Post your datazap datalogs !!

[RAAMaudio]

I rely on decades of actual experience in building and racing as well as street driven cars, seeing hundreds of race cars, research, etc.....data is not the only answer and in fact I have questioned more than a few engineers data and proven it flawed in actual use where it really matters on more than a few occasions.

Though not the same area of a car this is an example of an engineers ego getting in the way of experience:
1) Building Vette road race car, a Very fast one, team and parts manf invited me to be on their race team but I am too independent for that.
2) Also building a highly modded street/track C6 at the same time.
3) Bought their silicone/aluminum suspension bushing kit and noted no way to lube them, prior experince and the selected materials, loads, etc led me to believe they would start binding up after little use.
4) I asked the shop/team owner, he directed me to his engineer that designed them, I asked him about drilling and tapping to zerts into the control arms and through the bushines, slot them to get it to flow around well, he said absolutely not needed and was a bit butt hurt I asked because he was the ENGINEER.
5) It is very physically demanding job and I am partially disabled though have a complete shop including lift, 10 hours later done.
6) Within 1000 miles dry roads, nice weather, the car was riding much stiffer, handling worse and squeaking.
7) 12 hours later of even harder work I installed 21 zerts, parts I had to use a press to take apart went together using my fingers once lubed properly instead of the super sticky long life snot stuff the kit came with.
8) The car road and handled far better than it ever had and I could lube it all in 10 minutes while doing an oil change on my lift.
9) He was really butt hurt when I bought this to their attention and they had to dump hundreds of sets and design them all over.

My input had nothing to do with data, it was from real world experience just like my intake is from, it possible to test my car stock with this intake it would be better and better than anything else sold yet that has a more normal air inlet area or one with an added snorkel on the bottom, I know, because I know. You do not know, because you do not know.

You have nothing but the same old thing to come back to which is already addressed quite well, if you cannot look at something and see the inherent effectiveness then I suppose you just are not capable of comprehending it and or have little real world experience so playing keyboard commando is your only resort.

Want to keep playing or stop this silly stuff yet?

 

[dyn085]

I rely on decades of actual experience in building and racing as well as street driven cars, seeing hundreds of race cars, research, etc.....data is not the only answer and in fact I have questioned more than a few engineers data and proven it flawed in actual use where it really matters on more than a few occasions.

Though not the same area of a car this is an example of an engineers ego getting in the way of experience:
1) Building Vette road race car, a Very fast one, team and parts manf invited me to be on their race team but I am too independent for that.
2) Also building a highly modded street/track C6 at the same time.
3) Bought their silicone/aluminum suspension bushing kit and noted no way to lube them, prior experince and the selected materials, loads, etc led me to believe they would start binding up after little use.
4) I asked the shop/team owner, he directed me to his engineer that designed them, I asked him about drilling and tapping to zerts into the control arms and through the bushines, slot them to get it to flow around well, he said absolutely not needed and was a bit butt hurt I asked because he was the ENGINEER.
5) It is very physically demanding job and I am partially disabled though have a complete shop including lift, 10 hours later done.
6) Within 1000 miles dry roads, nice weather, the car was riding much stiffer, handling worse and squeaking.
7) 12 hours later of even harder work I installed 21 zerts, parts I had to use a press to take apart went together using my fingers once lubed properly instead of the super sticky long life snot stuff the kit came with.
8) The car road and handled far better than it ever had and I could lube it all in 10 minutes while doing an oil change on my lift.
9) He was really butt hurt when I bought this to their attention and they had to dump hundreds of sets and design them all over.

My input had nothing to do with data, it was from real world experience just like my intake is from, it possible to test my car stock with this intake it would be better and better than anything else sold yet that has a more normal air inlet area or one with an added snorkel on the bottom, I know, because I know. You do not know, because you do not know.

Your rebuttal is adding zerk fittings to bushings? I'm sure your real-world experience is similar to all of the other members that drilled holes in their boxes and asserted their gains. Just like your statements, there is no data to support that mod either.

have nothing but the same old thing to come back to which is already addressed quite well, if you cannot look at something and see the inherent effectiveness then I suppose you just are not capable of comprehending it and or have little real world experience so playing keyboard commando is your only resort.

Looking at 'the inherent effectiveness' doesn't work, and the fact that you want to turn this into a supposed lack of comprehension only tells me that you clearly don't understand the necessity of legitimate and comparable data. I can't imagine a single race team building a racecar for a race and not testing it in any way, let alone then stating that their car is going to be the best because of 'common engineering practices'. Do you seriously not understand that?

Want to keep playing or stop this silly stuff yet?

I've asked you repeatedly to post data for discussion and you don't, so how is this my fault in any way?

 

[RAAMaudio]

You sir have ran out of anything to say so just keep spouting off the same old crap.

I was just using a very simple story so perhaps you could understand that data is not everything, never will be, never could be.

If one builds race and street cars for 47 years they might have real world experience in a far ranging field, as I have and also spent 20 years in ultra high end electronics, designed and built my own house, gunsmithing, built the worlds lightest full suspension mountain bike, spent time learning from an F1 aerodynamsist (never seem to spell that one right) and at least 50 other things.

My data will be in lap times on the track in a very reliable, superbly sorted out and safe at speed car.

The only other FiST I know of that is built for the street and track that would give me competition is Rod's car which will be very fast.

 

[dyn085]

You sir have ran out of anything to say so just keep spouting off the same old crap.

I was just using a very simple story so perhaps you could understand that data is not everything, never will be, never could be.

If one builds race and street cars for 47 years they might have real world experience in a far ranging field, as I have and also spent 20 years in ultra high end electronics, designed and built my own house, gunsmithing, built the worlds lightest full suspension mountain bike, spent time learning from an F1 aerodynamsist (never seem to spell that one right) and at least 50 other things.

My data will be in lap times on the track in a very reliable, superbly sorted out and safe at speed car.

The only other FiST I know of that is built for the street and track that would give me competition is Rod's car which will be very fast.

I'm spouting off the same crap because you just don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying-no number of stories or assumptions will qualify your decisions in this thread-only data. It's literally exactly why the thread exists-to share, compare, and analyze data (more specifically, datalogs). I don't care what you've done prior to the FiST because it's almost completely irrelevant.

I can make certain changes to one aircraft and have it work well, and even though it's under the same theory or principle it can result in something 'not so well' on a different aircraft. Very little is a 'direct' improvement without specific data to support it, and just because something should 'technically' be better doesn't necessarily mean that it is. I don't care if you've done nothing but build cars your entire life-every platform and system is different and the only way you can determine if changes have made a positive effect is to qualify it with data.

 

[RAAMaudio]

As per another thread, I am very respectful of you being an aircraft mechanic. I do not recall seeing that before and I have a good friend in that field and more...it helps me understand your reasoning as I know the requirements of maintaining an aircraft fairly well. I actually maintained all my gear in the Navy to that level, higher than I could of, we were so good we used to get investigated not just always have the top evaluations, they thought we cheated on our performance logs, when the whole battle group including all the aircraft rely on your real time tactical data you better do it right.

I cannot prove what I have done, what I believe beyond doubt it is the best but since based on something I cannot gather data on so I will leave it at that, agree to disagree.

Good day
Rick

 

[Hijinx]

Data is not a good substitute for experience and vice versa. Relying solely on one or the other is folly. I suggest, to avoid further discourse, that we keep an open mind toward both, not allowing ourselves to be consumed by the tunnel vision of our beliefs.

 

[dyn085]

Data is not a good substitute for experience and vice versa. Relying solely on one or the other is folly. I suggest, to avoid further discourse, that we keep an open mind toward both, not allowing ourselves to be consumed by the tunnel vision of our beliefs.

If that's what you gather out of my posts then you are mistaken. Experience gives you a good starting point to minimize the amount of testing you should ultimately need to do, but you absolutely can rely on data in the absence of experience-and through testing you actually gain it. The inverse, however, is not true-with plenty of experience you do not automatically gain data (though in having legitimate experience someone should already know that they must accumulate data, but I digress).

No one but Ford had experience on the ST before it was introduced to us. If we use pro-tuners as an example, absolutely none of them write a custom tune that is perfect for a member the first time around simply because of their experience. They make a few changes based on their experience and then have you test and log it for review. After they review the data, they make additional changes, and so on.

An over-simplified but still pertinent example-Anyone can learn to write a tune simply based on data analysis and testing, and at some point every tuner currently available had no experience in what is now ultimately their trade. It comes at the expense of time, because where a tuner has the experience to know a safe start point an inexperienced person must test to find it. Again, over-simplified and not necessarily the greatest example, but the general premise remains the same.

Certain people wanted to discount my completely valid questions many months ago, and with that personal bias they immediately discounted all of my experience. That was their choice, but they ultimately ended up using my recommendations-albeit months later. All this personal vendetta has done is stall community progression and help us lose very valuable members.

It's good to have ideas based on past experience, because without them we would literally be stuck and not move forward. I'm not trying to discount experience in any way, simply trying to convey the message that datalogging/testing absolutely must be done to verify 'concepts' based on that experience. Why certain people don't understand that is beyond me, but this is literally what I've been preaching the whole time I've been in this community.

Tl;dr-Anyone with experience has been datalogging and testing for many months because that's the only way to actually further experience-without testing you're only guessing.

 

[RAAMaudio]

Hijinx,
Very well put, I agree completely and will use data as much as possible, I have a log book of my setup and will log everything I do on tracks as I travel so I can reference them, make adjustments with the closest known expectations, get back to the right setup for tracks I revisit, etc. I will log track sessions via the AP as I have done every session so far and will have a Go Pro and track software running as well. Obviously nobody could tune this engine without a great deal of data. There are a few things I will not log, record, take pics of, post, etc, just not needed sometimes or so particular to my individual setup, common race knowledge, do not pertain to other FiST's, there is no point in posting them or even logging. Of course I have done many mods others will not do but I like to share the DIY behind them so others can see how to do things and save money as well as get the satisfaction of such fun stuff, even if not the same parts they can get an idea of that side of the mod world

Note: I am building my car to work very very well in most all situations only requiring a few things to dial it in, shock settings, tire pressures, sway bar setting if I run the 5-way rear bar and perhaps front camber and toe for the track and the street, it is a compromise but not a big one done well when you know what you are after and have the experience of doing this before. Keep it simple is best, finely sorted out but simple to tune it. Knowing not to lower the car to much to maintain proper geometry is a great aid as I can have one setting for the track and street, less to do when I get there, more driving time, less fiddling around, more time to relax between runs, etc...I will not have much to log but will log it all meticulously.

 

[Rhinopolis]

2015 FiST 770 miles, COBB AP OTS Stg 1 w/91 octane setting being run on Chevron 93 octane gas. I am concerned as knock appears on both of my logs shared below. Can someone please explain to me what might be happening and if this is normal? Also, cylinder 1 appears to be doing different things than the other cylinders on the correction monitor. How should I interpret what cyclinder 1 is doing and why?

Second 3rd gear pull after car had been run for at least 20 minutes and maybe longer

http://www.datazap.me/u/rhinopolis/...-octane-3rd-gear-pull?log=0&data=4-8&mark=280

First 3rd gear pull after the car had been driven a little over 5 miles since cold

http://www.datazap.me/u/rhinopolis/6-7-15-first-ap-stg-1-91-octane-3rd-gear?log=0&data=4-8

Thanks,

Ryan

 

[Rhinopolis]

I uploaded the AP OTS Stage 1 93 octane tune and went on a several mile test drive this morning, allowing the car to get at least 8 miles with the new tune before data logging 4 different logs. See the "BEST" of the 4 results here, 223 lbs estimated trq

http://www.datazap.me/u/rhinopolis/6-8-15-fourth-ap-stg-1-93-octane?log=0&data=4-8-9

Compared to the logs above with the Stg 1 91 octane tune and a best 247 lbs estimated trq from the graphs above, I decided to run the 91 octane stg 1 tune from here forward and until going stg 2. Btw, after I got home and read the Stg 1 93 octane logs and uploaded the 91octane tune back on to the car, I went on another run to data log the car and pretty much came away with identical results as above, except for a new best of 252 lbs trq registered on the AP and while not data logging.

Why does the 91 octane tune seem to run better than the 93 on my car? I use Chevron 93 octane gas from the same pump, and my octane adjust ration remains a constant -1 across the board on all my data logs.

 

[dyn085]

I uploaded the AP OTS Stage 1 93 octane tune and went on a several mile test drive this morning, allowing the car to get at least 8 miles with the new tune before data logging 4 different logs. See the "BEST" of the 4 results here, 223 lbs estimated trq

http://www.datazap.me/u/rhinopolis/6-8-15-fourth-ap-stg-1-93-octane?log=0&data=4-8-9

Compared to the logs above with the Stg 1 91 octane tune and a best 247 lbs estimated trq from the graphs above, I decided to run the 91 octane stg 1 tune from here forward and until going stg 2. Btw, after I got home and read the Stg 1 93 octane logs and uploaded the 91octane tune back on to the car, I went on another run to data log the car and pretty much came away with identical results as above, except for a new best of 252 lbs trq registered on the AP and while not data logging.

Why does the 91 octane tune seem to run better than the 93 on my car? I use Chevron 93 octane gas from the same pump, and my octane adjust ration remains a constant -1 across the board on all my data logs.

Have you used V-Dyno yet? Using that or Excel to manually evaluate a full third-gear pull would be more accurate than the estimated torque gauge, though I don't think it's horribly inaccurate and probably good enough to draw general conclusions. I didn't see your actual cylinder timing in this log and would have been curious to see your total timing.

The FoST community saw this sort of issue early on, where the 91 tune produced better results than the 93, which I found odd. It could very well be the same thing here, I just personally never used that tune.

Edit: Also be aware that it takes a few consistent pulls for the ECU to properly establish all of its' parameters for optimal power. Just a general statement for others, it looks like you're already doing what you can to address that and make things consistent and comparable.

 

[Rhinopolis]

Here's a log that I made in 4th this morning before 6am, and am I correct in my understanding that the knock and ignition correction that I am seeing is "normal" because it is NOT falling in to extreme negative corrections?

http://www.datazap.me/u/rhinopolis/...ata=1-4-8-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-20-21-22-23

 

[dyn085]

I wouldn't be concerned, but is this back on the 91 map? Also, have you checked the gap on your plugs?

Here's an older log that I took for you to compare with-
http://www.datazap.me/u/dyn085/cobb-stage-3?log=0&data=4-9-16&trim=1&tmin=100.00&tmax=100.00

Think of it like this-your map is good for your fuel because your corrections aren't falling into the negative range, which would mean that you're getting corrections below your base timing. Falling below your base timing is a general indicator that your map is too aggressive. Also note that your corrections are followed by the cylinders advancing again, not continuing to try and dive further. These are both positive things.

With the dynamic timing there are many instances where the ignition can advance to try and take better advantage of the fuel. There are times that you might advance into the knock threshold, and there is always a possibility of the knock sensor picking up something that isn't actually knock. So long as you're not dropping below the minimum threshold you shouldn't really worry. Also note your ignition corrections and how it relates to the knock sensor count; I would use that information to drop some monitor for better resolution while logging.

 

[Rhinopolis]

That's a nice looking graph, and the ignition correction on your graph looks cleaner than mine.

I am presently running the AP OTS Stage 1 91 octane tune, but I fill up with Chevron 93. I've never checked spark plug gap on any car, and how does one go about checking the spark plug gap? Is it challenging to access the FiST's plugs?

 

[dyn085]

That's a nice looking graph, and the ignition correction on your graph looks cleaner than mine.

I am presently running the AP OTS Stage 1 91 octane tune, but I fill up with Chevron 93. I've never checked spark plug gap on any car, and how does one go about checking the spark plug gap? Is it challenging to access the FiST's plugs?

Haha, you'll get a kick out of this one then- http://www.datazap.me/u/dyn085/rev-2-c?log=0&data=4-9&trim=1&tmin=100.00&tmax=100.00

You'll need either feeler gauges (preferred) or a spark plug gauge to check the plug gap. You'll want to be cautious with changing gap as these are fine-wire plugs and are more delicate than standard plugs, maybe even buy one to practice with if you need. Removing plugs is simple-

Remove engine cover
Disconnect electrical connectors from the individual coils
Remove the two bolts holding each coil down (10mm, iirc)
Remove the individual coils
Remove spark plugs

As for the gap, OEM is 0.031". I personally use 0.028" due to the boost level, but once you're familiar with the process you'll be able to pull plugs and test different gaps with the AP3 and figure out what you like best. Installation torque should be around 14 ft-lbs, but I haven't seen actual specs. Snug plus a sixteenth to an eighth of a turn works as well. It's a 5/8' socket, though oddly I have to use a regular deep-well socket to get them loose/tighten and a spark plug socket to get it completely out. For some reason the spark plug socket is too thick to fit all the way down for some reason. Ymmv.

I'll try and edit some pics in tomorrow as it's too dark to get them right now.

Edit: I didn't attach that hyperlink to the spark plugs. (<-- or that one either)

 

[Rhinopolis]

Thanks! I am learning a lot related to understanding how to interpret the different datalog parameters, and now I can play with the spark plug gap too! Lol. It's like a dern playground in my garage these days, and my wife will now never see me on the weekends

Why do you adjust the plug gap to your own preference of .028"? Was this gap determined because of your datalogging, or is there some other thought process behind a different plug gap than spec?

Thanks,

Ryan

 

[dyn085]

The best spark plug gap tends to be just before spark blowout. In mildly-boosted cars (15-30 psi) it's generally recommended start testing around 0.026-0.028". Higher-boosted cars tend to start with even smaller gaps.

I started testing at 0.028", went to 0.031", then came back to 0.026". For my car, 0.028" worked the best, idled the best, and produced more power. Even though I didn't experience blowout the larger gap, the overall performance suffered noticeably.

And that's the great thing about having the AP3 and access to free tools like Datazap and V-Dyno-it's very easy to test different setups and verify legitimate gains (or losses).

 

[Siestarider]

Thanks for the plug gap info, now I have another set of tests to run. It had not occurred to me that plug gap might need to change from stock to get the most out of tunes. Always something new to learn.

 

[dyn085]

I would recommend trying different gaps for a week or so, and take note of what the original gaps are relative to your current mileage. Give your fuel trims time to reestablish and let the learning adapt. Take mental notes about idle and fuel economy, datalog a few WOT pulls for each setting, etc.

Make sure you put some anti seize on them for future maintenance.

 

[Rhinopolis]

Virtual Dyno is neat, see below and my last datalog COBB AP OTS Stage 1 91 Octane 4th gear pull 77F / 2015 FiST 880 miles, COBB FMIC plus charge pipes.