TB993tt

KPG
Yes I read your correspondence on 6 Speed, (that is where I got the info above about GPS calculating Gs) and admire the efforts you are going to in the pursuit of accuracy.
Regarding the average Gs during your 7.93s run, as I intimated above they are not comparable with the av long Gs measured by the AX22 so they are a little meaningless IMHO for comparing.
Having used the devices side by side the Driftbox's Gs seem much more inconsistant compared to the AX22s.
I hope you keep up your efforts to establish the facts ?
You have also highlighted a flaw in my last post since one can only compare av long G measurements with 2 shift cars since the additional shift skews the average number since for the 2 shift reading will have ~0.5s longer without full power.

NineMeister

That's really interesting. At the Elvington airfield test earlier on in the year my 1281kg (with driver) 993RS CS with the 9m 3.8 race engine did two consecutive 100-200kmph runs and posted 8.91s and 8.75 seconds (faster run was the 2nd one) into a 10-15mph headwind with the rear wing set to full downforce, in fact I sent Jean a copy of this AX22 file. My dyno measured this same engine at 425hp, therefore in comparison to the 997 which has a lower Cd & slightly higher weight I don't think that the 9m dyno is very far from Porsche hp numbers, although I would concede that it's no match for Ferrari's!

It's going to be interesting to see how much the new high torque 4.0 litre drops the acceleration times.

NineMeister

Putting it simply Toby, do the AX22 and Driftbox both give you the same 60-130 and 100-200 acceleration times?

KPG

Toby, the reason I asked about the avg G's for my car is this: G's needed to push my car at certain speed,at a certain weight, a certain distance is the same regardless of the unit measuring. It seems you Brits may be on the cusp on an interesting calculation with avg G's forecasting power under the curve. I would just like to compare what G's would be needed in theory for my numbers with the G's actually logged. Now Jean and I have discussed the G's and their relation to the Dbox at length, but I have done some data mining myself and the numbers are in a very ordered pattern. Although we would agree there are discrepancies with the G's produced by the Dbox as a whole, they do fall into neat patterns. All the data I have been sent and accumulated myself has avg G's and 60-130 times in order for the most part. The slowest runs have the lowest avg G's and the fastest have the highest G's....pretty much without exception. There are some runs in left field but they are results of the firmware bug. So, at least the Dbox has long G's in some order anyway. Kevin

TB993tt

Yes.....

KPG
I would guess the av long Gs for a 2 change run for you 7.93s run would be in the order of 0.37 - 0.39 ??
I don't know what adjustment to make for the 1 change ?

Am I close

KPG

Of course you are
7.93 1 shift avg g .41
8.01 1 shift avg g .41
8.59 2 shift avg g .38
8.63 2 shift avg g .38

Hmmm.... Kevin

TB993tt

Here are a few good comparisons done by Jean earlier in this thread.

TB993tt

KPG
If you checkout Bill S's run above it seems to contradict your numbers ie he did the run at av long G ~0.38 also however his ultra quick gear changes (checkout the graghs and the "time in negative accn number") made the difference and kept the car in full power territory for longer - we must take these elements into account I guess.

I will do some more back to back testing DB v AX since your av long Gs look correct, don't they ? (just have to wait for it to stop p!ssing it down)

KPG

Toby, Bill is probably lighter and is he RWD as well?The numbers dont seem too far off...he is only .6 slower and has virtually no time in the neg G's where I am down at neg .2! Remember I am full weight 3760( measure on a certified scale last month) and AWD. Please dont make me publicly post my graphs that show my lack of shifting prowess... it really is ugly Kevin

TB993tt

Does the weight and 2WD/4WD affect the correlation between time taken to do 60-130 and the av long Gs when comparing two cars ?
I don't think it does......all it means is that if you are heavier you need more torque to get the same time/avlongGs as the other lighter car - in other words if two cars have similar times for the 60-130 run then the av long Gs should be similar (with the adjustment for the gear changing speed/# changes)

BTW Bill S's car is 4WD stock weight AFAIK ie 1500kg - so you have 200kg on him. WAs your measured weight including driver and full tank ?

KPG

Not sure about the correlations...your guess is as good as mine.Logic would say that if Bill and I had the same amount of tq yet he was lighter....he must be faster, all else being equal...who knows! My weight is with me 225lbs, full tank of fuel, helmet, laptop, harness bar/6pts/ and some misc items I keep for performance runs... Kevin

Kiko

Slightly off-topic but do you know how long does a 996 TT RS Tuning 508 or a stage 2 for the same effect from 100-200?

KPG

Kiko, I sent you a PM on 6speed...you can find out what your time is for yourself Kevin

TB993tt

According to the site below 8.6s

http://www.juergen-alzen-motorsport....is_420_ps.html

AVoyvoda

"At the Elvington airfield test earlier on in the year my 1281kg (with driver) 993RS CS with the 9m 3.8 race engine did two consecutive 100-200kmph runs and posted 8.91s and 8.75 seconds ..."

That makes perfect sense. The model indicates a time of 8.33 secs, so taking into account headwind, wider tires and some inevitable modeling error, 425 hp is very much "in the ballpark".