View Single Post
Old 10-30-2005, 03:40 PM   #4
RainMaker
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 93301
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
06 CGM STI SM#17
Now with alot less verve!

Default

So one gets the impression (that I have always had), that the dyno could potentially be used for 2 seperate functions:

1. Simulate operating conditions for an automobile in particular, thereby allowing tuning to be most thorough, safe, and repeatable.

2. A standard communication device. i.e. a method for communcating the potential output of a vehicle.

For each of these two purposes, a different tool would be optimal, yes?

If we are speaking of purpose #2... then it seems to me that on the surface we are merely lacking the coordination to organize and standardize the details. There are many variables at play beyond simple air density correction. My car, yesterday, was at no risk for heat soak. 55 degree air was blowing at a hell of a rate over the intercooler, the engine, etc. The same engine, in Houston, in August, would see heat soak much faster. Net out... if we are to make a dyno curve a standard cumminication mechanism... several variables need to be pegged.

If the interest in standardizing the variables in order to communicate engine output is purely scientific, it's going to be difficult to do. There is business at play here... marketing, sales, promotion, grass roots innovation, etc. Only a portion of forum members would have an interest in standardizing variables for the better of alot of us. Many would probably rather stick to a deceptive game of dyno queening and unsupportable showboating.

If we could standardize, would "we"?
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote