Dyno chart smoothing? Does it make a difference? See for yourself...

18541 Views 66 Replies 27 Participants Last post by sjsche, 4 mo ago

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · Oct 19, 2006

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.

See less See more

Save

1 - 16 of 67 Posts

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · #3 · Oct 19, 2006

Oreo said:
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.

Save

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · #5 · Oct 19, 2006

^^^ 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:

Save

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · #8 · Oct 19, 2006

f2focus said:
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.

Save

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · #9 · Oct 19, 2006

f2focus said:
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:

Save

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · #11 · Oct 19, 2006 (Edited)

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:

See less See more

Save

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · #18 · Oct 20, 2006

^^^ 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.

Save

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · #26 · Oct 20, 2006

f2focus said:
You know what I must apologize for my friend that was using my computer at the shop, he was waiting for his car to be done and we were talking about this thread and I did not want it to get out of hand. He put some stuff and then deleted and then retyped information. He figured on having some fun with the people he used deal with at EuroSport. My bad for leaving the computer logged in. But atleast he was happy with his new turbo kit on his new car!

So I am sorry for his action, believe me I want to stay away from any posts that have FS in them....just some lessons learned.

And I know that the car needs a little more work and Juan is working on another file and I expect a little more power with the file and the 3" exhaust.

No kidding. How bout that.

Save

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · #42 · Oct 23, 2006

MrTea said:
in regards to gearing, and feel free to ignore it if i should only be talking about smoothing. but in my atx (where there is never anything really near 1:1) the higher the gear, the "bumpier" the graph gets. this was even at the dyno day where a quick 2nd gear pull happened to be on with my final pull. seen it on a few dyno's now. this would mostly me do the fact, if what i'm reading is correct and it sounds that way, since it takes longer to go through the revs you see a bit more variance....more chance to show those small variances? the #'s tend to not vary that much, but the look of the graph does....am i understanding that part correctly?

Your car is "kind of" unique. Remember, HiBoost is NOT using FULL ECU tuning on your car. They have supplied you with an injector controller. As we discussed at our dyno day, you are running STOCK spark values, originally intended for a naturally aspirated car, not a turbocharged car. This is a risky way to operate, but since you have a J&S, you are OK. Running on the dyno in different gears will usually show different loads. The different loads have different spark values and that is part of the reason why you have bumpier graph lines when you compare them. "Most" ECUs will have smaller spark values as the load goes up, though.

Save

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · #46 · Oct 23, 2006

^^^^ Well, lets see how the different levels of smoothing apply to this Dynocom then, if they have that feature. Please post up.

Save

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · #48 · Oct 23, 2006

Oreo said:
My understanding is that J&S is a secondary, or in his case, terciary electronic control mechanism specifically designed to prevent premature detonation. It's usually used with FI to prevent blowing your engine.

In said case, I'd say the J&S was more primary than tertiary. There was NO ECU tuning provided, only fuel injector control. We're talking stock spark tables with low boost and enough fuel and the J&S to keep it from letting go. Personally, I don't like the way the J&S is being utilized, but I'm biased and much prefer full ECU tuning.

Save

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · #54 · Oct 24, 2006

tallguy2.3 said:
So does that mean that if a turbo'd car for example has full ECU tuning, you dont think a J&S is necessary? Or would it still be a worthwhile precaution?

Necessary? No, but that is my opinion and there are plenty who disagree with me on that. Its a great product and I don't think there are any negatives other than its not free.

If you can afford it, I say go for it. :thumbup:

What I was getting at was that the J&S is no excuse for full on ECU tuning. At least not to me. Using the J&S along WITH full on ECU tuning certainly isn't a bad idea.

Save

FSWerksVP

Discussion Starter · #58 · Nov 10, 2006

thekrux said:
man i love this comeback. i gotta remember to blame my friend next time i need an internet scapegoat. :lol:anyway what do the sae din eec stand for?

Bump and to answer this question I missed:

SAE = Society of Automotive Engineers.

DIN = Deutsches Institut für Normung, which means "German Institute for Standardization."

EEC = I don't recall the exact wording but its a European standardization IIRC.

STD = Standard or what some refer to as Pre-SAE.

Uncorrected = It means just the raw data without any correction factors.

For North America, SAE is the industry standard, though I see people using STD since it usually will show a higher number.

See less See more