ESE's works engine tuner

[bucketracer]

Geez you guys talk shit. Torque? horsepower? The only difference is a bit of maths. If on the day you increased hp at ???rpm or ??mph then the torque increased at ???rpm or ??mph. You achieved an increase. Does it matter if the increase is measured in horsepower or torque. At the track it most certainly won't matter.

I agree with speedpro about "Does it matter if the increase is measured in horsepower or torque." And Pudding about the "Mirror".

Commentators, unless they are more socially sophisticated than most, call other peoples ideas shit, if they can't understand it themselves.

TZ knows the value of basic data. Given Torque/RPM he can model his current engine in his MOTA programe and based on his new understanding of modern port layout, make some informed guesses about the likely outcome of any modifications.

Just like Wobbly does.

Some of us just buy our technology/port layouts, like you and I have. But TZ is working it out for himself, inefficent, but he is doing it himself.

.

[F5 Dave]

sometimes a software update would require a hardware update
eg more modern software may require XP and 400mhz CPU is minimum spec for XP.
Windows XP is a bit like your bike as if it is installed on a PC and you overclock it by putting a bigger CPU on the motherboard it has a tendency to crash and you need a fresh install.
Linux is free to download but you are better to download it on a linux machine and write it to disc and you install it with a network cable plugged into a Broadband connection.
they say you can configure linux to run on dial-up after the install but we failed on a mates machine as its a hassle.
I dont want to get involved doing software updates though

oh, so what sort of hardware update would be required to run this DOS program he is talking about

[Fooman]

Torque and RPM are physical quantities, horsepower is a combination of physical quantities and is therefore a mathematical construct.
.

Not really. Think of power as "rate of applied force" or "rate of applied torque" - energy per second. It is no more a mathematical construct than velocity, which is the "rate of distance", or acceleration, which is the "rate of velocity" - or even RPM - which is the rate of turning, in units of revolutions per minute!

For linear motion (pushing something along):

Energy = Force x Distance (SI units = Newton x metres = Joules)

Velocity = Distance / Time (SI units = metres / second)

Power = Force x Velocity (SI units = Newton x metres / second = Joules / second = Watts)

For Rotational motion (i.e. a crankshaft spinning around):

Energy = Torque x angular distance (SI units: Newton metres x radians = Joules) (note: there are 2 pi radians in 360°)

Angular Velocity = Angular Distance / Time (SI units = radians / second)

Power = Torque x Velocity (SI units = Newton metres * radians / second = Joules / second = Watts)

or simply P = wT (w = lower case "omega" = angular velocity)

so, T = P/w

To get torque, divide the power by the angular speed (using whatever units you want).

With respect to engines, a power curve is simply the torque curve multiplied by the rotational velocity.

And the torque curve is simply a quantitative measurement of the relative efficiency of that particular engine, with respect to the speed of the engine (i.e. the rate of turning). The higher the torque at a particular speed, the more efficient the engine is at that speed. And the the higher the speed the engine can go for a certain torque, the more power it will make, and the higher the rate of work it can supply.

To compare different engines, you need to take into account the different geometries (stroke, bore, rod length) which affects torque, as well as the actual combustion efficiencies. Using BMEP is halfway there - a measurement of combustion efficiency that is independent of displacement, but it still needs geometry to identify the actual forces/torques in any particular engine.

See http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...445#post607445 for something similar.

Cheers,
FM

[F5 Dave]

Good old Foo. Steps in every 10 or so pages and with a few succinct statements makes the rest of our inane drivel look pretty sloppy. Hitcher would be proud.

[TZ350]

You achieved an increase. Does it matter if the increase is measured in horsepower or torque. At the track it most certainly won't matter.

I think we have lost sight of what Speedpro was saying. That the dyno is perfectly good enough for development work.

.

[F5 Dave]

Well deriving revs against the curve would be considerably more useful vs speed can change the curve, what looks good in one gear vs another. At least against revs the shape is a bit more conventional. However certainly better than nothing & case in point was worthwhile. A single run with a revs trace may 'calibrate' you a bit though, also an 'all gears run' may help plot how your engine works against your gearbox, ideally worst case gearing.

[SS90]

Well deriving revs against the curve would be considerably more useful vs speed can change the curve, what looks good in one gear vs another. At least against revs the shape is a bit more conventional. However certainly better than nothing & case in point was worthwhile. A single run with a revs trace may 'calibrate' you a bit though, also an 'all gears run' may help plot how your engine works against your gearbox, ideally worst case gearing.

Yup, exactly!

Fooman is quite right in regards to what he is saying as well, and in his posts points out that there is more than one method of measuring the power of an engine.

What we are talking about (at this juncture) is the collection of relevant data, and when you have it, working out just what it all means!

This is what "sorts the men out from the boys" in engine development

Speedpro, what we are talking about here is the fact that the dyno teezee used did not have an inductive RPM pick up on the hardware, so that it can graph the engine RPM Vs torque

Furthermore, if you cannot graph that function, you are unable to get all the data you need....this is development "level 1"

Speedpro:
Geez you guys talk shit. Torque? horsepower? The only difference is a bit of maths. If on the day you increased hp at ???rpm or ??mph then the torque increased at ???rpm or ??mph. You achieved an increase. Does it matter if the increase is measured in horsepower or torque. At the track it most certainly won't matter.

"at the track it certainly won't matter"

Wot?

Are you saying that at the track it won't matter if you make more horsepower, or more torque ?????....... as you can't tell the difference?????

I'll make this REAL simple.

Horsepower wins 1/4 miles,

[SIZE="3"]
Torque wins hill climbs........

If you are building (developing an engine) you need to graph BOTH these.............

[SS90]

I think we have lost sight of what Speedpro was saying. That the dyno is perfectly good enough for development work.

.

I'm not knocking the dyno Teezee, yes, you certainly can use it for development work, no argument.

But, perhaps if you could get a torque curve, and starting working on the improvement of that....you will see what I mean (particularly in the area of "drive out of corners"

Believe me, you will be willing to sacrifice 1 or 2 PS "at the top" for 1 NM "at the bottom", especially when you compare what each graph looks like, to "how it feels on the track"

No-one loose sight of what I am talking about there...it's not the "peak numbers" I am on about....it's the "spread of power" (the physical property of torque)......this is displayed in the shape of the curve.

[Fooman]

Horsepower wins 1/4 miles

Torque wins hill climbs

If you are building (developing an engine) you need to graph BOTH these.............

1. Horsepower plus Traction wins 1/4 miles

2. Torque will only win hill climbs if you are not allowed (or too lazy) to use a gear box. And if the hill climb is short, or twisty without long straights. Reason:

A slope is essentially equivalent to a headwind - a constant load (the opposing vector of the weight force parallel to the slope) required to be overcome by the engine.

The top speed of any vehicle is governed by a force/energy/power balance - in this case of bucket racer on a infinitely flat long track, the power of the motor (torque times angular velocity) is balanced by the power of the headwind (drag force times linear velocity) at the maximum velocity (noting that the drag force is a function of velocity as well, and completely ignoring friction other than aerodynamic drag).

In the case of a bucket racer on an infinitely long slope, the power balance is motor power = (drag force times linear velocity) PLUS (component of weight force times linear velocity) at the maximum velocity (completely ignoring friction other than aerodynamic drag) - max velocity will decrease

In a race, be it on the flat or on a slope, maximum velocity is governed by power (if aerodynamics and weight, for a slope, are the same).

Acceleration is governed by how much power is left over from the engines capacity to supply power, after drag etc, and then an inertia balance comes into play (i.e. acceleration when available power is greater than 0 and related to the mass being accelerated).

Now, the capacity to do work is important - something with twice the power has the capacity to do twice the work in the same amount of time, or the same amount of work in half the time. Going from the bottom of a hill to the top is a set amount of work.

Now is the time to acknowledge that max power (for max acceleration and max velocity, therefore min time to complete hill climb) is not available at all engine speeds in the real world (unless you are using an electric motor). Therefore gearboxes are used to approximate peak power supply (and therefore peak thrust) at the wheel at all velocities.

So, in a hill climb between, say two bucket racers, a low power/high torque bucket will only beat out high power/low torque bucket if the race is short (initial acceleration is higher for high torque) and if the high speed/low torque bucket cannot use the mechanical advantage of a gearbox to convert the high speed high power into a low speed high torque.

Now, of course, the ultimate goal is to have a high speed high torque bucket (i.e. a torque curve that is flat, and at flat at the maximum torque). But that is a higher power bucket anyway, because of the combination of high speed and torque.

Cheers,
FM

[Yow Ling]

OK the Harris dyno graphing output thing isnt quite as flash as some remember
Heres the output of a reasonable four stroke bucket . I noticed that if you rotate it 90° in the clockwise direction it looks like a large nose. After running it on the dyno it was hard to tell if it was any faster. Am I missing something here?
Soon after I did this run I fitted race cams and bent the exhaust valves, is this normal?

[Buckets4Me]

OK the Harris dyno graphing output thing isnt quite as flash as some remember
Heres the output of a reasonable four stroke bucket . I noticed that if you rotate it 90° in the clockwise direction it looks like a large nose. After running it on the dyno it was hard to tell if it was any faster. Am I missing something here?
Soon after I did this run I fitted race cams and bent the exhaust valves, is this normal?

stroke it more than twice you are asking for trouble

[craisin]

hey F5 the downloads i saw from the link SS90 posted one was for windows and one was for linux and as linux dont have their own DOS program I assumed they would need a hardware update to run windows or linux.
I can get my hands on to 2 old DOS PCs one an old guy wants to give me comes with a printer.
PM me if your interested preference given to aucks

[speedpro]

oh, so what sort of hardware update would be required to run this DOS program he is talking about

You'd definitely need the latest DOS emulator. Some sort of dual processor platform should be able to run it OK. Say 2Gb of RAM would help of course.

[speedpro]

When I was visiting Pete Sales with his waterbrake dyno it was just the peak power we measured/calculated. When I lived about 5 minutes away from Dynotech and Chris Sayles(?) with the Dynojet inertia dyno he had, sometimes we'd connect the rpm sensor sometimes not. It really didn't matter. You could see at a glance when doing comparisons where the improvements were. Apart from a few experimental engines which disappointed my engines have always had big fat power curves which could be seen on the charts whether they were torque or horsepower against road speed or rpm. The dyno at Henderson Yamaha was a very nice Dynojet eddy current model which was great as you could load up an engine and hold it at any speed and check what happened - whether it held power or faded off.
Anyone can disagree if they like but results talk.
If you achieve an increase in horsepower at a particular engine speed, or road speed in the same gear, then the torque has to have increased at that engine speed. After a lot of track time and lots of dyno runs you get a good feel for what makes a good trade. Torque in the mid range for a couple more horsepower up top or vice versa. Torque isn't everything. Harleys make lots of torque but your average 600 blows them away in a top gear roll-on at 100kmh. Kenworths make stupendous torque at 2,500rpm with 40lbs boost but it only comes out to say 300-350hp.
It doesn't matter what you measure or how, as long as the measurements are made in a consistent manner that allows you to identify improvements. Experience will tell you which improvements and where are best suited to your bike, you, and the track.

[SS90]

OK the Harris dyno graphing output thing isnt quite as flash as some remember
Heres the output of a reasonable four stroke bucket . I noticed that if you rotate it 90° in the clockwise direction it looks like a large nose. After running it on the dyno it was hard to tell if it was any faster. Am I missing something here?
Soon after I did this run I fitted race cams and bent the exhaust valves, is this normal?

Hmmm, do I detect a hint of sarcasm here Yowling?

Was it any faster after you ran it on the dyno? Well, did you asses the graphs,(you only posted the horsepower figure..... the program is able to plot (and print) both Horsepower and torque together, or (separately)

then, make changes to the set up ( like cam timing (or profile), ignition timing,exhaust pipe etc etc etc), based on what gains you where trying to achieve, or, just run it on the dyno "to see what it had"....

It not just a toy!

Oh, when you fitted the new cam, did you measure the piston to valve clearance?, or ,just "wack it in, and hope for the best"