Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Weiss
Tom,
Try some reading comprehension. No computer simulations needed. Just looking at numbers from their time slips. Must be to much exhaust gas from all of those dyno test.
Stan
|
But you are not "selling" reading track time slips, Stan. Anyone with a 3rd grade education can read a time slip based on a run by another person. They can also quickly grasp that a lower number on the ET is good and a higher number on the MPH is good.
You are "selling" that your track simulations are close to horsepower numbers that the engine would need to generate the actual track time slips.
So a real world Engineer would run the vehicle tests on the track (in both directions) to compensate for the wind effects and the track rolling resistance differences along with a change in the track being perfectly level the whole distance. Our track was level within 1/4" over a 3.5 MILE track distance end for end. And we still ran 7 runs in each direction.
So your simulations leave out a lot of information.
The sharp EFI guys measure the actual oxygen in the air at the track they are at and calibrate the efi based on that actual info vs ASSume like you do.
You ASSume a lot of things Stan. That is why your stuff will never be right.
You don't get enough runs with no changes to accurately make a "average run" for an accurate simulation. No track racer is going to make 14 runs at the same conditions, rpm shift points, temperature points, track co-efficient conditions, etc.
So you can never get an accurate number with your stuff. And that is 'Old physics'
You can get an approximate number based on how much you want to fudge the data for your benefit.
So your Simulations are blowing smoke and your brain/mouth is blowing smoke.
It always happens that way when you (Stan) run up against someone who actually knows how the Aero Engineering, Parasitic Loss, and Rolling Resistance stuff works.
Tom V.
Not worth my time typing to explain further to you why your BS does not cut it in the real world.