So what are the pluses and minuses of using an average for tq/hp dyno charts?

[Se7eN]

OP,

It's called area under the curve. in a dyno you have the capability of to scroll through the whole graph and see how much you gained in certain areas. Even in V-Dyno you can do it.

Example: Coyote Mustangs on stock intake manifold usually have more torque down low than with BOSS Manifold and still they change it out. Cause they due loose that low end grunt but gain 20+whp up top and also can spin the engine higher. They get more performance from not spinning the tires that much.

 

[TalkToTheFiST]

OP,

It's called area under the curve. in a dyno you have the capability of to scroll through the whole graph and see how much you gained in certain areas. Even in V-Dyno you can do it.

Example: Coyote Mustangs on stock intake manifold usually have more torque down low than with BOSS Manifold and still they change it out. Cause they due loose that low end grunt but gain 20+whp up top and also can spin the engine higher. They get more performance from not spinning the tires that much.

Yes i understand the concept but we should keep in mind what is a "usable" range in the RPMs for whoever is in question. So that Mustang that gains 20hp, since HP is the formula that actually measures speed/velocity (tq does not factor in time), then i'd bet for the upper rpm range that would be used for that extra 20hp, the average HP was increased.

This is why i made sure to clarify that we are talking about the most often used rpm ranges for a particular driver, or at least those that a person would be willing to rev to for the performance. For the thread topic and definitions we are talking about, i'd bet the BOSS manifold improves the Mustang in average HP, which is why people prefer it for performance.

I don't think we are disagreeing, i just think people don't usually look at averages by numbers, they just look at a graph.

 

[jeffreylyon]

while (we_haven't_learned_better) {
OP: I've got this great new idea, what do you think about it?
Forum: That's been tried and didn't work/Here's why that won't work/Here's a link for some more information.
OP: But you haven't thought of *this*. Really, this is a great idea that I came up with.
Forum: Really, here's a detailed explanation of why that isn't a good idea and why the accepted standard is better.
OP: No, really guys - look at this. It's better.
Forum: No, really, here's why it's not. Understand that we like *good* new ideas, but this one isn't good.
OP: But I think this is better - you should, too.
Forum: Well, we don't.
OP: What, do you think that they're lying in the YouTube videos from which I get all my information except that about vaccination cuz my wife has worked in the medical field for a long time and says they're BS and I read a book about physics so I know how to keep my wheels from spinning and I'm a really good driver even though I've never done a track day and, man-o-man, does the coolaid from RT and Trump taste good - you're all knuckle heads for not slurping it up. Educate yourself and fight the power!!
Forum:
}

 

[Clint Beastwood]

Yes i understand the concept but we should keep in mind what is a "usable" range in the RPMs for whoever is in question. So that Mustang that gains 20hp, since HP is the formula that actually measures speed/velocity (tq does not factor in time), then i'd bet for the upper rpm range that would be used for that extra 20hp, the average HP was increased.

This is why i made sure to clarify that we are talking about the most often used rpm ranges for a particular driver, or at least those that a person would be willing to rev to for the performance. For the thread topic and definitions we are talking about, i'd bet the BOSS manifold improves the Mustang in average HP, which is why people prefer it for performance.

I don't think we are disagreeing, i just think people don't usually look at averages by numbers, they just look at a graph.

I don't think you've really conveyed a valid "use case" for this idea - it's not useful, anywhere, in any manner that is an improvement to dyno charts.

I also think that it's important to realize that just because you have an idea doesn't mean it's workable or necessarily "good" - you put it out there, we came up with reasons that it doesn't make sense, but you are insisting it's relevant and good. You aren't going to sway us because we all know better, and are trying to help you understand why but you seem more interested in being right than actually discussing and learning this stuff.

You look at a graph and pay attention to the part relevant to you, and discard the part that isn't. That's how you tune things. You can tune for top RPM performance, or tons of torque down low, but the way you select a tune is by looking at the industry-standard Dyno graph and figuring out which one puts the power where you want it. You don't average these things because it would be a useless measurement.

Check this out - it's a dyno for a mostly stock Dodge SRT4 before and after basic tuning:

Now you can see how much earlier the torque peaks post-tuning. By being able to look at that Dyno, I know that's someone who's tuning for running on slicks as SRT4's had a hard time using first and second gears stock even with mechanical LSD. If you are just "averaging" things, you wouldn't have visibility to that. If you tried to run that tune on street tires, you'd probably burn through tires and break axles from wheel hop.

I get that you are trying to come up with a "different" way of looking at things, but "unique" doesn't necessarily mean "useful". A dyno tells you how much power you have, and where - there's no world in which that information is not relevant. You can choose to ignore it, sure, but averaging this stuff.... Hondas with Vtec can be pretty fast, but they only make power in a very narrow range - if you averaged that, it would look like a Fiat 500 Abarth was faster than an older Integra Type R, because the "average" would show the Fiat having higher "average" power - and there is no world in which the Fiat 500 Abarth could anywhere near keep up with a real Type R.

Sidebar - I used an SRT4 dyno (not mine) because in the bottom of my heart I still love the things, and was always obsessed with my factory freak that put down 242/268 bone stock at a dyno day, with 800 miles on the odo with an SVT tech running the dyno and hi-fiving me - back in 2004, stock for stock, SRT4's beat the pants off even the current new EU only Focus ST.

 

[Se7eN]

Yes i understand the concept but we should keep in mind what is a "usable" range in the RPMs for whoever is in question. So that Mustang that gains 20hp, since HP is the formula that actually measures speed/velocity (tq does not factor in time), then i'd bet for the upper rpm range that would be used for that extra 20hp, the average HP was increased.

This is why i made sure to clarify that we are talking about the most often used rpm ranges for a particular driver, or at least those that a person would be willing to rev to for the performance. For the thread topic and definitions we are talking about, i'd bet the BOSS manifold improves the Mustang in average HP, which is why people prefer it for performance.

I don't think we are disagreeing, i just think people don't usually look at averages by numbers, they just look at a graph.

I does improve the average but lowers the average tq. So the advantage is top end only. But the point would be seeing the graphs next to each other you can go ahead and figure it out.

Also would like to point out on Mustang Dyno brand dyno they actually do exactly what you are contemplating. They give you a lowest reading a highest reading and a average reading of HP and TQ, which would actually be what you are wanting to see. Only thing is they tend to read lower then most dynos.

 

[TalkToTheFiST]

I does improve the average but lowers the average tq. So the advantage is top end only. But the point would be seeing the graphs next to each other you can go ahead and figure it out.

Also would like to point out on Mustang Dyno brand dyno they actually do exactly what you are contemplating. They give you a lowest reading a highest reading and a average reading of HP and TQ, which would actually be what you are wanting to see. Only thing is they tend to read lower then most dynos.

Its odd they would include an average when, according to people here, its a pointless stat and we should just look at the curve.

 

[Hijinx]

Here’s why using avgs to compare cars isn’t useful:

A) 5+5+5+5+5= 25/5 = 5
B) 1+2+3+6+13 = 25/5 = 5

If we imagine these are cars and the set of numbers corresponds to output (HP) at an input (TQ), y and x respective, we see that car A is a horizontal line with no peaks. We also see that car B has an increasing line with a peak of 13.

With that information we can see which car is doing X amount of work and can compare that work.

Without that information all we can see is that two car do the average amount of work. We cannot determine which car will be faster (more work) or slower (less work) without the rest of the information.

We can go a step further:

B) 1+2+3+6+13 = 25/5 = 5
C) 1+2+2+5+18= 28/5 = 5.6

So, car C has an even higher peak than B, however, car Bs work is more even spread out. This case would represent B being a hybrid turbo car and C being a big turbo car with a lot of lag.

How should you interpret this?

This is the point... These numbers do not exist in a vacuum. Car B would drag Car C in a race because d = rt. The more work you can do sooner (and keep that rate of work or increase it) the more distance you will cover over time.

I hope that clarifies why using an avg doesn’t really help you when comparing cars.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Se7eN]

here is a Graph as it comes out when you do a dyno run on a Mustang Dyno. In the bottom you can see there is an Average as well as the peak/max and the minimum.

 

[Clint Beastwood]

Its odd they would include an average when, according to people here, its a pointless stat and we should just look at the curve.

It's not the type of average you are asking for, it's the average peaks across multiple runs.

They add the averages so people that don't understand the graphs can see if something is bigger or smaller.

 

[TalkToTheFiST]

here is a Graph as it comes out when you do a dyno run on a Mustang Dyno. In the bottom you can see there is an Average as well as the peak/max and the minimum.

View attachment 23050

I don't know who makes that dyno but somebody should tell them they are doing it wrong, no point in offering averages, they are useless...

 

[TalkToTheFiST]

It's so people that don't understand graphs can still see if something is bigger or smaller.

That is literally what it is for. To appease the lowest common denominator.

Gotcha, well at least they are looking out for the ignorant people who can't figure how to read a graph.

 

[jeff]

Well i appreciate the heads up but that's too bad this place is like that. If people are bothered by that then they are free to ignore me, i won't even be mad.

I appreciate your enthusiasm as well. There's nothing wrong with posting a lot if it is necessary. I've read a few of your threads and the recurring vibe is that you ask questions, are given sincere advice, and then don't listen. I think that's why people are becoming worn out and offering you some constructive criticism. I for one lost interest in trying to help when I watched you soundly ignore solid advice from a half dozen people on more than one topic. It gets exhausting and it would be easy for forum members to feel they are wasting their time trying to help someone who does not seem to pay attention to any opinions but his own.

Vdyno should only be used for generalization, it is quite inaccurate. If you want an idea of power/torque you'll need a trip to a real dynamometer. In my case, and possibly for others as well, it is rewarding because it helps us know what the max capability of our cars are. After all the money spent and hard work it's nice to see how far the car has come.

 

[TalkToTheFiST]

I appreciate your enthusiasm as well. There's nothing wrong with posting a lot if it is necessary. I've read a few of your threads and the recurring vibe is that you ask questions, are given sincere advice, and then don't listen. I think that's why people are becoming worn out and offering you some constructive criticism. I for one lost interest in trying to help when I watched you soundly ignore solid advice from a half dozen people on more than one topic. It gets exhausting and it would be easy for forum members to feel they are wasting their time trying to help someone who does not seem to pay attention to any opinions but his own.

Vdyno should only be used for generalization, it is quite inaccurate. If you want an idea of power/torque you'll need a trip to a real dynamometer. In my case, and possibly for others as well, it is rewarding because it helps us know what the max capability of our cars are. After all the money spent and hard work it's nice to see how far the car has come.

Well i think me not listening is a bad summation. I currently have two "mods" in my car i chose to buy, an AP and an e30 tune, both of which were specifically suggested by most everybody and i ended up going with the advice that they are better than the race chip (and i agree now). I may have tip toed around some other options but within a couple weeks of initiating the chip thread, i had followed the advice of you and others.

And that's the only purchases i have made so far, im actually batting 1000 when it comes to following advice, a far cry from what you mention above. I do play devil's advocate, i do that no matter what my stance may be bc the truth stands on it's own merit. What's that other saying, it's the mark of an educated mind to entertain opposing views without necessarily agreeing with them?

Clint Beastwood said to me recently he thinks im only wanting to be right, it's actually exactly the opposite, im not afraid at all to take a stance (and end up being wrong) and then change my mind, because it's not about being right for me. There is no ego in this for me, im just willing to look at all angles and see where it takes me.

Perhaps there is some projection happening here, or perhaps some of our communication is lost bc we are only typing words and it's harder to converse this way. And perhaps my affinity to philosophy and analytics isn't a good fit for some here. That's ok, there is no right or wrong and i have every right to be here like the rest of us, and im not rude for the sake of it.

And i think it's a bit immature to paint a person with a blanket and permanent brush. I might not take advice on one issue but does that really warrant a total write off of that person for everything in the future? I think some people here take this stuff too seriously and NEED their ego stroked, how dare the new guy not immediately believe me!!!!

But hey if people don't like talking to me it's fine im not mad, i'll be ok, not everybody is like that and there's other forums too.

 

[jeff]

Well i think me not listening is a bad summation. I currently have two "mods" in my car i chose to buy, an AP and an e30 tune, both of which were specifically suggested by most everybody and i ended up going with the advice that they are better than the race chip (and i agree now). I may have tip toed around some other options but within a couple weeks of initiating the chip thread, i had followed the advice of you and others.

And that's the only purchases i have made so far, im actually batting 1000 when it comes to following advice, a far cry from what you mention above. I do play devil's advocate, i do that no matter what my stance may be bc the truth stands on it's own merit. What's that other saying, it's the mark of an educated mind to entertain opposing views without necessarily agreeing with them?

Clint Beastwood said to me recently he thinks im only wanting to be right, it's actually exactly the opposite, im not afraid at all to take a stance (and end up being wrong) and then change my mind, because it's not about being right for me. There is no ego in this for me, im just willing to look at all angles and see where it takes me.

Perhaps there is some projection happening here, or perhaps some of our communication is lost bc we are only typing words and it's harder to converse this way. And perhaps my affinity to philosophy and analytics isn't a good fit for some here. That's ok, there is no right or wrong and i have every right to be here like the rest of us, and im not rude for the sake of it.

And i think it's a bit immature to paint a person with a blanket and permanent brush. I might not take advice on one issue but does that really warrant a total write off of that person for everything in the future? I think some people here take this stuff too seriously and NEED their ego stroked, how dare the new guy not immediately believe me!!!!

But hey if people don't like talking to me it's fine im not mad, i'll be ok, not everybody is like that and there's other forums too.

When a large group of people keep saying the same thing to you, it might be a good idea to consider what they’re saying instead of accusing me/us of projecting, immaturity, ego tripping, etc.

@jeffreylyon summed it well above.

Good luck with your car.

 

[Clint Beastwood]

We all take the time to try to politely answer your questions with the intent of providing information and helping you learn. When you encounter something you disagree with, despite being quantitatively verifiable information, you simply reject it and eventually fall back to playing the victim once you find yourself called on it, for example:

But hey if people don't like talking to me it's fine im not mad, i'll be ok, not everybody is like that and there's other forums too.

...after a bit of that I think it’s entirely reasonable for people to get frustrated. Dialog is a two-way street - you have to spend time *listening* (or reading and digesting) instead of spending that time formulating a rebuttal. It’s part of active listening and it creates enriching and enjoyable dialog. It is very frustrating to take the time to answer questions just to have someone gloss over the responses and totally ignore real, concrete, verifiable data from people qualified to be an authority on a subject.

Time is a finite resource - once spent, you aren’t getting it back, and you don’t ever get more. My time has value, as does yours, as does that of everyone else here. Bearing that in mind I’m sure you can agree, at least philosophically, that asking questions with no intention of digesting the replies is an abject waste of time.

Nobody is trying to mute you, or insult you, or in any other way prevent you from communicating. All we’re (or at least I am) asking is that you actually read and absorb the responses before firing back a reply. We *want* you to have a good time, it’s what makes community fun - but this is the equivalent of walking into a room full of people having discussions and banging on pots and pans. It’s not productive for anyone.

 

[TalkToTheFiST]

We all take the time to try to politely answer your questions with the intent of providing information and helping you learn. When you encounter something you disagree with, despite being quantitatively verifiable information, you simply reject it and eventually fall back to playing the victim once you find yourself called on it, for example:



...after a bit of that I think it’s entirely reasonable for people to get frustrated. Dialog is a two-way street - you have to spend time *listening* (or reading and digesting) instead of spending that time formulating a rebuttal. It’s part of active listening and it creates enriching and enjoyable dialog. It is very frustrating to take the time to answer questions just to have someone gloss over the responses and totally ignore real, concrete, verifiable data from people qualified to be an authority on a subject.

Time is a finite resource - once spent, you aren’t getting it back, and you don’t ever get more. My time has value, as does yours, as does that of everyone else here. Bearing that in mind I’m sure you can agree, at least philosophically, that asking questions with no intention of digesting the replies is an abject waste of time.

But im not asking with any intention, other than looking at all information available and going from there. Not every question/answer is binary, take for example if somebody asks which is better for an e30 tune, Dizzy or Stratified. The answer you get depends on who you ask but just bc somebody gives an answer doesn't mean the asker HAS to take that answer as authority.

It all depends on what a person is looking for. Im also not a person to just make a decision after a single moment, i often revisit an idea many times before i settle. But to keep it more on topic i thought it was interesting, what Hijinx said earlier...

"The more work you can do sooner (and keep that rate of work or increase it) the more distance you will cover over time."

So he was citing this as superior to simply looking at an average of HP. And i fully understand what he is saying, it's why a car can win a drag and actually have a slower top speed, bc that car increased it's speed sooner, enough to overcome a slower top speed later on. Yes it's a numbers game and a velocity game, something i totally understand.

But if you told somebody the above quote who preferred a Dizzy tune (more top end), you would be suggesting a Stratified tune with more low end is better, and they might disagree. This is why i wasn't necessarily suggesting we compare an entire rpm range across the board, it depends on the use case, but i still think there's value in averages across a certain range.