ZPOST
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   ZPOST > BMW Z4 Technical Talk > Engine, Exhaust, Drivetrain Modifications
  TireRack

SUPPORT ZPOST BY DOING YOUR TIRERACK SHOPPING FROM THIS BANNER, THANKS!
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-04-2012, 12:44 PM   #23
SmartBastard
Stupid as shit
 
SmartBastard's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 M Coupe
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria

Posts: 364
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoK View Post
yes... well that says it all then... doesn't it.

Some commercial chitchat is the perfect reason not to use your brains.....

Strange that the manufacturer website states something different:

"Projection of engine power according to DIN 70020, EEC 80/1269,ISO 1585,JIS D 1001,SAE J 1349 (optional)"

At least they're a bit more precautious with their statements.

Anyway, the 71kW drivetrain loss seems a bit exaggerated to me.
A lot of small cars don't even produce that amount of power.
Seems like this guys disagrees:
Quote:
Dear Sir,

what these people say is not correct, because we do not calculate the wheel power and the losses. We measure the wheel power and the losses. The strain gauge is detecting the force for the wheel power, and when we reach the max. rpm from the car, than we do the roll out and here we measure the losses from the car. Then we add these results and get therefore the engine power. On our dyno it is possible to measure in each gear, because the result for the engine power is the same. Try to do a power measurement in the fourth gear and in the fifth gear and you will see that the result is the same. The difference is, that the values for the wheel power and the drag power are different. And this is right, because it cannot be that you get the same wheel power and the same drag power (losses) in different gears. I hope I could answer your asks to your contentment.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Best Regards

Christian Rahner

Schulungsabteilung / Training Department
Telefon: +49 (0) 8374 / 585-247
Mail: Christian.Rahner@maha.de
SmartBastard is offline   Austria
0
Reply With Quote
      12-04-2012, 01:38 PM   #24
v3.2mc
Not a New Member
 
v3.2mc's Avatar
 
Drives: with both hands and both feet
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: midwest

Posts: 764
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
the text below if from Hotrod...

Quote:

How do chassis-dyno readings compare to engine-dyno readings? Is the amount of power lost through the drivetrain predictable with any degree of accuracy?

Many factors that influence test accuracy are common to all dynos, including engine dynos; these include temperature, airflow, barometric pressure, and torque calibration. But on chassis dynos, many additional factors can affect the results, factors much harder to control than those typically encountered on an engine dyno. Drivetrain losses vary according to gear selection (testing should usually be performed in the transmission's 1:1 gear to minimize this factor), fluid temperatures, acceleration/ load factors, drivetrain inertia, brake drag, the vehicle tie-down method, the weight over the axle, and tire selection, growth, and slippage.

The Dynapack's load brake attaches directly to the axle, eliminating the problems of tire

As TMR's Jeff Bert puts it, "An engine dyno is like weighing yourself with no clothes on; a chassis dyno is like trying to weigh yourself wearing clothes-sometimes you'll have shoes, sometimes pants, sometimes wet clothes, sometimes dry clothes." Although some of the latest dyno software adds sophisticated formulas and assumptions in an attempt to correlate rear-wheel numbers with flywheel numbers, there is really no way to measure, predict, or otherwise determine engine flywheel power from a chassis-dyno test with any repeatable certainty, particularly when using a common acceleration test.

People frequently claim that drivetrain loss is about 10 percent with a stick or 15-18 percent with an automatic. But SuperFlow's Harold Bettes says, "That's a percentage of what number? Obviously 15 percent of 400 hp is different than 15 percent of 700 hp." Also, flywheel horsepower minus 15 percent is different than rear-wheel horsepower plus 15 percent. Late-model drivetrains are often more efficient (they suffer fewer losses) than classic musclecar drivetrains. So assigning a fixed number is a guess, at best-and in a sense, it's really irrelevant: "The goal should be to end up going faster," says Mustang Dyno's Michael Caldwell. "That means ending up with more usable force at the wheels in every gear, which means knowing where you are-what works and what doesn't-and how to get to where you want to be. Better tires, more air, more fuel, and more efficient drivetrain parts, gear selection, and tuning will make it faster. Comparing engine power to wheel power is a distraction."

If you must have a comparison, the most accurate, repeatable way to compare results from an engine dyno and a chassis dyno is to conduct a loaded step test on each system, stabilizing the engine at each selected test rpm point. Ideally you'd do both tests in identical atmospheric conditions, making sure coolant and oil temperatures are the same. Any remaining difference would yield a fairly accurate estimate of the parasitic losses through the drivetrain.

...

What methods can be used to fudge or cheat chassis-dyno power numbers? What is a good giveaway that the numbers may be bogus or otherwise unreliable?

There are many ways to produce inaccurate results. Some methods are malicious; some are from poor test procedures. We've discussed how myriad environmental factors can affect the results. Obtaining consistent, accurate results in the first order requires controlling these variables to the extent possible. "If nothing is controlled, it's all bull," says Jeff Burt. "The more things are controlled, the more accurate the test will be." At a minimum, the facility should accurately correct for atmospheric conditions, which is standard practice for engine dyno-testing.

Varying the tie-down method or tension from run to run can significantly alter the results. Other ways to skew results include changing tire pressure, testing the car when the engine is very hot or cold, lying to the software about estimated wheel slip, hacking the software in general, moving the external dyno cooling fans closer or farther from the air inlet, and placing the temperature sensor in unusually cold or hot air so it skews the SAE correction factor.

Mustang and other manufacturers offer an above-ground option that teams the basic dyno mec

Although hydraulic and eddy-current dynos have the potential to be the most accurate, their myriad test regimens make them more vulnerable to the whims of unscrupulous operators. The strain gauges must be correctly calibrated. Vehicle weight, drag coefficients, and other variables must be correctly entered into the software if load testing is combined with vehicle simulation mode. Dynojet claims it's harder to fudge the numbers on a pure inertia dyno: "Since the mass is fixed, the actual measured results will be the same every time. If you looked at a dyno test as an experiment, the dyno would be the control," with the car, vehicle dynamics, and atmospheric conditions the variables. "On our dynos, the atmospheric conditions are sampled automatically, and there aren't any other user inputs that could skew the results one way or the other."

However, repeatability does not necessarily mean accuracy. Some experts maintain that inertia-dyno data may not actually represent the true power and torque produced by the vehicle being tested. For dead-nuts accuracy, the load-bearing dyno remains the standard. Just be suspicious of extremely favorable correction factors, power gains that don't make sense based on empirical evidence, or unusually high numbers. According to SuperFlow's Bettes, "A very good method of evaluation is to have the speed versus time plotted or to graph engine speed versus time. Another indication is the evaluation of how much fuel flow was used, and looking at brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) numbers. If in doubt on the correction process, one should ask to see the correction factor and its arithmetic components."

Finally, as previously stated, each manufacturer has its own math formulas buried deep within the dyno software. A competent operator will know the vagaries of his machine and how to compensate for them. However, the average hot rodder should realize that the results of chassis-dyno testing should not be used to compare one car against another; they are best suited for evaluating the effects of incremental changes on the same vehicle.

In other words, dynos are for tuning, racetracks are for racing.
but what do i know... i found this on the internet.
__________________
Go Pink For Vince's Family
#1498E86 | Sepang Bronze | Dark Sepang Leather | Carbon Leather Trim

v3.2mc is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-04-2012, 01:45 PM   #25
GuidoK
Some say...
 
GuidoK's Avatar
 
Drives: Z4 3.0i ESS TS2+
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Netherlands

Posts: 353
iTrader: (0)

With a roll out you cannot measure the drive losses.
First of all you use the other side of a gear (other side of the tooth) which is not 100% representable, and secondly they don't know the total moving mass of the drivetrain, so they dont know the part that is loss and the part that is stored kinetic energy.
Imho it's an equation with 2 variables, so it's still an estimate. Maybe a better one (or worse one) than the competition but still an estimate.
If drivetrain loss wasn't effected by the power that goes through the drivetrain it would be (easily) measurable at the wheels, but it isn't.

Anyway, the engine power is not what gets you running, it's the wheel power, so it's best to focus on that.
GuidoK is offline   Netherlands
0
Reply With Quote
      12-04-2012, 01:55 PM   #26
GuidoK
Some say...
 
GuidoK's Avatar
 
Drives: Z4 3.0i ESS TS2+
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Netherlands

Posts: 353
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by v3.2mc View Post
the text below if from Hotrod...

Many factors that influence test accuracy are common to all dynos, including engine dynos; these include temperature, airflow, barometric pressure,
These parameters are not so much an influence on the dynometer, but on the poweroutput of the engine

But the rest of the story gives a good picture.
A dynometer value itself says nothing; it's a fictional number.
Tuning your car and doing different dyno runs give an insight in the gains achieved, and when you want to compare, you should have a (verifiable) and documented list of runs from other cars on that same dynometer (under similar circumstances). Only then you can have an insight of your car's performance.
GuidoK is offline   Netherlands
0
Reply With Quote
      12-04-2012, 03:25 PM   #27
SmartBastard
Stupid as shit
 
SmartBastard's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 M Coupe
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria

Posts: 364
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by v3.2mc View Post
the text below if from Hotrod...



but what do i know... i found this on the internet.
Very nice post. It seems that chassis dynos changed a lot in recent years and while the problem of the operator is still there, if used correctly modern dynos can be pretty accurate.

I was pretty suprised by how many "dynometer engineers" we have here, who jumped right on the bandwagon. I'm not trying to defend chassis dynos, just trying to find out more about it. MAHA seems to be pretty credible manufacturer of dynos as they make a lot of professional gear including very expensive dynos for OEM manufactures like Audi, Volkswagen etc.
SmartBastard is offline   Austria
0
Reply With Quote
      12-04-2012, 03:35 PM   #28
v3.2mc
Not a New Member
 
v3.2mc's Avatar
 
Drives: with both hands and both feet
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: midwest

Posts: 764
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
ok.
__________________
Go Pink For Vince's Family
#1498E86 | Sepang Bronze | Dark Sepang Leather | Carbon Leather Trim

v3.2mc is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-04-2012, 08:55 PM   #29
O-cha
Brigadier General
 
O-cha's Avatar
 
Drives: Mcoupe
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In front of you

Posts: 4,729
iTrader: (2)

Send a message via AIM to O-cha
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartBastard View Post
Very nice post. It seems that chassis dynos changed a lot in recent years and while the problem of the operator is still there, if used correctly modern dynos can be pretty accurate.

I was pretty suprised by how many "dynometer engineers" we have here, who jumped right on the bandwagon. I'm not trying to defend chassis dynos, just trying to find out more about it. MAHA seems to be pretty credible manufacturer of dynos as they make a lot of professional gear including very expensive dynos for OEM manufactures like Audi, Volkswagen etc.
It doesn't take an engineer to understand basic physics. What's being told to you are simple, widely understood, facts.
__________________
O-cha is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-05-2012, 06:16 AM   #30
GuidoK
Some say...
 
GuidoK's Avatar
 
Drives: Z4 3.0i ESS TS2+
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Netherlands

Posts: 353
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartBastard View Post
I was pretty suprised by how many "dynometer engineers" we have here, who jumped right on the bandwagon.
It doesn't take a "dynometer engineer" to understand that you can only use the power on the wheels. A 4 year old kid can tell you that.
And if your dyno output is correct as you're saying all the time that's only 256 bhp for your car that gets you going. The other 93 bhp is just a waste of gas really

Last edited by GuidoK; 12-05-2012 at 06:32 AM.
GuidoK is offline   Netherlands
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
360 bhp, dyno, m coupe, z4m

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:37 AM.




zpost
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST