your power...

Known Weight, transfered over a static distance and the speed you attained at the end of the distance, will give you the most accurate indictaion of how much power it took to get you there.

The rest is really nice to paper the walls with, but not much else. I have spent countless hours on the dyno with a variety of cars, and have yielded such sweeping results that we rarely use them now...ncie for marketing fluff, or for holding a sign up with, but again, the top speed over a given distance tells the true story.

You want to see who the HP king is in the WRX world? Easy..a Standing Mile.

adam

How come they cut off the TOP of the dyno sheet that says FLYWHEEL HP calculation from this post??

Originally posted by alfriedesq
How come they cut off the TOP of the dyno sheet that says FLYWHEEL HP calculation from this post??
how come your such an *******???

Originally posted by jbdesros

how come your such an *******??? Comming from a 2.5 RS owner - thats a compliement !

Originally posted by Happy
Shammy,

I don't want to get involved in talking about the TXS results, specifically.

I'm no dyno expert. Read the post by Dave/APS.

I think you will agree that a turbo engine needs a certain amount of fuel, air, and boost, to produce a given power level, on an engne of a given capacity.

It's also agreed that the power will vary due to VE, BSFC, etc'. There are limitations to just how much figures can vary.

If you want to believe the dyno figures, that's fine.

Happy.

I think some cars use a lot of air and fuel and make a lot of entropy, while others have a higher efficiency and energy converted to useful work, in a short time, showing high power. How's them apples?:confused:

Jonathon,

I’ll have just one more go!

(1) I did not say all dynos in the US read 90% of flywheel.

(2) I said DYNOJETS read 90%. Mustangs (Like Cobb’s) read around 70%.

(3) I said I had no personal experience with the Dynapac.

(4) However, the workshop with far and away the most experience of the Dynpacs of any business in the world gave us a percentage. I provided it to round out the data.

My REAL point, however, was that which appears accepted by most others here, i.e. you cannot compare numbers from various brands of chassis dynos in various parts of the world.

I also provided you with an accurate method of obtaining your answers. Lighten up!! Go drag racing!! It is the American way, surely!!

Dave.

Originally posted by APS
3. Dyna-Pac. This is a Kiwi unit which bolts the absorbers, directly to the wheel hubs. It is starting to gain some popularity in the U.S. I have no personal experience of it, however a good distributor of ours in Aukland had the very first one ever sold and has had 4 units since. If that sounds a little strange, just let me say the manufacturer has used the shop in question as their field development site!!
He tells me these units usually read around 90% of flywheel H.P. in 4WD mode. However, they do also have the supposed capability to extrapolate to flywheel H.P., simply by a keystroke decision. In fact an operator still getting used to using the machine, could be easily reading this supposed flywheel number, thinking it is a wheel number.



Originally posted by APS
Jonathon,

I’ll have just one more go!

(1) I did not say all dynos in the US read 90% of flywheel.

(2) I said DYNOJETS read 90%. Mustangs (Like Cobb’s) read around 70%.

(3) I said I had no personal experience with the Dynapac.

(4) However, the workshop with far and away the most experience of the Dynpacs of any business in the world gave us a percentage. I provided it to round out the data.

My REAL point, however, was that which appears accepted by most others here, i.e. you cannot compare numbers from various brands of chassis dynos in various parts of the world.

I also provided you with an accurate method of obtaining your answers. Lighten up!! Go drag racing!! It is the American way, surely!!

Dave.

Fair enough... I did get your primary point on your first post. I just wanted to present the facts about what we see on dyno's in the states acording to the dyno charts.

I actually went back to the drag strip last friday and pulled another 13.14x. 60ft's where 1.8x, 1.77, 1.77 and traps were consistant too. I'm still trying to hit the 12's but it may not happen with these mods :(. My Vishnu Stage0 and TXS exhaust/mbc is working great though. Great mods for the money just a little over 2K :D

-Jonathan

Jonathon,

Out of curiosity, what was your trap speed for the 13.14 run ?

Happy.

I ran a 13.14x @ 101.5x and a 13.14x @ 102.xx. I don't have the slips in front of me or I'd give you more exact times... I'll verify when I get home.

-Jonathan