[FSWerksVP]

I read comments on here once in a while about how FocusSport likes to use a lot of smoothing on their dyno charts. Or how there is a big difference in smoothing from 3 to 5. Or from 1 to 5. Or from...you get the idea.

So why don't we just take a look for ourselves?

First example - Paul Haskew's 2.3 Turbo Duratec

Smoothing set at 1 - The LOWEST setting on dynojet software

Smoothing set at 2

Smothing set at 3

Smoothing set at 4

Smoothing set at 5 - The HIGHEST setting on dynojet software

Second example - FocusSport 2.3 Duratec project car

Smoothing set at 1 - The LOWEST setting on dynojet software

Smoothing set at 2

Smoothing set at 3

Smoothing set at 4

Smoothing set at 5 - The HIGHEST setting on dynojet software

Horsepower and Torque can change slightly with the different settings, but its not anything major. A dyno chart from a well sorted car with a good hardware and software package will look good at any setting. A chart from a car with a not so well sorted hardware and software package will look like it needs help at any setting.

So there it is, laid out flat for you to see. Now you can see for yourself how much of a difference each setting makes.

 

[Oreo]

Can you think of anything that might increase the jagged-ness of a dyno curve that would NOT be due to some shortcomming of the engine or tune?

 

[FSWerksVP]

Can you think of anything that might increase the jagged-ness of a dyno curve that would NOT be due to some shortcomming of the engine or tune?

Not really. If your plug gap is wrong that causes issues and if you are having an issue with controlling boost that is something else, too, but they don't give that real tight jagged up and down chart line usually.

 

[f2focus]

.

 

[FSWerksVP]

^^^ I see you edited your post. Before it was edited you were asking us what kind of compensation sofware we were using and that we both knew that you could buy this dynojet software. Well, I have never heard of such a thing and we don't use anything like that. I also called Dynojet and they confirmed no such thing exists.

We use SAE consistently, always have since its pretty much the accepted method to show your data. I can show all of the other forms, STD, Uncorrected, etc. It won't make the charts look any smoother or jagged. Come on, you know this right? :lol:

 

[BUR_ZX3]

The Correction Factor is determined based on the variation of the temperature, barometric pressure and humidity, no?

Running uncorrected, would assume that its 77*F, 29.23in Hg, and 0% humidity.


But we know that in reality, those conditions are rare to find. Running a correction factor by determining the temperature, pressure and humidity is appropriate. Unless everyone can dyno test at sea level in the desert, on a perfect day, a CF is necessary to tell the story of what the engine is really producing. Otherwise, on a hot humid day you'll get underrated numbers. On a cold dry day, overrated numbers.

 

[f2focus]

.

 

[FSWerksVP]

What I mean by compensation is you have weather stations that are added to the dyno, you have the eddy current load, torque cell and other things that can be used to determince actuall HP. These have to do with actuall HP but there is also SAE and uncorrected CF settings and there is a difference on smoothness there...

EVERYONE with a dynojet uses the dynojet stack ( weather station ). They have been around forever. Before the use of the stack was all DOS based software. Nothing to do with smoothness or jaggedenss. And it should be noted that our stack is right next to the car at all times and is unobstructed.

Regarding Eddy current load and torque cell, neither apply to us since we have a Dynojet 248H.

 

[FSWerksVP]

I have run my cars on about 4 different dyno's some with SAE and some uncorrected and some with high and low smoothing factor I have seen the difference. Sure with SAE and high smooth factor the line looks really smooth and I have used Dynamic Racing Solutions a lot and have asked them to run it in different settings and there is a difference...

I just viewed our dynos with all the different settings ( DIN, EEC, SAE, STD, Uncorrected ) and there is NO difference in smoothing compared to the charts that I've already posted. Would you like me to post them?

This thread was supposed to be about dyno chart smoothing and I'd like to keep it accurate, but so far you are not helping at all. :shakeshead:

 

[Oreo]

I actually appreciate the thread as it is because I'm learning a bit about these dynograph things and what affects them. It certainly sounds like FS has all the bases covered with proof in the puddin'.

I know darn well why FS posted this thread in the first place, so F2's comments aren't really that off topic. If F2 can SHOW us how a dynograph can be manipulated the way they're suggesting then I'd love to see what ever puddin' they're willing to stick out there.

If FS is manipulating their dynographs we deserve to know. If F2 is just using a different type of facility or perhaps something in the tunes of a product they sell is lacking... we deserve to know that also.

If you're legit... put it out there and let the cards fall.

 

[FSWerksVP]

This thread was made for 2 reasons mostly.

1. I have read 1 too many times about how FS uses a lot of smoothing. Most of the people saying it aren't even trying to be critical or anthing negative, it's just something that gets said. I don't mind it, but I don't want people that may not know enough about the topic to think we are trying to hide anything or cover anything up. If your graph looks crappy, no amount of smoothing is going to help. If your graph looks good, smoothing will not matter much. The amount of actual smoothing that takes place is quite minimal as anyone can see in the above charts.

2. The other reason was so that no one could use the smoothing or lack of smoothing as an excuse. If the car needs work, it needs work. Get in there and do it, but don't use it as a way to explain why the chart might not look that good. The dyno is not just for measuring power, its used for tuning. If your graph looks choppy, use that info and correct it.


Oreo,
Saying that anyone is manipulating data is a pretty bold accusation, but I will post whatever needs to be posted to prove we don't manipulate our power figures. If someone has doubts just let me know. And by the way, why is it that we are one of the only companies to bother with this kind of stuff? :lol:

 

[aerostudent]

Randy, that's because you never hide anything.

I always appreciate it when a company lays it all out. Believe me, if I rebuild my motor in a more boost friendly manner your turbo kit is the only one on my list. You let us know every little detail of the car and provide as much info as possible, sometimes a little more than I would possibly and much more than most tuning companies.

People always like to talk aout how companies "play" with dyno's, what you are doing is showing how it is perceived that some people do so and how in reality those perceptions are inaccurate.

 

[MarcyMotorsport]

Well, I was going to post something else, but I see what the whole point to this thread is in the first pace. I looked at the F2 dyno, and the jaggedness has not a thing to do with smoothing. The dyno chart is fine up to 3800rpm. At that point, the jaggedness is a result of a problem with the tune, not the dyno. I've seen similar looking things on high compression cars, and it's tune related.

 

[pitchblack23]

Since we have a dyno thread here, I have a question. How does gearing figure in to dyno measurement? I'm taking my car to a dyno day this weekend, and was wondering if I should swap my Rotas and tall Azenis for the 1" shorter stock stuff. Will it make a noticeable difference?

 

[belacyrf]

Since we have a dyno thread here, I have a question. How does gearing figure in to dyno measurement? I'm taking my car to a dyno day this weekend, and was wondering if I should swap my Rotas and tall Azenis for the 1" shorter stock stuff. Will it make a noticeable difference?

Here's the skinny as I understand it.

Dynoing in 4th gear is the preferred method, as 4th gear is the closest to a 1:1 ratio. Now with that said here are the plusses and minus to each as far as I know..

4th gear

• Should also provide HIGHER HP numbers than running in a lower gear.
• Better engine VE due to going through the RPM's slower, which means the valves stay open longer.
• Less parasitic losses from gearing due to going through the RPM's slower
• More heat generated, great chance for engine damange with sustained load.
• More time to conduct the run (if your doing a dyno day, 4th just takes longer)

3rd gear

• Worse engine VE due to going through the RPM's quicker.
• Greater parasitic losses from gearing due to going through RPM quicker
• Better Gearing multiplication for torque (but could still be lower thanks to the losses mentioned above)
• Less Heat built up during shorter runs, less danger.
• Dyno runs can be done quicker

The end result is, it doesn't matter as long as it's the same for each subsequent run, and that it's documented when you share your dyno so others are aware of the conditions.

 

[MarcyMotorsport]

Tires and wheels will have a small effect on the numbers, but I would suggest running what you use the most.

 

[y2kepdo]

well i guess i was wrong. smothing doesn't make a HUGE diff.

i though i did because i've seen dynos from other forums with diff smothing so i though it did make a huge difference. but i guess their tune need some work.

 

[FSWerksVP]

^^^ Most people think exactly what you do ( or did ), that is why I posted this. And most charts don't get posted with the different levels of smoothing, no one can blame you. I probably would have thought the same thing if I didn't do this for a living.

 

[gizmo88]

Thanks for the post, I've always been interested in seeing if there was really a differenece.

 

[paulhaskew]

I'm famous! arty: