Weltmeister UK.."We build excitment Pure PS no BS"
04-28-2006, 04:30 PM
#31
Originally Posted by TB993tt
It seems that some people just don't bother reading my posts 
The reason for NOT putting my car on your chassis dyno is that I don't think it will prove anything.
These high end chassis dynos appear to be able to accuarately reproduce the power/torque numbers from engines which have been developed and mapped by manufacturers on engine dynos - so therefore your dyno I fully expect WOULD give my numbers as the 541/736NM
The problem appears to be when a tuner maps the engine using the chassis dyno in a certain way, the torque numbers appear to go crazy.
The reason for NOT putting my car on your chassis dyno is that I don't think it will prove anything.
These high end chassis dynos appear to be able to accuarately reproduce the power/torque numbers from engines which have been developed and mapped by manufacturers on engine dynos - so therefore your dyno I fully expect WOULD give my numbers as the 541/736NM
The problem appears to be when a tuner maps the engine using the chassis dyno in a certain way, the torque numbers appear to go crazy.
What stikes me most is the above post. How exactly is it possible for a chassis dyno to very accurately achieve manufacturer bench dyno figures yet to become wildly inaccurate when a car is mapped using it? At the end of the day the dyno is a pretty simple device taking effectively a single measurement versus time. I really cannot see how it is possible to "inadvertently" manipulate the tractive effort reading during a tuning session, and similarly I cannot see how the calculations it uses to extrapolate more conventionally accepted figures can be accurate across a range of manufacturer power/torque outputs but become hopelessly optimistic during tuning if they are not altered.
In other words if the DynoDynamics measures the tractive effort from GT2 #1 and extrapolates figure set #1 from that, how can it be possible that running GT2 #2 straight after and applying the same extrapolation calculations to the similarly measured tractive effort reading not produce comparable results between the 2 cars?
It seems the argument is that "something is not right because it cannot be right" apples to the torque figure and is backed up here by the suggestion that the dyno does something equally illogical.
No axe to grind, but it makes no sense to me.
04-28-2006, 05:05 PM
#32
Intermediate
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Not disclosed
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents
I have no desire to alienate nor undermine the achievements of DMS but the only time we were present with a Weltmeister prepped car was in Nov at VMax it was a 993 Turbo running full factory 4wd, no race tape on the gaps, on Shell pump gas, driven by our Porsche technician, look at the results please:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/t...3246&f=133&h=0
There was another VMax in March where we were not present, the car was driven by its owner, conditions were different and the car spat off an intercooler pipe, so was withdrawn after 1 run.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/t...3304&f=133&h=0
We are of course not comparing "Apples with Apples" you may notice that no other 993 came close in Nov and only Leon's RUF was 1 MPH faster in March than our car even with its boost issues ? A 993 capable of outrunning all other 996's except GuyR's Ruf Nardo. It must have some torque then or possibly we overstated it again ? The speeds tell the story
Bye
Allan
Allan
I have no desire to alienate nor undermine the achievements of DMS but the only time we were present with a Weltmeister prepped car was in Nov at VMax it was a 993 Turbo running full factory 4wd, no race tape on the gaps, on Shell pump gas, driven by our Porsche technician, look at the results please:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/t...3246&f=133&h=0
There was another VMax in March where we were not present, the car was driven by its owner, conditions were different and the car spat off an intercooler pipe, so was withdrawn after 1 run.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/t...3304&f=133&h=0
We are of course not comparing "Apples with Apples" you may notice that no other 993 came close in Nov and only Leon's RUF was 1 MPH faster in March than our car even with its boost issues ? A 993 capable of outrunning all other 996's except GuyR's Ruf Nardo. It must have some torque then or possibly we overstated it again ? The speeds tell the story
Bye
Allan
Allan
04-28-2006, 05:33 PM
#33
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
Allan
Have you seen by how much TB's car beats Guy's Nardo on a 60-130mph run?
That WM 993TT at the VMAX was 1 mph slower than the DMS 996GT2. I just mentioned above that based on GT Purely Porsche test numbers, TB's car is about 3 seconds faster 60-150mph or would have been >200ft ahead during such a run against the DMS GT2.. I have all the data and I can post it here if needed, I hope I don't have to since I would need to scan the test and post TB's AX22 run.. Both measurements were done with the same equipment.
Leon's car has a taller 6th. gear otherwise he would have been further ahead. In any case I have not seen an AX22 run of Leon's car, but at the end of the day he beat the WM car that day, so RUF are not that bad it seems..
BTW Post by Allan on UK forum not nice
Have you seen by how much TB's car beats Guy's Nardo on a 60-130mph run?
That WM 993TT at the VMAX was 1 mph slower than the DMS 996GT2. I just mentioned above that based on GT Purely Porsche test numbers, TB's car is about 3 seconds faster 60-150mph or would have been >200ft ahead during such a run against the DMS GT2.. I have all the data and I can post it here if needed, I hope I don't have to since I would need to scan the test and post TB's AX22 run.. Both measurements were done with the same equipment.
Leon's car has a taller 6th. gear otherwise he would have been further ahead. In any case I have not seen an AX22 run of Leon's car, but at the end of the day he beat the WM car that day, so RUF are not that bad it seems..
BTW Post by Allan on UK forum not nice
Last edited by Jean; 04-28-2006 at 06:14 PM.
04-28-2006, 08:50 PM
#34
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Fen
Well, I read the post. I have no idea what numbers may or may not be possible with various flavours of 993 and I only read the thread from interest, but...
What stikes me most is the above post. How exactly is it possible for a chassis dyno to very accurately achieve manufacturer bench dyno figures yet to become wildly inaccurate when a car is mapped using it? At the end of the day the dyno is a pretty simple device taking effectively a single measurement versus time. I really cannot see how it is possible to "inadvertently" manipulate the tractive effort reading during a tuning session, and similarly I cannot see how the calculations it uses to extrapolate more conventionally accepted figures can be accurate across a range of manufacturer power/torque outputs but become hopelessly optimistic during tuning if they are not altered.
In other words if the DynoDynamics measures the tractive effort from GT2 #1 and extrapolates figure set #1 from that, how can it be possible that running GT2 #2 straight after and applying the same extrapolation calculations to the similarly measured tractive effort reading not produce comparable results between the 2 cars?
It seems the argument is that "something is not right because it cannot be right" apples to the torque figure and is backed up here by the suggestion that the dyno does something equally illogical.
No axe to grind, but it makes no sense to me.
What stikes me most is the above post. How exactly is it possible for a chassis dyno to very accurately achieve manufacturer bench dyno figures yet to become wildly inaccurate when a car is mapped using it? At the end of the day the dyno is a pretty simple device taking effectively a single measurement versus time. I really cannot see how it is possible to "inadvertently" manipulate the tractive effort reading during a tuning session, and similarly I cannot see how the calculations it uses to extrapolate more conventionally accepted figures can be accurate across a range of manufacturer power/torque outputs but become hopelessly optimistic during tuning if they are not altered.
In other words if the DynoDynamics measures the tractive effort from GT2 #1 and extrapolates figure set #1 from that, how can it be possible that running GT2 #2 straight after and applying the same extrapolation calculations to the similarly measured tractive effort reading not produce comparable results between the 2 cars?
It seems the argument is that "something is not right because it cannot be right" apples to the torque figure and is backed up here by the suggestion that the dyno does something equally illogical.
No axe to grind, but it makes no sense to me.
I don't have the answer but I know a stock 996GT2 clutch will get BIG slip if 800NM hits it at 4000rpm.
Looking forward to a day out at Brunters
04-30-2006, 12:36 PM
#35
I guess the intention of my post was to say that while I understand the point initially made is that the Weltmeister car cannot be making 870Nm of torque because nobody else has managed to get close to that, I don't see any concrete evidence beyond it is too unlikely to be true.
I was trying to highlight that I don't see how a chassis dyno can accurately measure the power and torque of a car running the standard engine but somehow become wildly inaccurate measuring the same car after someone has altered fuelling, ignition and boost parameters on it. To me that is just as unlikely as Weltmeister truly finding 100Nm more torque than anyone else has done with that engine spec.
It seems there are 2 possibilities (or a combination of both?):
1. Weltmeister have truly found 870Nm from their car which blows all other tuners' results away.
2. The generally highly accurate DynoDynamics chassis dyno suddenly starts to report inflated torque figures if a certain tuning method is used on cars running on it.
People who know the 993 think 1 is unlikely to the point of being impossible, personally I think 2 sounds pretty unlikely also as it seems to defy the laws of physics. Everyone wants to know what is right, surely?
That being the case if the WM car was run back to back with another tuner's comparable car on the WM dyno - or any other dyno of sufficent capacity for that matter - then I can't see how the results would not be comparable, therefore I think a dyno shootout is just as good a comparison test as a rolling drag race at Brunters. Why not do both?
I was trying to highlight that I don't see how a chassis dyno can accurately measure the power and torque of a car running the standard engine but somehow become wildly inaccurate measuring the same car after someone has altered fuelling, ignition and boost parameters on it. To me that is just as unlikely as Weltmeister truly finding 100Nm more torque than anyone else has done with that engine spec.
It seems there are 2 possibilities (or a combination of both?):
1. Weltmeister have truly found 870Nm from their car which blows all other tuners' results away.
2. The generally highly accurate DynoDynamics chassis dyno suddenly starts to report inflated torque figures if a certain tuning method is used on cars running on it.
People who know the 993 think 1 is unlikely to the point of being impossible, personally I think 2 sounds pretty unlikely also as it seems to defy the laws of physics. Everyone wants to know what is right, surely?
That being the case if the WM car was run back to back with another tuner's comparable car on the WM dyno - or any other dyno of sufficent capacity for that matter - then I can't see how the results would not be comparable, therefore I think a dyno shootout is just as good a comparison test as a rolling drag race at Brunters. Why not do both?
05-03-2006, 02:19 PM
#36
Intermediate
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fen
I guess the intention of my post was to say that while I understand the point initially made is that the Weltmeister car cannot be making 870Nm of torque because nobody else has managed to get close to that, I don't see any concrete evidence beyond it is too unlikely to be true.
I was trying to highlight that I don't see how a chassis dyno can accurately measure the power and torque of a car running the standard engine but somehow become wildly inaccurate measuring the same car after someone has altered fuelling, ignition and boost parameters on it. To me that is just as unlikely as Weltmeister truly finding 100Nm more torque than anyone else has done with that engine spec.
It seems there are 2 possibilities (or a combination of both?):
1. Weltmeister have truly found 870Nm from their car which blows all other tuners' results away.
2. The generally highly accurate DynoDynamics chassis dyno suddenly starts to report inflated torque figures if a certain tuning method is used on cars running on it.
People who know the 993 think 1 is unlikely to the point of being impossible, personally I think 2 sounds pretty unlikely also as it seems to defy the laws of physics. Everyone wants to know what is right, surely?
That being the case if the WM car was run back to back with another tuner's comparable car on the WM dyno - or any other dyno of sufficent capacity for that matter - then I can't see how the results would not be comparable, therefore I think a dyno shootout is just as good a comparison test as a rolling drag race at Brunters. Why not do both?
I was trying to highlight that I don't see how a chassis dyno can accurately measure the power and torque of a car running the standard engine but somehow become wildly inaccurate measuring the same car after someone has altered fuelling, ignition and boost parameters on it. To me that is just as unlikely as Weltmeister truly finding 100Nm more torque than anyone else has done with that engine spec.
It seems there are 2 possibilities (or a combination of both?):
1. Weltmeister have truly found 870Nm from their car which blows all other tuners' results away.
2. The generally highly accurate DynoDynamics chassis dyno suddenly starts to report inflated torque figures if a certain tuning method is used on cars running on it.
People who know the 993 think 1 is unlikely to the point of being impossible, personally I think 2 sounds pretty unlikely also as it seems to defy the laws of physics. Everyone wants to know what is right, surely?
That being the case if the WM car was run back to back with another tuner's comparable car on the WM dyno - or any other dyno of sufficent capacity for that matter - then I can't see how the results would not be comparable, therefore I think a dyno shootout is just as good a comparison test as a rolling drag race at Brunters. Why not do both?
It's downright rude, IMO, to post and publicly mock someone's dyno sheet without PROVING that it's all b/s. Simply saying that just because the "gurus" can't do it therefore no one can is simply not good enough, IMO.
Will this ever happen? I really really hope so!
05-03-2006, 02:59 PM
#37
A few points:
1. Stock clutch will not hold for 800nm.
2. A car is tuned for certain environmental limits, factors that a car/engine design can not change, only adapt to.
3. Dyno Performance is not the same as Road Performance. Simply because dyno conditions are not the same as road conditions.
4. Engine is all about flow. If you break physical limits of the flow you've either: A.) Done something wrong or B.) Get a nobel price
5. Performance include consistency. I can perform a single explosion in a cylinder giving the same power as all six together. But it will be all blown in to pieces. What is interesting is if the performance is sustainable. That requires a descent amount of hours on a dyno and lot of experience.
1. Stock clutch will not hold for 800nm.
2. A car is tuned for certain environmental limits, factors that a car/engine design can not change, only adapt to.
3. Dyno Performance is not the same as Road Performance. Simply because dyno conditions are not the same as road conditions.
4. Engine is all about flow. If you break physical limits of the flow you've either: A.) Done something wrong or B.) Get a nobel price
5. Performance include consistency. I can perform a single explosion in a cylinder giving the same power as all six together. But it will be all blown in to pieces. What is interesting is if the performance is sustainable. That requires a descent amount of hours on a dyno and lot of experience.
05-03-2006, 03:58 PM
#38
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by FM9
My point exactly.
It's downright rude, IMO, to post and publicly mock someone's dyno sheet without PROVING that it's all b/s. Simply saying that just because the "gurus" can't do it therefore no one can is simply not good enough, IMO.
Will this ever happen? I really really hope so!
It's downright rude, IMO, to post and publicly mock someone's dyno sheet without PROVING that it's all b/s. Simply saying that just because the "gurus" can't do it therefore no one can is simply not good enough, IMO.
Will this ever happen? I really really hope so!
When the revs on WOT hit peak torque it slips BIG time and there will be no power and a stink of burnt clutch material until one releases the throttle.
To those that have struggled finding non metal clutches to handle 800NM this is INDISPUTABLE PROOF that the car in question is delivering under 800NM
Which part of the above do you dispute or find ambiguous ?
There will be a run and the "dodgy dyno tuning" will be exposed
05-03-2006, 04:14 PM
#39
Intermediate
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Not disclosed
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TB
When such a run takes place and you get your *** whipped what then ? Will you kiss mine ? You are really brave on here. My offer of a free run still stands irrespective of all your "Techno Babble" on Engine Dyno vs Road vs Chassis Dyno, if my machine tells lies it will flatter your car more, if it is accurate it will report it as RS intended. Therefor laying this spectre to rest, as we can only report what the machine tells us, backed up by driving the car on road/track !
Notice my lack of phrases in capitals ?
Allan
When such a run takes place and you get your *** whipped what then ? Will you kiss mine ? You are really brave on here. My offer of a free run still stands irrespective of all your "Techno Babble" on Engine Dyno vs Road vs Chassis Dyno, if my machine tells lies it will flatter your car more, if it is accurate it will report it as RS intended. Therefor laying this spectre to rest, as we can only report what the machine tells us, backed up by driving the car on road/track !
Notice my lack of phrases in capitals ?
Allan
05-03-2006, 04:39 PM
#40
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by uk trucks
TB
When such a run takes place and you get your *** whipped what then ? Will you kiss mine ? You are really brave on here. My offer of a free run still stands irrespective of all your "Techno Babble" on Engine Dyno vs Road vs Chassis Dyno, if my machine tells lies it will flatter your car more, if it is accurate it will report it as RS intended. Therefor laying this spectre to rest, as we can only report what the machine tells us, backed up by driving the car on road/track !
Notice my lack of phrases in capitals ?
Allan
When such a run takes place and you get your *** whipped what then ? Will you kiss mine ? You are really brave on here. My offer of a free run still stands irrespective of all your "Techno Babble" on Engine Dyno vs Road vs Chassis Dyno, if my machine tells lies it will flatter your car more, if it is accurate it will report it as RS intended. Therefor laying this spectre to rest, as we can only report what the machine tells us, backed up by driving the car on road/track !
Notice my lack of phrases in capitals ?
Allan
If your 870NM 996GT2 or your upcoming "time travel" 993tt is faster than my RS Tuning car 60-130mph or preferably 60-160mph verified by AX22 data I will give £500 to your favourite charity (I trust this will be more acceptable to you any fetish you may hold
)When your machine is shown to be innaccurate for tuning 993/996tts perhaps you will do the forum the favour of getting some advice from the manufacturer as to the reason for the silly numbers.
05-04-2006, 12:53 AM
#41
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Orange Park Acres, CA
Posts: 982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies and Gentleman place your bets.
Give me one of those stock 996 clutches. I've gone through five modified high perfomance clutches in the development of harnessing over 800nm in Blackie. My personal experience says if 870 is true
then this should be a rocketship, cause at 830nm mine sure is. I've encountered many 996tt and GT2's with mods that are considerably more than those mentioned in this thread which gives me cause to pause. Understand, my opinion is based on the track not on the dyno, or magazine.
Curious, that a four valve motor pulls so much torque compared to its horspower curve.
I would not underestimate TB in your challenge. Just a friendly bet. Oh, whats the game, pistols, swords or a good race. Line em up.
Give me one of those stock 996 clutches. I've gone through five modified high perfomance clutches in the development of harnessing over 800nm in Blackie. My personal experience says if 870 is true
then this should be a rocketship, cause at 830nm mine sure is. I've encountered many 996tt and GT2's with mods that are considerably more than those mentioned in this thread which gives me cause to pause. Understand, my opinion is based on the track not on the dyno, or magazine.
Curious, that a four valve motor pulls so much torque compared to its horspower curve.
I would not underestimate TB in your challenge. Just a friendly bet. Oh, whats the game, pistols, swords or a good race. Line em up.
05-04-2006, 04:06 AM
#42
Intermediate
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Not disclosed
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BHP curve being so flat is, we believe as a result of the air flow meter being at its maximum ? However we stand to be corrected on this if anyone can add ?
Allan
Allan
05-04-2006, 04:52 AM
#43
First post on rennlist,cant stand by and read this sort of stuff any more.In welts defence my old gt2 racer was what i thought was about right for bhp and Torque,510bhp having done a couple of back to back laps with another gt2 around silverstone circuit,rs expensive tuning claim 600bhp!
You guys seem to be very hung up about rolling roads etc,just get your cars out on the tarmac and lets see some real numbers.
Hopefully we will be having the 993 gt2 shoot out soon,and also allow a few heavy weights in to compare against the nimble cars.So no excuses will be accepted if you can not make it for some reason or other,if your cars are so great and fast,lets see them in action.
You guys seem to be very hung up about rolling roads etc,just get your cars out on the tarmac and lets see some real numbers.
Hopefully we will be having the 993 gt2 shoot out soon,and also allow a few heavy weights in to compare against the nimble cars.So no excuses will be accepted if you can not make it for some reason or other,if your cars are so great and fast,lets see them in action.
05-04-2006, 12:33 PM
#44
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Slightly OT. Why is the AX22 the holy grail? Wouldn't two cars side by side, either on the road or on any dyno, be more accurate. I'm not saying any given dyno won't lie, but at least the lies will be consistent. It seems to me a test performed at two different times, in different locations and under different conditions, will not be an accurate comparison no matter how sophisticated the equipment. Isn't it possible to cheat an AX22 by picking a slightly downhill stretch of road or a tail wind? More curious, rather than jumping into this arguement.
Greg H.
Greg H.
