MaxQ power plot

#21

Bruce,

I guess the word “approximate” is relative. I was just pointing out the possible problems you may run into with MaxQData.

I have been using mine for over two years and I have many datalog files.

I have seen problems with MaxQ units not getting enough satellite lock up to give very jumpy data or even momentary loss of location info.

I had posted about this problem before in this thread.

That’s all I was pointing out.

Timing is easier to handle since data points can be interpolated to arrive at fairly accurate data. The power calculation really depends on every single points for the acceleration calculation. I have not seen any smoothing filter function for power plot output.

Traqmate on the other hand, I believe has internal accelerometers (3 axis ?) which can help with the accuracy and help in the case of loss signals.

#22

cwbaader wrote:

Chuck, the only thing I was pointing out is that you will know the power but not the RPM.

Without the RPM info, you can’t plot RPM vs. HP graph.

#23

cwbaader wrote:

Hey Chuck, I assumed that it used the car info for weight, but just went to the TM boards and you’re right. I’m impressed.

+1

#24

9d3 wrote:

[quote]cwbaader wrote:

[quote]

+1[/quote]

but we know this isn’t possible, so what is the point?
bruce

#25

leggwork wrote:

[quote]9d3 wrote:

[quote]cwbaader wrote:

[quote]

+1[/quote]

but we know this isn’t possible, so what is the point?
bruce[/quote]

In an absolute sense, I agree with Chuck B’s statement. However, I agree with Bruce’s sentiment.

For argument’s sake, here’s an idea I am pushing around for NASA’s version of Showroom Spec Miata…

There is too much variation in readings between dyno BRANDS. The consistency from dyno to dyno WITHIN a brand and type is sufficiently good to be of value in comparing cars from different areas on different days. There will be a little noise in weather/altitude correction, etc. but if we can get within a few HP, that is much better than what we have now.

You get dyno’d to a maximum at various points along the RPM curve. Use the AFM/restrictors/equipment X to de-tune to the standard, as needed. AFM, valve cover, CAS, & ECU get sealed.

You show up at the track with your logbook and dyno certification. All the cars go on the dyno. Throw out the top 10% and bottom 10% to come up with the data points that are used to calculate the standard deviation from the mean. If you are more than [X] standard deviation(s) from the mean, you are DQ’d. Tamper with the seals and race that way? 12 month license suspension.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on my harebrained idea. It can’t be any less perfect than what we have now…

Steve D.

#26

I would wonder
-which regions can afford to have dynos at the track every race?
-is there enough time to put everyone through the runs?
-how do you handle those who might cheat by having a switchable map ECU?

bruce

#27

It probably doesn’t have to be every race. It would be ideal to get data to form a baseline, but then spot checks during the seaon on the top finishers. Bruce, apologies if it seems that guys like me are not trying to be constructive. Positive intent all around.

#28

I somewhat agree with this. Perhaps what people are missing (maybe I missed it in a previous post) is that it’s all relative since everyone has the same conditions.

If the front pack of the cars are all measuring their HP data via Traqmate then it’s all relative. If one car has more than 10% (or pick some value) delta of HP then think it’s cause for further inspection (dyno run). Otherwise, keep it light and simple.

#29

I think these are all great ways to keep tabs on the field, but I don’t think anyone should be DQ’d without being found illegal by the rules. Use the data/dyno to find people that are suspicious, then they can be protested if anyone cares. Take the motor apart and DQ them if they are illegal. It helps keep from tearing apart cars unnecessarily and encourages everyone to stay honest.