# Locked?



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

Why has all the fun been locked away:bawling:


----------



## minifreak (Mar 4, 2006)

mook got power crazy :chuckle:


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

opcorn:Shall we start a new one Rob?
just dug out my dyno sheet as well


----------



## minifreak (Mar 4, 2006)

post them up anyway, be interesting to see.


----------



## m6beg (Apr 21, 2003)

RKTuning said:


> opcorn:Shall we start a new one Rob?
> just dug out my dyno sheet as well


Stop it you or i will get mine out


Mick


----------



## nailsgtr600 (Aug 2, 2007)

do it and then i can get mine out!!! what we talking about anyway?? lol


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

:smokin:You show me yours and i show you mine:chuckle:


----------



## nailsgtr600 (Aug 2, 2007)

i'll show you tomoz! where and when??


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

RKTuning said:


> opcorn:Shall we start a new one Rob?
> just dug out my dyno sheet as well


Glad your back, Lets keep this professional and adult, no shit slinging, just facts.

OK, how about the 3 TUNERS ONLY post video links to there runs, time slips and dyno graphs showing boost and whp while stating what turbo was used and what fuel was used.

Give honest weights of cars, 60ft times, 1/2 track time/mph and full track time/mph 

No bullshit, just facts that we can compare, then we can start to get a true indication of actual whp used to get the results we all have.

Rob has dyno sheets to contribute, so do I and so does RK so lets make it interesting for everyone on the forum.

If you don't like what each other posts or think its not true, post why, give real reasons, not that you just don't beleive it, back it up with a respectfull post.

If this is kept tidy and respectfull there is no reason this can't be avery interesting thread for everyone.

Where do you want to start? how about a street engine, 98 pump gas, no NOS, at 1 bar, 1.2 bar, 1.5 bar, 1.8 bar

Rob


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

Agricultural NZ Skyline V British Tuned Skyline!! 

Can your one take corners??:chuckle:


----------



## Scott (Jun 29, 2001)

rogerdavis said:


> Agricultural NZ Skyline V British Tuned Skyline!!
> 
> Can your one take corners??:chuckle:


Now now, none of that please. 

If you have nothing worth commenting please keep it to yourself!!!!!!


----------



## minifreak (Mar 4, 2006)

Agreed with Rob, if this can be kept clean and good natured then there will be no reason for mods to have to delete.

post awayopcorn:opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3201/dyno1zi1.png
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3201/dyno1zi1.a399180ba3.jpg

Sorry it,s so big but having trouble with resize
This is my 1st and only RB30 engine.
How does that compare with your 1st RB30 Rob?

Spec was T88GK turbo 2bar boost
pump fuel with octane booster!!


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

Bloody hell, nearly 1000BHP!!

Can I ask what type of rolling road this was on?


----------



## Speeddm (Jun 10, 2007)

Wow. Was it done in 4wd or 2wd


----------



## T.F.S. (Feb 5, 2004)

cool, this is like top trumps for skylines:chuckle:


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

Question,s are getting complicated now:runaway:
4wd and on a very hot day


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

This should be an interesting thread 

Keep it clean!


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

only locked the other due to the atmostphere it had about it, this thread has the potential to go a lot better

mook


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

absolutely If you saw the last two post (which have been deleted) then you would know why it was locked 

I look forward to following this thread

opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

Impressive graph Ron. What was the torque? I assume that was your OSG 3.0 engine?


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

803.9 ft lbs! at the top of sheet


----------



## Hugo (Oct 1, 2007)

1090nm, now that's TORQUE! Well done Ron.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

RKTuning said:


> This is my 1st and only RB30 engine.
> How does that compare with your 1st RB30 Rob?
> 
> Spec was T88GK turbo 2bar boost
> pump fuel with octane booster!!


Very nice indeed and its alot more than my first ever RB30 but to be fair, I didn't have any previous RB experience when I did my first 30 and I also didn't have a T88GK with 2 bar, pump gas and octain booster on my first RB30 so its not really a fair comparison but excellent result all the same. (note: I am being complimentary and supportive)

What I can say with my first ever RB30 was that I did a 10.2 @ 134mph in a street trim 4wd skyline with a totally stock RB30 bottom end, a stock R32 RB25de head with stock N/A cams and springs, stock RB20 cast exhaust manifold, small T3/T4 turbo running 1.5 bar, stock gearbox and diffs etc, how does that compare to the times you have had with a stock internal engine GTR?

Be honest, and I have plenty of proof what I have just said above is true if anyone wants to see it.

If we compare apples with apples, similar sized turbo (GT42), RB30, pump gas (no octain booster) and 1.65 bar in 4wd on a rolling road, 750whp measured and you'll see the red line would have carried on to around 780whp, not sure why the graph stopped there on that run:









And here's the same motor at 1.9 bar, pump gas (no octain booster) 850whp by 7700rpm then wheelspin in 4wd on rolling road:









This car in full street trim has run a best time to date of 9.7 and a best mph to date of 144mph weighing 1800kg.

Rob


----------



## Adam Kindness (Jun 22, 2002)

1800kg :O

How do you manage to make the car so heavy? I'd need to add 400+kg of ballast to my R32 GTR to get that weight.


----------



## Hugo (Oct 1, 2007)

Adam Kindness said:


> 1800kg :O
> 
> How do you manage to make the car so heavy? I'd need to add 400+kg of ballast to my R32 GTR to get that weight.


Let me guess :chuckle:
- One extra racefueltank
- NOS system
- DVD player
- Heavy turbo :chuckle:
- Parachute
- Big cage


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Adam Kindness said:


> 1800kg :O
> 
> How do you manage to make the car so heavy? I'd need to add 400+kg of ballast to my R32 GTR to get that weight.


Its a totally complete street R34 with everything imaginable in it including all of the above list from Hugo and alot more.


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

No offense, but Engine Advantages have about the worst rep in the UK for over-reading rollers (and doing countles other things, lol), especially on torque, which seems to consistantly show 30lbft more than other rollers even on cars with 300bhp


----------



## minifreak (Mar 4, 2006)

SteveN said:


> No offense, but Engine Advantages have about the worst rep in the UK for over-reading rollers (and doing countles other things, lol), especially on torque, which seems to consistantly show 30lbft more than other rollers even on cars with 300bhp


to be fair, my old punto put out 303bhp on track and roads rollers whhich are classed as one of the most accurate in the uk, but put out 330bhp on PTs rollers.

No rollers are 100% spot on, so you cant really bring that into it.


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

SteveN said:


> No offense, but Engine Advantages have about the worst rep in the UK for over-reading rollers (and doing countles other things, lol), especially on torque, which seems to consistantly show 30lbft more than other rollers even on cars with 300bhp


is that so!
My white time attack car had same readings exactly on EA rollers and PT rollers?


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

Anyway Rob considering the stock parts you had in your 1st RB30 some very impressive times:thumbsup:
My red car went 9.46 @148 1448kgs road legal with race track suspension.
std diffs 4.11 0s88 box
i think thats all i can get away with now so i,m off


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Steve, in part its come about from some claims Rob made a couple of days ago when comparing my engines to his, the threads involved got way out of hand and locked.

RK wasn't happy with some of my previous claims, so in an adult way, we are now TRYING to get dyno sheets, results, proof etc out in the open in a way that is not a slinging match or willy waving contest but in way that is informative for all concerened.

If only we could stop stirring shit and get on with facts we'd make good progress and have a great thread with alot of valuable information for all to see.

RK and I have both posted some results for pump gas motors and it would be great if tweenie did too. 

Rob


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

RKTuning said:


> Anyway Rob considering the stock parts you had in your 1st RB30 some very impressive times:thumbsup:


Thank you




RKTuning said:


> My red car went 9.46 @148 1448kgs road legal with race track suspension, std diffs 4.11, 0s88 box


Great stuff and a very good result.

Purely for information for people who are interested, mph V weight is the industry standard or rule of thumb for evaluating hp on the strip:

Forgetting any other factors, if we take 1448kg and 148mph that means a minimum of 790whp was needed to do that run so your dyno backs that up nicely :clap:

Forgetting all other factors, if we take 1750kg (Drag-r down from 1800kg in full street trim as the main fuel tank was empty) and 144mph a minimum of 890whp was needed to do that run (this also backs up the dyno printouts I have) this was on stock suspension, 4.11s, OS88, low profile radials and we all know Jeffs runs will improve with some practice. 

If the 1750kg Drag-r runs 150mph it will have needed a minimum of 1000whp to do so, we have measured 960whp with some wheelspin so if Jeff runs 150mph in it, that will also back up our claims perfectly.

If you take the 240z in street trim, 1350kg and 162mph, that needs a minimum of 980whp to do so.

So, if we 'accept' that the Drag-r engine has made 1000whp (that was at 2 bar, C16) then one wonders what might happen if that engine was in a light weight drag orientated GTR with good suspension and drag tyres.

If we put 1000whp into 1200kg that gives us 8.05 @ 170mph using exactly the same method as used above.

If you work the other way and take 165mph, which is a pretty common mph for most of the top UK guys and put that against 1100kg as some of the guys are down to, that gives power required to do so at 840whp and in 1200kg it works out at 910whp.

All of the above calculations have been done using the same method. 

That is why I have stated that I beleive our street engines are making similar power to the pro GTR engines being used in the UK.



PLEASE!!!!!!!!! only constructive comments based on facts.

If ANYTHING at all doesn't seem right or if you think I have made a mistake, please say so, with respect, and in an adult manner,

Rob


----------



## blue34 (Jul 28, 2005)

*This weekend Drag-R vs*

Hey Rob,

How about a bit of discussion re: this weekend's HKS round that'll also put some facts into the various dicussions...

My R34GTR - last dynoed at 630bhp at the wheels 2.7 jun, twin 2835s, 15" rear wheels Nitto 275/50-15s - best time to date against Kev Huntley's Supra is 11.06 - (at 127.9mph) full weight car, standard drivetrain with H pattern Getrag. Plus regulation half cage with sidebar and an xl size bloke at the wheel - about 1750 Kilos all in... on Pump Gas at 1.6bar I'll remove the spoiler for luck...

That sound about right to you?.... might go a bit quicker if I try harder maybe? 

I'll hopefully be able to line up with Ludders in the Drag-R in qualifying this Sunday if all goes well - I might have made a few improvements too - 

So looking forward to seeing how the Drag R runs, It'll pull away at the top end for sure but It'll be fun trying...

I think Gary will still see us all off mind... fingers crossed the weather (now that really is a load of shyte!) holds out

Have a look at the link below... - the series needs more entrants from RK and Tweenie ideally... then we might not need all these threads...

GTaRt is cleaning up at the moment.... 

see also http://http://www.japdragseries.co.uk/hks_round2_2008.php


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Its great were making some serious progress here..

very interesting stuff and I'm glad the discussion is now going places. I think if this thread fills up nicely with good, honest data then I think it will be one of the forum 'greats'. 

TT


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

Rob (RIPS Rob) you've used the term comparing apples with apples numerous times, but there are so many variables i.e prepped track, tail wind, head wind, barometric pressure, air temp, ambiant, humidity, tyres, suspension, diff ratios, gearbox ratios, up hill, down hill etc etc.

I just cant see how you can say you need this power to get this time or this weight and this power etc, plus u are talking 100ths of a second, so driver skill must also come into it. 

In my eyes the only way for a "apples with apples" comparison is to have all the engines on the same dyno on the same day and all the cars at the same track with the same driver then you can call it a comparison, until then the internet slanging match and my dads bigger than your dad arguement will continue.


----------



## Adam Kindness (Jun 22, 2002)

rob is saying you need X power to be able to do Y speed in 1/4 of a mile with a variable car weight


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

But as per my post on another topic there was a stage 1 saff cossie (270brake) not stripped or anything like that running high 11's and had the owner not worked for Hauser no one would have believed his times. I'm not saying what Rob is quoting as wrong i was mearly pointing out that you could not have a fair comparison in the manner he explained


----------



## Adam Kindness (Jun 22, 2002)

http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm


----------



## Adam Kindness (Jun 22, 2002)

assuming Mick's white car is 1400kg :/ or 3086lb - power = 1436

does seem pretty acurate on my past cars/times/power

hp = (mph / 215.39)3.3135 x weight (lbs)


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

so aerodynamics, tyre choice, prepped track, gear ratios, air temp, head wind etc etc make no diff lol


----------



## Adam Kindness (Jun 22, 2002)

I think you are missing rob's point... This isnt always goint to be accurate, but you can at least use it as a guide to say you'd need X HP to be ABLE to do 171 over 400m or so.

Granted if youre driving with the parchute out it may be different.


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

Lol agreed, but out of interest use the calculator for the said saff cossie running standard kerb weight and 270 brake, it done an 11.9 but alas i don;t know the ET mph


----------



## Adam Kindness (Jun 22, 2002)

it says it'd need around 450hp - based on ET and Weight of 1250kg


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

it was 270 brake, but fitted with Hauser diff and back axle, so you at least understand the point i was making (sorry didnt mean that to sound condiscending)


----------



## Adam Kindness (Jun 22, 2002)

yes... but rob is going by TOP SPEED's on the 1/4mile or TV. I dont think I read him stating anything about ET's


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

isn;t ET the terminal speed?


----------



## tpw (Mar 25, 2006)

Adam Kindness said:


> yes... but rob is going by TOP SPEED's on the 1/4mile or TV. I dont think I read him stating anything about ET's



The speed you cross the line is a good indication of power as technique and ability to actually launch the car doesn't come into play.
It also then shows what could "Possibly" be done regarding ET's if you can hook up a good launch.:thumbsup:


----------



## tpw (Mar 25, 2006)

MIKEGTR said:


> isn;t ET the terminal speed?



No. ET= Elapsed Time.
Terminal speed is what we are looking at.


----------



## ATCO (Feb 2, 2003)

Whilst I would not dispute the validity of the coarse calculation of terminal speed/power and potential 1/4 time, some care has to be applied.

I have a timeslip showing 139.76mph at the Pod with a time of 12.076 seconds rather than the low 10 it should have been. The two are 'incompatible' other than I had held onto 3rd and revved the engine to give the speed. I have had several terminals in the 140's due to holding 3rd (OSG H pattern box) and allowing the engine to rev without getting the matching time.

In truth, if you can make around 135 terminal, with the right launch/tyres/gearbox and all that b*sh!t you potentially have a high 9.

Of course, if it really was that easy we all would be doing it................


----------



## bayside gtr (Dec 24, 2005)

hi to everyone i dont want to get involved but i got to say something now. i have my dads old car red r32 h16 gtr what did have a os giken rb30,anyway rips nz u do realise i have your bottom end in my car which mark biggers built and got up and running when he owned it and was not impressed so i bought car of him and i must admit waas not very impressed either,so me dad tweaked around with it changing few settings on car and done what i thought a reasonable time of 11.03 at 128mph 60 ft time 1.5 at santa pod. anyway my dad had a go at round 2 of hks series and said he felt embarassed to drive car cause it was so slow after what it did run before.so i thought ok lets change turbo so we took of t04z and put on my dads old turbo t76 on, then i thought i would get it mapped properly by engine advantages and i must admit i am now very impressed with car and hoping to run in the 10,s this weekend


----------



## bayside gtr (Dec 24, 2005)

car was originally mapped by tweenie rob


----------



## Adam Kindness (Jun 22, 2002)

Rons son? 

Hello 

We were in the garage next to you at oulton.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

MIKEGTR said:


> Rob (RIPS Rob) you've used the term comparing apples with apples numerous times, but there are so many variables i.e prepped track, tail wind, head wind, barometric pressure, air temp, ambiant, humidity, tyres, suspension, diff ratios, gearbox ratios, up hill, down hill etc etc.
> 
> I just cant see how you can say you need this power to get this time or this weight and this power etc, plus u are talking 100ths of a second, so driver skill must also come into it.
> 
> In my eyes the only way for a "apples with apples" comparison is to have all the engines on the same dyno on the same day and all the cars at the same track with the same driver then you can call it a comparison, until then the internet slanging match and my dads bigger than your dad arguement will continue.



Please read my post again, carefully, I very specificly said "forgetting all other factors"

The mph a car runs V its weight is a pretty accurate way of getting an idea of the power the engine is making.

The drag-r did an 11.8 at 144mph and it also did a 10.4 at 144mph and I'm sure it will improve even more with some practice.

The point is, as a guideline, if you know the weight of the car and the mph it runs through the traps at it is a pretty good indictation of the power the engine is making.

If you start comparing results, using the same formular every time, it is quite a good way to compare power needed to get a certain mph and based on that and that alone (sure there are other factors, but some of my examples were of the same track, same day, 2 different cars) its very interesting.

Rob


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

blue34 said:


> Hey Rob, My R34GTR - last dynoed at 630bhp at the wheels 2.7 jun, twin 2835s, 15" rear wheels Nitto 275/50-15s - best time to date against Kev Huntley's Supra is 11.06 - (at 127.9mph) full weight car, standard drivetrain with H pattern Getrag. Plus regulation half cage with sidebar and an xl size bloke at the wheel - about 1750 Kilos all in... on Pump Gas at 1.6bar I'll remove the spoiler for luck...
> 
> That sound about right to you?.... might go a bit quicker if I try harder maybe?


Your actually doing very well indeed, using the same formular as every other example I have posted you needed 620whp to do the mph you have run and on a real clean run its possible to get down to around 10.4 with 128mph.

Rob


----------



## Smokey 1 (Nov 1, 2005)

The Taisan ran a 10.59 @ 133 mph, Rob any ideas of what power it is making?


sorry forgot it weighs 1468 kg's without me in it, measured on corner scale's.










Smokey :smokin:


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

Rob 
can you confirm how much gas is involved in your hp figures?
on ludders car


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

bayside gtr said:


> hi to everyone i dont want to get involved but i got to say something now. i have my dads old car red r32 h16 gtr what did have a os giken rb30,anyway rips nz u do realise i have your bottom end in my car which mark biggers built and got up and running when he owned it and was not impressed so i bought car of him and i must admit waas not very impressed either,so me dad tweaked around with it changing few settings on car and done what i thought a reasonable time of 11.03 at 128mph 60 ft time 1.5 at santa pod. anyway my dad had a go at round 2 of hks series and said he felt embarassed to drive car cause it was so slow after what it did run before.so i thought ok lets change turbo so we took of t04z and put on my dads old turbo t76 on, then i thought i would get it mapped properly by engine advantages and i must admit i am now very impressed with car and hoping to run in the 10,s this weekend



Just so I'm clear, I'm pretty sure you said it 3 times above, you, your dad and Mark were not impressed with a car that had a SHORTBLOCK in it that I supplied?? Do you know what input the shortblock even has in making the power?? 

I'm sorry, but I didn't realise I had anything to do with the head, the assembly of the rest of the motor, the manifolds, turbo, fuel system, install mapping etc??? I've checked my passport and NOPE I havn't been to the UK, what do you think is going on??? have I missed something??? :nervous:

The short block has just about NOTHING to do with making any power and an IDENTICLE spec bottom end currently holds a world record in another car, and the same spec C/R etc is in several other cars making big power (Drag-r for example).

You and your Dad and Mark may have been dissapointed but I can assure you 100%, the results any of you got from your engine had absolutly nothing to do with any parts I supplied or any involvement I have had with that car.

Then, at the end you say you changed the turbo and "got it mapped properly" and now you ARE impressed with the car, so are you now happy with the RIPS shortblock?? I'm not quite sure what point your were trying to get accross TBH.


Rob


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

bayside gtr said:


> hi to everyone i dont want to get involved but i got to say something now. i have my dads old car red r32 h16 gtr what did have a os giken rb30,anyway rips nz u do realise i have your bottom end in my car which mark biggers built and got up and running when he owned it and was not impressed so i bought car of him and i must admit waas not very impressed either,so me dad tweaked around with it changing few settings on car and done what i thought a reasonable time of 11.03 at 128mph 60 ft time 1.5 at santa pod. anyway my dad had a go at round 2 of hks series and said he felt embarassed to drive car cause it was so slow after what it did run before.so i thought ok lets change turbo so we took of t04z and put on my dads old turbo t76 on, then i thought i would get it mapped properly by engine advantages and i must admit i am now very impressed with car and hoping to run in the 10,s this weekend


Clearly you not intending to turn THIS thread into a MKII version of the other one are you????

































TT


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Smokey 1 said:


> The Taisan ran a 10.59 @ 133 mph, Rob any ideas of what power it is making? sorry forgot it weighs 1468 kg's without me in it, measured on corner scale's.


Lets say you weigh 80kg?? that makes 1548kg.

615whp is whats needed to run 133mph and the ideal time is a 10.0 so your doing very well also.

If you got your 60fts down into the very low 1.4s or 1.3s you'd probably get a 9 from your current power,

Rob


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

tarmac terror said:


> Clearly you not intending to turn THIS thread into a MKII version of the other one are you????
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly, what I would have rather been able to reply to you was that your making about 550whp to do the mph you've done so far and good luck with the 10s :thumbsup:


----------



## Smokey 1 (Nov 1, 2005)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Lets say you weigh 80kg?? that makes 1548kg.
> 
> 615whp is whats needed to run 133mph and the ideal time is a 10.0 so your doing very well also.
> 
> ...



whp= wheel horse power? is that right.

how will I manage to get the 60 ft's down?

by the way I am running toyo 888's they are a track tyre


cheers


Smokey :thumbsup:


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

RKTuning said:


> Rob
> can you confirm how much gas is involved in your hp figures?
> on ludders car


Rob???


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

Smokey 1 said:


> whp= wheel horse power? is that right.
> 
> how will I manage to get the 60 ft's down?
> 
> ...


Quickest way would to fit mickey thompsons on the rear
ron


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

RKTuning said:


> Quickest way would to fit mickey thompsons on the rear
> ron


Or slap in a big topfuel V8 with a couple of thousand horses . Something not dissimilar to this:-









Stick two fingers up to the RB I say...all it does is break :chuckle:

TT


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

tarmac terror said:


> Or slap in a big topfuel V8 with a couple of thousand horses . Something not dissimilar to this:-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i think that will make his 60fts double:chairshot


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

RKTuning said:


> i think that will make his 60fts double:chairshot












TT


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

RKTuning said:


> Rob
> can you confirm how much gas is involved in your hp figures?
> on ludders car


Sorry, didn't see that question there.

None on any of the graphs posted so far.

Rob


----------



## RKTuning (Nov 7, 2005)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Sorry, didn't see that question there.
> 
> None on any of the graphs posted so far.
> 
> Rob


So the 9.7 and the 144mph is without gas?
Ron


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

To add to that last comment.

We don't use NOS to make more power, pretty much every dyno graph I have shows extreemly low hp gains up top, its all about torque in the right places, so even our NOS runs don't effect peek power very much at all and we've only ever used a very small single fogger, never the 6 port systems.


Rob


----------



## Asim R32GTR (Sep 24, 2003)

Rob, 

would you like to share the way you calculate hp from speed/ weight?

Thanks
Asim


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

RKTuning said:


> So the 9.7 and the 144mph is without gas?
> Ron


The 9.7 done here was without but I think Jeff used the nos in 3rd and 4th on his 144mph runs.

As I say, unless the NOS is used HARD off the line it makes very little difference to times or mph when you have just a 50hp shot on a 1000+hp engine.

Once Jeff gets some grip and gets to know how to get the best from the nos at the right times during the run, his times will plumit.

Rob


----------



## Adam Kindness (Jun 22, 2002)

http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm


----------



## Asim R32GTR (Sep 24, 2003)

These calculations cant be right??

My car is about 1520kg with me in it, and i did a 11.8 and 201.6kmh (with a slipping clutch in 3rd 4th gear) 1.999sec 60fot time.
This makes out to be 551hp at the wheels?

My friend in his old audi did 10.04 and 193.7kmh, his car is about 1450 (plus driver)kg 1.48sec 60fot time. 
And i know this audi has got about 950hp.
This makes out to be about 476hp at the wheels?

Will check up and confirm the weight of this audi tomorrow i could be far off on the weight.

Here is a clip of the 10sec pass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erP1PzDMG-Q

Asim


EDIT:
I made a mistake about the speed, when i look at this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_rgeougyco&feature=related
We can see at the end that he does a 9.64 and 241kmh. This will give him about 990hp at the wheels, which is more correct.
These calculations are correct after all


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Based on the weight you said and 100kg for him, he needed 880whp to do what it did which is bang on for the power you say it is, quick car by the way, a real sleeper, well done to him!!!


----------



## GeorgeGTR (Feb 16, 2006)

My road/track car did
2540's 530whp -1400kg - 1.42 60ft - 10.51 @ 131 mph



What time would a 1100kg - 800hp do ?


----------



## Asim R32GTR (Sep 24, 2003)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Based on the weight you said and 100kg for him, he needed 880whp to do what it did which is bang on for the power you say it is, quick car by the way, a real sleeper, well done to him!!!


This car is a really fast one, think it is the fastest "street car" in norway.
He did beat Norris`s Evo last year on a track here in Norway.

And this is a what you call a budget build, when you look at it, it looks like its been put together by duct tape and wire clips 

But it still does mid 9`s all day long!

Asim


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

1100kg and say 680-700whp (about 800bhp usually) 155mph and on a real good run its possible to get down to 8.8sec.

Rob


----------



## blue34 (Jul 28, 2005)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Your actually doing very well indeed, using the same formular as every other example I have posted you needed 620whp to do the mph you have run and on a real clean run its possible to get down to around 10.4 with 128mph.
> 
> Rob


That's a good match to the dyno figures then which confirms the weight/terminal speed whp calculation is reasonably accurate. 

It's just maths at the end of the day accelerating a weight of X to a speed of Y over a distance Z will have a minimum power requirement. Sure it can also be done with more power, even with wheelspin, a headwind, a botched gearchange etc.. but for practical purposes you can ignore all these factors because even a theoretically perfect run can't change the laws of physics.

PS Apologies I didn't mention Johnny McKeon's RK Tuning car in an earlier post - Johnny is still in the lead overall...


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

So........... with several examples of a variety of cars and all of them backing up mph V weight V power etc, all done with the same formular, are we starting to agree that my original comments may in fact be true?? Its just that the thread has gone awefully quiet now that some facts are being layed out for all to see.

Another example: There is no question the White is making good power.

The white at 1200kg (what Mick told me it weighed) and 171 mph requires 1040whp.

Mick hasn't had a real good run yet and his mph may come up a fraction with a good 60ft time and a real clean run but even at say 175mph (which is good enough for 7.85) it requires 1080whp which is still very close to the same required whp as a 1750kg car running 150mph.

Thoughts? Ideas?? Comments??

Lets keep it clean, no crap, just constructive comments.

Rob


----------



## m6beg (Apr 21, 2003)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> So........... with several examples of a variety of cars and all of them backing up mph V weight V power etc, all done with the same formular, are we starting to agree that my original comments may in fact be true?? Its just that the thread has gone awefully quiet now that some facts are being layed out for all to see.
> 
> Another example: There is no question the White is making good power.
> 
> ...



? For you Rob.

Say the White was running 900 atw as we are only running low boost at the min. And ran a 8.49 at 168 mph or ran a 8.71 @ 171mph. Does that **** the system up or is that within the knowledge of the theory. Or is it due to the lack of traction. I dunno.


Mick


----------



## Smokey 1 (Nov 1, 2005)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> So........... with several examples of a variety of cars and all of them backing up mph V weight V power etc, all done with the same formular, are we starting to agree that my original comments may in fact be true?? Its just that the thread has gone awefully quiet now that some facts are being layed out for all to see.
> 
> Another example: There is no question the White is making good power.
> 
> ...



Rob what is the formula for working this out?
Or are you looking at a scale showing time V weigh V power ?



Smokey :smokin:


----------



## m6beg (Apr 21, 2003)

What happens if you don't know the power??


Mick


----------



## Hugo (Oct 1, 2007)

Begely bro's your'e missing the point! :chairshot 

You don't need a horsepower figure because that's exactly what youre guestimating with this formula.


----------



## m6beg (Apr 21, 2003)

Hugo said:


> Begely bro's your'e missing the point! :chairshot
> 
> You don't need a horsepower figure because that's exactly what youre guestimating with this formula.


Ahhh sorry dude.

I thought it was a correct formula not a guess.

I suppose we need to back to the drawing board then.


Mick


----------



## Hugo (Oct 1, 2007)

m6beg said:


> Ahhh sorry dude.
> 
> I thought it was a correct formula not a guess.
> 
> ...


Oh no it is correct. When you know weight, distance, and speed you can calculate the MINIMUM amount of horsepower of let's say your 1200kg Duke needs to achieve 175mph in 1/4 mile. It's just physics.


----------



## Smokey 1 (Nov 1, 2005)

m6beg said:


> Ahhh sorry dude.
> 
> I thought it was a correct formula not a guess.
> 
> ...


Mick FFS, you can loose anyone of the values and still calculate the missing one

ie if say car A runs a 120 mph terminal with 500 BHP then you can find out the time in a perfect world and how much it weighs

so if car B runs a 10.8 with 500Bhp you can work out the terminal speed plus weight

if car C weighs 1400 kg's and runs 9.9 1/4 then you can work out the terminal speed and power of the car.

Bloody hell after typing all that I hope I am right 




Smokey :thumbsup:


----------



## Smokey 1 (Nov 1, 2005)

By the way class does anyone have all three correct answers?







Smokey :thumbsup:


----------



## Hugo (Oct 1, 2007)

A lot more info + lots of calculators here:

Stealth 316 - Formulas for 1/4 mile ET & mph vs. hp & wgt

Easy peasy with these Smokey!! :chuckle:
I cheated sir!


----------



## Smokey 1 (Nov 1, 2005)

Seems like there are a hell of a lot of variables that will alter these formulae
but I think it is safe to say the men with far more scientific minds than I have had a go and all came up near enough on the button.

vehicle weight 
engine power, and the details of the torque or horsepower curve 
coefficient of friction of the tires on the track 
aerodynamic drag 
moment of inertia and frictional loss of moving parts 
drivetrain gearing 
shifting mechanisms 
location of the vehicle's vertical and horizontal center of gravity 
driver skill 

but the last one I think is what it is all about and where the most gain can be achieved. A mapper I know data logged some runs and found the driver was not applying 100% throttle when asked the driver said yes I was flat out but the data log indicated he had only applied 86% throttle, next time you run up a strip think about that and try to kick the pedal through the floor and then compare your times, maybe it was just me but I did improve mine

why do I have a bad launch and run a slower time but end up with a higher terminal speed?



Smokey :thumbsup:


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

m6beg said:


> ? For you Rob.
> 
> Say the White was running 900 atw as we are only running low boost at the min. And ran a 8.49 at 168 mph or ran a 8.71 @ 171mph. Does that **** the system up or is that within the knowledge of the theory. Or is it due to the lack of traction. I dunno.
> Mick


The mph is a very accurate indication of the "average power" you have used and traction, 60ft times, driver, etc all play a part in the ET you'll get from X power in X weight.

Thats why your mph is right up there but your ETs are about 5 - 7 10ths down, its not your driving neccessarily, its just a combination of your 60ft times and traction mainly I'd say.

168mph in 1200kg works out at 970whp and a perfect run is aprox 8.15
171mph in 1200kg works out at 1040whp and a perfect run is aprox 8.00

You were obviously making more than 900whp (or you weigh less than 1200kg) on both of these runs and on the 171 mph run, you obviously got a little more grip or your 'average power' for the run was a little higher due to different shift points, etc.

There are a HUGE amount of factors in getting a good solid clean pass but even with a pretty average run (as you have shown) the mph still usually backs up the power V weight formulars pretty well.

The drag-r has run a 2.0 60ft, an 11.8 on the 1/4 but still got 144mph, this is a good example of how a very poor run can still give a good indication of whp.

Rob


----------



## minifreak (Mar 4, 2006)

this was an interesting thread untill youlot stepped in:chairshot:chairshot:runaway:


----------



## Smokey 1 (Nov 1, 2005)

minifreak said:


> this was an interesting thread untill youlot stepped in:chairshot:chairshot:runaway:


now now get back to your corner and make sure the champ is ready for Sunday :thumbsup:


Smokey :clap:


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

m6beg said:


> I thought it was a correct formula not a guess.


It is a correct formular and its extreemly accurate.

Your making good power, there is no dought about that but as usual at this level of racing, having it and using all of it efficiently are 2 entirley different things.

Another example which will make you feel better, lol:

The 240z at 1350kg running 162mph needs 980whp but its ultimate best ET is a 8.4 and I have a best to date of 8.71 so I'm 3 10ths off what it should do as well.

If we run 170mph we'll have needed 1130whp to do so, all using the same formular.

I think its clear that the white is "using" similar power to the 240z or the drag-r but on a suitable dyno that can hold and measure properly it may well measure more.

Measuring power doesn't get you down the strip though, "using" it does.

Rob


----------



## Smokey 1 (Nov 1, 2005)

Rob I did ask this question, maybe you did not see it first time.



Smokey 1 said:


> why do I have a bad launch and run a slower time but end up with a higher terminal speed?
> 
> 
> 
> Smokey :thumbsup:


any ideas


Smokey :thumbsup:


----------



## minifreak (Mar 4, 2006)

Smokey 1 said:


> now now get back to your corner and make sure the champ is ready for Sunday :thumbsup:
> 
> 
> Smokey :clap:


youve lost me there


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Smokey 1 said:


> Rob I did ask this question, maybe you did not see it first time.


You obviously were that pissed off at your bad start you made a good job of the rest and got your mph that way, lol.

Your mph is still a very good indication of the whp you have.
I'm positive you'll find you can't run higher mph than this formular allows.

Your time is lost due to traction, driver, suspension etc but your mph is still what it is due the whp you have

maybe with some wheelspin, your engine is right on song and although your 60fts were bad it ran real sharp the rest of the way.

Unfortunatly drags are won with times not mph but if ever there is a mph contest I'll try doing a shit start and see if your idea works!! :thumbsup: lol.

Rob


----------



## Smokey 1 (Nov 1, 2005)

I remember talking to Dan from Abbey and Mick about this, Tim Webster managed to prove that it is down to something else I can for the life of me remember now.

I did see Mick 1st run in the White and he bogged like a good un but produced a stupid terminal speed. I don't think it was due to the fact that he was rolling before power was delivered 100% to the floor, as you say wheel spin which is less likely to occur whilst the car is moving, which it would be having launched but bogged. During the bogged launch time is elapsing but the car still moves towards the line power back on no wheel spin quicker terminal?






Smokey :smokin:


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

who knows whats happening with the White but to get the mph he has it needs a certain amount of power to be delivered to the track.

To me, he has X amount of power and not using all of it efficiently (which is the normal thing to have happen)

There is no way he can run higher mph than a simple power/weight formular allows for, its against basic laws of physics so its either lighter or making more power than he claims.

Maybe thats the problem, we have down hill tail wind tracks and you guys have locked up and done over poor old Newton!!! Lol.

Rob


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

I did a 11.7 @106 but if you get a clean run the calculators are right


----------



## m6beg (Apr 21, 2003)

paul cawson said:


> I did a 11.7 @106 but if you get a clean run the calculators are right


Paul.

Have you done a clean run?

Mick


----------



## Smokey 1 (Nov 1, 2005)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> who knows whats happening with the White but to get the mph he has it needs a certain amount of power to be delivered to the track.
> 
> Rob


Thanks Rob for the answer, a car moving off the line flat out bogs at 20 mph applying X amount of power directly to the floor ie no wheel spin, at 20 mph will accelerate quicker to its terminal speed?

A car sat on the line giving full beans wheel spinning gripping and the taking off will get there quicker in time but slower in speed.
Is that right, I mean it is just basic and in now way involves aerodynamic drag influences in body position or air travel under and over the vehicle.
I have a mate who is well into this kind off stuff I will ask him the same and see what he comes up with






Smokey :thumbsup:


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

No the engine failed shortly after at Snetterton due to oil surge. But I do have another I am building based a standard RB26 86.0 bore standard stroke Billet full counter crank.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Smokey 1 said:


> Thanks Rob for the answer, a car moving off the line flat out bogs at 20 mph applying X amount of power directly to the floor ie no wheel spin, at 20 mph will accelerate quicker to its terminal speed?
> 
> A car sat on the line giving full beans wheel spinning gripping and the taking off will get there quicker in time but slower in speed.
> Is that right?


Your almost completely round the wrong way, lol.

The car that bogs at 20mph has also moved down the strip with the initial leap so although you may have 20 mph on board, you are then, in effect, running on a shorter strip. (keep in mind its common for a good car to be doing 50-60mph by the 60ft mark and you will have rolled past the 60ft mark with a good bog and recovery) Your ET and mph will suffer in that case.

If you wheelspin at the start, its quite common to still run near your normal mph with a slower ET.

One scenario you havn't considered is this:

How about you leave the line HARD, don't bog and have the correct amount of wheelspin?? Surely that would then give you the best chance at a got ET and mph??

Rob


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Agreed completely with above. I tried raising the traction level of my car and have discovered the rear end needs stiffening up a bit, I get axle tramp leaving the line hard (~5500rpm) with any traction so as a result I had to effectively idle off the line and floor it. I ran virtually identical times with no wheelspin and bogged launches as I did with wheelspin when launching "on boost" before the changes but with higher trap speeds with the traction loss.


----------

