Thanks Bent65. Yes, the intake inertia and exhaust inertia are both important factors. How would a 2 strroke make decent power without exhaust scavenge?? I only glanced on that topic with my 'resonance' item in the list.

So we all agree that measuring the power at the crank is easy. Torque times speed is power. Measuring both is relatively easy. No correction factors needed.

All we need to do then is to state the conditions under which the engine was when we measured those two items and we are done. The trouble is when we test another engine or the same engine under different conditions. Or when we see a car's power quoted in a magazine. How does mine compare??

If we want to compare all our engines and tests we then need to use a correction factor to drag them all to the standard conditions. So you see a car in a magazine and it says 500 SAE Hp, or 300 ps or 150 bhp. The way the units are reported tells you the way the power has been 'corrected'.

If we want to see how good we are at building engines we may want to use a correction factor to take away accessory loads. We could also measure the combustion pressure and report BMEP instead of HP... My personal preference is to only have the accessories that actually make the car run (incl water pump, excl power steer) and use a correction factor that soley corrects atmospheric effects.

Rainbows and fairies and everyone lives happily ever after.

Now you don't want to take the engine out of the car...
Well with a hub dyno you can still measure torque and speed accurately but it is wheel power you are measuring. You can't quote crank power. You can still correct for atmospheric conditions.

You use a rolling road and again the torque and speed are easily meausured but they are the power at the rollers. How much is lost at the tyre? How much speed difference (slip) is there??

You have a car on a dyno, so you must be careful of how you measure the atmospheric conditions. Especially at a 'shootout' you often see the intake temp probe in a really bad position.

Earlier we read about the rep who turns up in his Commodore and calibrates the dynos. Cool, now they all read the same, but are they right?

M

Ha, only just noticed this thread, seems it been running a couple of weeks, but I don’t bother looking here too often these days.

GR, please, if you are going to quote me, it would be better for all if you did so accurately.

Your sales rep posted this on MiniDriver;-



So, it seems he doesn’t know what CFs are and didn’t realise that they were in fact on most Dyno Printouts.

My postings were to show him that in fact they were on most Dyno Printouts and I posted a few up to show him that.

Now, in regards to the Dyno Print out that was done at John Collin’s facility, I did write;-



It was sent to me to post up to merely show CFs are used and included on Dyno Printouts. Oh and CFs of 1.58 are not out of the question, IF you understand CFs and how they are applied.

GR, your posts are somewhat confusing or should I say, conflicting. On one hand you say you know John Collins and he knows what he’s doing, then in the next breath you say that his CF’s are rubbish and that he doesn’t know what he’s on about. Can you kindly clarify this for all of us?

I also notice in the pics you’ve posted up that there is no instrumentation for carrying out any CFs, no air intake air temp measurement for example. You’ve also said that you have dynoed them to SAE Standards. There are over 1000 SAE Correction Standards, which do you use? Also, under those standards, it is necessary to state which you have used, I’ve never seen any reference to any corrections that you’ve used and I even asked you about this before, which you never responded to;-

http://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=30

you did refer me to you Project Small Bore article, which I read, on-line and the original print and I noted that the tests were not corrected;-

http://www.minimania.com/article/1881/P ... re__Part_1

http://www.spridgetmania.com/article/18 ... inder_Head

http://www.minimania.com/article/1892/P ... old_Combos

I also note that in subsequent issues of TME that there was no addendum or corrections relating to these articles.

If these Correction Factors were not important or only gave small variations, then why has there been so much research in to them over the years as well as many facilities spending $1000’s of dollars to get the instrumentation to carry out corrections, along with all the up-keep and calibration of these instruments.

Matt also made the point here that his Buggy has more HP than a Train. True, until CFs are applied!

GR, you’ve also said that all manufacturer’s in the world use only SAE Standards (I guess you were referring to corrections?), sorry to say that is very much not the case, what about JSAE, DIN, BS, AS to list a few?

Reading this post, it seems I’m not the only one to question your overall view re: Correction Factors.

True, I don’t own a Dyno.

However there is a big difference between owning one and being Trained and qualified to operate one.

I do operate a few Dyno’s and am trained and qualified to do so. I’ve done some fairly extensive testing, NATA Traceable, for the likes of Caterpillar, Lloyds and ABS to name a few. They wouldn’t entertain having tests carried out without proper corrections or the original factors for corrections to be applied.

Just going back to your Project Small Bore, in particular Part 2, on the manifold flow testing, there is something amiss there too in the flow tests;-



which is rather peculiar, but there could be a few factors involved with that, as the articles don’t say what pressure drop you’ve measured them at.

Now in your post here, you seemed to have singled me out, and going back many pages here in ausmini, you haven’t hardly posted for months, actually not really much at all single you were also pulled up about crankshafts, materials science and in particular, nitriding here;-

http://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

It’s rather peculiar that you would decided to ‘surface’ after I wrote up a few small words, on another forum regarding Correction Factors, your name was not mentioned either, there was no ‘bad mouthing’ just some friendly technical discussion. I can only surmise after reading your posts here, that something hit on a nerve? Dunno on that one, but curious all the same.

Cheers

and remember;-

_________________

now now GT,,, i didn`t say my buggy had more HP than a train,,, i said the train has more power than my buggy--> but my buggy will still beat it in a drag race (or some such similar jest)

Edit-> relating more to the "power-to-weight ratio" of a vehicle being as (or more) important factor than just simple HP

get it right

carry on

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

Bhahaha, my turn to quote incorrectly! Sorry Matt, I did quote you incorrectly mate

_________________

Hi GTMOWOG how i miss you
Now here we go again John Collins dyno is automatic when it comes to working out the c/f it,s all built in just push the button, BUT DON'T PUT THE TEMP SENDER DOWN BESIDE THE EXHAUST as some people do to impress customers of how much more power they made after tuning it.

Now when i wrote the article SMALL BORE PROJECT i wrote it out on a pad it then had to be coppied out and mistakes were made on my sheet the c/f was .9997 which is very close to 0 ti should of read there was no correction on the day.

Now i wish you would not go round quoting what is written on the mini mania forum because that was rewritten by mini mania and is not what was written by me for CRAIG WATSON they changed it to to what they wanted it to read, go back and have a look at the one Craig put in his magazine.

As for the flow testing have a look at what you wrote, what do you think the @25ins means . and thoese flow figures are not from ANY flow figures done in england.

The c/f that i use in my dyno room is what i have seen used in just abour every dyno room i have seen including two of the major car manufactures in australia.

You say you were trained by Caterpllar, i dont know how much Torque the caterpillars around my work shop make they do a lot of work just munching away on my roses and trees.


Now as for bad mouthing what about the posting you wrote on the other forum about my camshaft RE13 telling people to chuck it in the bin, most people that put a sports cam in their car dont drive around at 2000 rpm if that is what they want to do i tell them to leave a std cam in their engine as there is no better cam for pulling down that low, and thoes figures that your mate sent you are not of a RE13.
Graham Russell

_________________
"It's better to be not informed than ill-informed"

Yeah, I know you can't live without my careful guidance, I'll drop in for a cuppa and some of Matt's Wagon Wheels again one day




Gee, that would be dishonest, wouldn't it?






To which SAE standard was the corrections done to? A figure of 0.9997 on it's own doesn't mean much I'm sorry to let you know.

Surely you proof-read the article before it went to print? Maybe you could prove yourself correct by asking kind permission of Craig to copy those relevant pages here on the forum for the readers who don't have those original prints of TME?



That's not what was published



I'm not sure I'm reading that right, do you mean you use a single CF or the method of determining CF?









If "thoes figures that my mate sent" me are not of an RE13, then maybe the cam under discussion was not an RE13.
Why would you jump to conclusions?

Other than in the thread that I linked about, which is here on ausmini, I've never mentioned an RE13 on any forum, so how could I bad mouth it or suggest to throw any cam in any bin?

Your thread here GR only raises more and more questions than it answers.

Reading your reply here, one would only hope that your testing is more accurate that your reading of posts in this forum and others.

_________________

Like sands through the hourglass...

_________________
Simon

The adventures of an owner builder in the Tallarook Ranges

& so are the...

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

Dear GTMOWOG
I have secieved over 100 emails,letters and phone calls about my article from around the world saying how good it was,and some asking why mini mania rewrote the the article maybe you can not read, out of all the people in the world you are the only one to bad mouth the article,sad

Alot of race teams trust me with some very expencive engines on the dyno if i was not doing the job right don't you think they would stop coming back,they also use my cylinder heads and camshafts on both cars and bikes.

You published the dyno graph that Keith Calver did between the RE13 and thePiper cam which is the same as Sw5 but you blotted out the RE13 but people read the Mini magazine so it was'nt much use in blotting it out, but you got caught out.

You did'nt drop in for a cuppa tea with Matts wagon wheels so why tell lies, and if you had you would have seen my gauges and correction facture sheet on the wall,

I don't know why you are so jealous of me and what i do but jealously and lieing is a sickness go and get help
Graham Russell

_________________
"It's better to be not informed than ill-informed"

_________________
Have a Nice Day.
If already having a nice day please disregard.

now now GR,,, he didn`t say that he "did" drop in for a cuppa & some of my wagon wheels,,,, what he did say was that he was going to

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

what he did say was that he was going to "again"

ah ha,,, i missed the "again" part,,, & the plot thickens
(insert evil sounding piano music here,,, like "Dad da Dahhhh!!!" )

sorry,,, i`m just muckin around

move along,,, nothing to see here

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

Not again . . . .

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMkVq1jRGU