
Well this explains a lot.
#101
Posted 05-05-2017 02:47 PM







#102
Posted 05-05-2017 03:09 PM

And that was max torque and HP running basically parallel!
That's mathematically impossible. If HP is constant torque will change (over a range of RPMs). Since NASA only cares about HP, that is what is optimized and torque will drop off as RPMs rise. (Note that they are trying to fix this by using multiple sampling points as the classes move to ST and PT gets phased out. Still wish they'd do (hp+tq)/2 and a wider RPM band.)
NASA Utah SM Director





#104
Posted 05-05-2017 07:55 PM

That's mathematically impossible. If HP is constant torque will change (over a range of RPMs). Since NASA only cares about HP, that is what is optimized and torque will drop off as RPMs rise. (Note that they are trying to fix this by using multiple sampling points as the classes move to ST and PT gets phased out. Still wish they'd do (hp+tq)/2 and a wider RPM band.)
Yep...had to think about this and what I remembered seeing. I have a VVT chevy motor that I can tune the stock ecu...and the difference I see(compared to a Miata curve) is what might have been more similar. Basically the torque flat lines(max)until it crosses the HP curve(5250rpm)and falls off. The HP curve rises and at the point it crosses Torque it is within 5hp of Max HP until it reaches redline(7000).
I guess my point was(and what I thought i was seeing)is the tune is able to keep torque and HP optimized in the curve for a longer period of time.
Ron
RAmotorsports


#105
Posted 05-06-2017 11:29 AM



#106
Posted 05-08-2017 08:51 AM

WOW, guys are learning, you don't need me to start a $hit storm.
Hey, I buy into James ECU tail!!! Same car with nothing car wise changed other than ECU. Oh, different driver. I viewed my car start DFL in a regional field and it cleaned the field other than two IIRC ITS cars. Same ECU, different driver. That ol 1.6 cleaned up on some 94' and 99's.



2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users