When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I don’t care about perfection. If that’s what you got from my posts, re-read them.
Anyone remember all this… This **** has been going on for months and months and months where I ask for transparency on the units function and I get lit up by @wildbilly32 , @dporto , @philbert996 and @Porschetech3 about how dare I ask questions.
Does it make sense now ? The unit may be better than anything else, but this latest exchange has been the only you will find publicly that admits ANY results that differ from the intended.
It has been my view and continues to be, customers and perspective customers should not be kept in the dark about the full envelope of performance for the stuff they spend their money on.
Originally Posted by zbomb
Can we see data from this section below if not the whole lap. As I have said before, I don't think the concern with your sump would be that it does not handle high G well, the pickup placement seems perfect for that. I think the thing that really needs to be highlighted, and since this is a data thread, using data to highlight it would be appropriate it, are the transitions from one pickup to the other seamless ? The spot below seems a good spot to show that performance.
Originally Posted by Porschetech3
The UIDS version 3.3 "specifically" addresses high G -Force transition..
I thought the thread was about steps to eliminate oil pressure instability.
The data posted from UIDS 3.0 shows how to eliminate the instability from High G-force that has been shown in your previous data graphs..
Originally Posted by zbomb
This is what I posted on May, 22, 2021
I think instability can be caused by more than lateral G cornering load, I don’t think out of line or odd to want to see how your sump performs when it switches between 2 pickups, that is a unique and special feature, if not done appropriately, it could certainly lead to an unstable oil supply. That is why I asked the question I did, the data you posted covers 350FT of a 2.4 mile lap and one aspect of a part that must function under all.
I respect the hell out of you Skip - you have done great things for the community. I think you are missing an opportunity here though.
My opinion.
Originally Posted by Porschetech3
The Twin Tunnel Port/ UIDS v3.3 can use both ports to feed oil to the engine simultaneously and can switch between ports NO PROBLEM.
Originally Posted by Porschetech3
Did someone Question the "transition" of the UIDS on left to right?
Here is some "data" from this weekends race winning Sprint Race of the fastest lap going through the turns section using the UIDS..
Below is what happens when you don't have UIDS through the same turns....
I like it when my stuff is used for what it was designed for.....even though it is not my car, and I wasn't driving it, I feel like I contributed to it being able to finish the Race, and win.." you can't Win if you don't finish"....
Originally Posted by zbomb
I would like to see the data as well.
My concern would not be the ability to function under sustained heavy g load but rather the transitioning of g loading from left to right and fore and aft and how the changeover from 1 pickup to the other looks from a continuity of supply standpoint. I would think you would like to see pressure captured pre filter at like 25 hz or more to give the type of granularity to really show what’s happening and how seamless the transition is.
Originally Posted by Porschetech3
Precisely 100% correct !!!
All I can say to those who want a particular type data is, the Porsche Gods say, ask and ye shall receive, just not today..
Note that these video's are of UIDS Version 3.2. It differs from UIDS Version 3.0 in that 3.0 has a steel bushing in it that the shaft rides on, Version 3.2 has a PTFE bushing for the shaft to ride on. It has 1/4th the coefficient of friction of the steel Version 3.0 (0.16 compared to 0.04)
UIDS Version 3.3 is the one I can't talk about (patentable addition). All I will say it has a unique "baffle/sail" that not only will stop the slosh of the oil in the sump, but is a secondary G-force sensor to control the valve movement/position.
Originally Posted by Porschetech3
Will there be more updates? I always so no, but nothing is ever "perfect"..
Yes I have been running it for over 10 months and driving the **** out of it.
Would I take it off? Not on your life !!
Yes I have a " real live oil pressure data" on the car that I watch constantly..
I'm happy to address any questions others may have regarding my car and UIDS experience.
Would you mind explaining why there is a preasurure dip and and an inversely proportionate relationship in the data set? Is that dip an acceptable duration to solve the problem? The data appears to be stable except for in two places, what's going on there? Again is that acceptable for risk mitigation? I could understand how it could potentially be ok but some of those statements made don't match whats presented, asking for clarification.
Nobody has accused anyone of data manipulataion it's fascinating thats where he went out the gate.
And @Gear Rower - you have been working with Skip on design improvements to a unit that is released, commercially available and customers have on their car. Meaning, you have known the unit has not achieved the target performance.
Do you not believe that process should have been completed BEFORE the release of the product ?
18395327[/url]]…The unit may be better than anything else, but this latest exchange has been the only you will find publicly that admits ANY results that differ from the intended.
It has been my view and continues to be, customers and perspective customers should not be kept in the dark about the full envelope of performance for the stuff they spend their money on.
This sounds reasonable. I’m in sales. If my product I’m selling is amazing, but a customer still asks me about the trade offs or downsides, I tell them not only because it’s the truth, I tell them because they need to know, so they can plan or design around it.
This only works when we have high trust. Otherwise, someone will take what I say and use it against me. So therein lies the problem of positing some of this stuff on the internet, many of which contributing members are still largely anonymous.
Have the makers and designers of other deep sump solutions also posted the trade offs of their solutions?
And @Gear Rower - you have been working with Skip on design improvements to a unit that is released, commercially available and customers have on their car. Meaning, you have known the unit has not achieved the target performance.
Do you not believe that process should have been completed BEFORE the release of the product ?
Ah, the ol' "unknown unknowns".
I think it was clear that there was an improvement over the current sump solutions from the onset, which would be "target performance", but the challenge became "can it be improved upon?"
Racing is certainly a different animal than enthusiastic driving, where suspension and tyres yield greater lateral Gs, and yaw transitions are faster and more frequent.
Rarely is a product fully optimized from the onset, even after beta testing. Higher powered data is often required to reveal improvement potential (eg new iphone releases)
There is nothing nefarious going on here.
My issue with the sump is the cost. I will always make the most of my money, retired at 45. It had been brought up here Engine rebuilds at $30-50k. Dude I can get a 3.4 with a one year warranty 5 angle valve job, so about 20 more hp for $13k, and I’m keeping my core. Recently I had a disagreement with my mechanic because he wanted to charge book rate time for changing plugs and coils on my turbo. The issue was Diyers on the turbo fórum said the job could be done in 2 hours, book is 4.9. Anyway I found three different shops that quoted me hard 3 hours. Same with an oil change, I buy my stuff, Valvoline instant oil change will charge me less than $25 for doing the change. So why do I need to pay $50-80 for that is a simple oil change. I know skip knows his stuff but I have never overpaid for anything in my life and I’m not starting now. Racing is expensive and to win you have to have the best of the best. You are also looking for every single bit advantage you can get. I don’t track my two cars but I drive them to the limits. Oil pressure wise, my Mobil 1 Mix 0W40, 5W50 works great, since it’s cheap I drop the oil every 6 months. I ain’t paying for DT 40 either.
Would you mind explaining why there is a preasurure dip and and an inversely proportionate relationship in the data set? Is that dip an acceptable duration to solve the problem? The data appears to be stable except for in two places, what's going on there? Again is that acceptable for risk mitigation? I could understand how it could potentially be ok but some of those statements made don't match whats presented, asking for clarification.
Nobody has accused anyone of data manipulataion it's fascinating thats where he went out the gate.
- The pressure dip is most likely due to oil slosh during the return to neutral yaw, lat G after corner exit.
- You might need to clarify to me what you mean by an inversely proportionate relationship.
- Intuitively, I would think that the most critical factor that this sump addresses is the duration of pressure drops -- Those are the bearing killers. So, to sort-of answer your question, it's more acceptable than current sump design options.
- The pressure dip is most likely due to oil slosh during the return to neutral yaw, lat G after corner exit.
- You might need to clarify to me what you mean by an inversely proportionate relationship.
- Intuitively, I would think that the most critical factor that this sump addresses is the duration of pressure drops -- Those are the bearing killers. So, to sort-of answer your question, it's more acceptable than current sump design options.
Thanks for the response.
1. Ok
2. Look at the chart or where i highlighted green goes down brown goes up, thats an inversely proportionate relationship, or simply put...opposite. its either a lagging dip on transition or something else. Any ideas?
3. Ok, better yes acceptable maybe.
It seems plasuable that the green dips are lagging to brown assuming logging and time sync is accurate. Its occurring across the entire data set. This indicates transition problems, or sloshing as you said. Better yes acceptable maybe... but don't try and tell me there are not mutiple pressure drops when there are.
I think it was clear that there was an improvement over the current sump solutions from the onset, which would be "target performance", but the challenge became "can it be improved upon?"
Racing is certainly a different animal than enthusiastic driving, where suspension and tyres yield greater lateral Gs, and yaw transitions are faster and more frequent.
Rarely is a product fully optimized from the onset, even after beta testing. Higher powered data is often required to reveal improvement potential (eg new iphone releases)
There is nothing nefarious going on here.
Will you send full logs to @golock911 for his data breakdown in the same fashion he has done for the data I have provided ?
If the performance of the UIDS is meeting it’s intended target, there is no reason not to.
2. Look at the chart or where i highlighted green goes down brown goes up, thats an inversely proportionate relationship, or simply put...opposite. its either a lagging dip on transition or something else. Any ideas?
3. Ok, better yes acceptable maybe.
It seems plasuable that the green dips are lagging to brown assuming logging and time sync is accurate. Its occurring across the entire data set. This indicates transition problems, or sloshing as you said. Better yes acceptable maybe... but don't try and tell me there are not mutiple pressure drops when there are.
Thanks again for the discussion.
I understand what an inversely proportionate relationship is, I'm just not sure where you're seeing one in the data. There are no increases in my oil pressure above the resting baseline, no nothing inverse. The dips are not the same in duration, and most are less in severity compared to the deep sump, so there is nothing proportionate that I can glean. A picture is worth a thousand words, so perhaps you could show what you're describing.
The pressure dips are consistently at the exit of corners where the car undergoes a transition state from lat load back to level. There are no dips transitioning from level to lateral load (corner entry), it is only upon return to neutral status. Driving through quick transition esses will show dips similar to the deep sump, and I would never state that there are zero drops on a racetrack. I do not have street driving data to assess for comparision. The dips are transient and short, so are unlikely to be detected/significant on a car with street tires during enthusiast style driving, but this is purely speculation on my part.
Again, the critical improvement for me as a racer is the decrease in duration of oil pressure drops during sustained high G corners. There's no ambiguity in the data here.
We are in Agreement duration is decreased. These are lagging or inversed points im asking about... unless this track eats 100% experiancing those drops on stock 996 one run is not conclusive to say the shorter duration is acceptable to eliminate the problem for a production product...beta test away. If this solution just moves the problem down the line its not a solution. Also i agree the data is not ambiguous the original statements made about it are.
We are in Agreement duration is decreased. These are lagging or inversed points im asking about... unless this track eats 100% experiancing those drops on stock 996 one run is not conclusive to say the shorter duration is acceptable to eliminate the problem for a production product...beta test away. If this solution just moves the problem down the line its not a solution. Also i agree the data is not ambiguous the original statements made about it are.
Ok. We can only speculate, but I would surmise that this is purely down to oil movement within the sump. Deep sump likes the oil steady, level and increases the uptake as the oil returns to 0 lat G. The transient dip in the UIDS is a/w the slosh, however its pressure is steady with both level or max lat G states.
It's clear on the data that the oil delivery is more stable with the UIDS and that even though there are aren't zero drops, the dips are fewer in number and, most critically for engine health, significantly shorter in duration. This is much more than moving the problem down the line.
I understand what an inversely proportionate relationship is, I'm just not sure where you're seeing one in the data. There are no increases in my oil pressure above the resting baseline, no nothing inverse. The dips are not the same in duration, and most are less in severity compared to the deep sump, so there is nothing proportionate that I can glean. A picture is worth a thousand words, so perhaps you could show what you're describing.
The pressure dips are consistently at the exit of corners where the car undergoes a transition state from lat load back to level. There are no dips transitioning from level to lateral load (corner entry), it is only upon return to neutral status. Driving through quick transition esses will show dips similar to the deep sump, and I would never state that there are zero drops on a racetrack. I do not have street driving data to assess for comparision. The dips are transient and short, so are unlikely to be detected/significant on a car with street tires during enthusiast style driving, but this is purely speculation on my part.
Again, the critical improvement for me as a racer is the decrease in duration of oil pressure drops during sustained high G corners. There's no ambiguity in the data here.
A little off topic but can you tell me who has approved this for use in the spec classes? I sent the basic information to the rules coordinator, he had questions about it I couldn't answer.
A little off topic but can you tell me who has approved this for use in the spec classes? I sent the basic information to the rules coordinator, he had questions about it I couldn't answer.
PCA 2022 Rules, SPC section D:
D. Oiling System. The factory oil and oil cooling system must remain stock, except an external oil cooler, an X-51 oil plate, an aftermarket sump extension or sump pan, a Porsche Motorsport oil/air separator, and an oil accumulator (e.g., Accusump) may be added.
10-05-2022, 11:29 AM
