your car is slow
Needs a job
Fuck Nitrous...Got Boost?
Posts: 4089
|
posted August 20, 2004 12:25 PM
That was my original query as well....for someone to say a motor is experiencing the same kind of stress it does on a dyno...vs what it does on the street/track/whatever..is silly.
Its pretty obvious there are some very powerful forces acting on a bike during normal accelleration (not on a dyno). Now...one could argue that the dyno actually puts less stress on a bike due to not having the accelleration forces acting on the bike...then again..what if the bike was designed to perform under these forces...and the lack of them on the dyno does something to oil delivery, coolant passages, return lines/holes/pickups/etc.
far beyond my knowledge to answer with any sort of certainty...but anyone who says a motor run in 4th gear on the street to redline..and a motor run to 4th gear on a dyno to redline is the SAME thing (stress/load/etc)...they are kidding themselves.
____________
Do not taunt happy fun ball!
   
|
Tearinitup
Expert Class
VP Code Monkey
Posts: 298
|
posted August 20, 2004 12:33 PM
There are differences that can play to an engines weakness on the dyno. First as everyone has said is heat. I don't think that you can call they speed of the accel of the drum an issue for the engine. You can simulate a 4th or 5th gear dyno run on the street but shifting down. A 1st or 2nd gear pull on the street would provide the engine with very similar accel characteristics.
A couple other random thoughts...
Inertia also applies to the fluids in the motor and tranny. Could the lack of the oil being thrust to the back of the motor/tranny be hurting something? I don't think that engine builders would build that in but... possible.? Wind is greatly different and would be not only cooling the motor as previously said but also affects air intake for the engine (whether or not you have ram air). I don't see that one affecting the engine either but someone else may, and would explain. Any other differences that anyone can think of?
Also of note... We do extended time testing with a gsxr1100. It has taken many minutes (15-30) of WOT without incident when it is hooked up to our cooling tower (a huge barrel of water and a cooling pump basically). So that motor is ok with huge amounts of load. The stainless header looks like it ish transparent when it gets that hot though. 
|
Tearinitup
Expert Class
VP Code Monkey
Posts: 298
|
posted August 20, 2004 12:44 PM
YCIS: You typed that right as I was. I agree with all you have said. Of course they are different, the quesiton of failure is really a question of conditions being outside of design parameters. If we are discussing it... what is different and why? This discussion could come up with something that is useful to a dyno owner.
Keep it cool seems to be a big one.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted August 20, 2004 02:52 PM
 Edited By: slug on 20 Aug 2004 16:03
to clarify above posts, i was using power generically, but i feel that the conversation has gone beyond that point, and i will discuss using actual torque and power specifically
quote:
Slug: 1)you can NOT load an engine beyond the capability of that engine to actually OVERCOME that load.
Reply: 1)that very action is why things break!!!
no, the engine slows down. if it is more load than it can overcome, it slows down. it does not EVER make more than its designed output. it never goes past 100% stress on the engine parts. it can not stress itself beyond its ability to MAKE the stress.
if the load is over 100% for that engine speed and gearing, then the engine slows. it does not make 110% power (which would truly OVERload the components)
quote:
Slug: 2)the engine can NOT overcome (and be stressed more by) extra loading than it can handle.
Reply: 2) I will give you a chance to read your own writings again, as I don't assume you really meant that....!? Extra loading is called "OVERLOAD", anything (i repeat) anything in great PERFECT CONDITION can be overloaded.
i did and stand by them. the engine will NEVER be stressed more than its ability to stress itself. period, it can NOT physically stress itself MORE than it is capable of stressing itself. NOTHING outside can force the engine to create more force inside it.
OUTPUT IS the key here (torque more specifically, of which power is a mathematical term describing the force appl;ied over a period of time). the work done, whether to the load, or to the engine, relies on energy. that energy comes from somewhere. that energy comes from the engine, which converts chemical energy to thermal and mechanical energy.
that energy is transmitted via the various internals of the engine to the rear wheel, and to the road or the dyno. if the torque being transmitted to the rear wheel is NOT sufficient to speed up the dyno, or to push the bike faster, it will stabilize. if the resistance increases, the engine will slow down
the POWER figures are based on a calculation of the time it took the drum to accelerate to speed. based on the time it takes, and knowing the mass of the drum, the computer can accurately determine how much power wwas expended. (power is work over time)
if you are at maximum engine output at 12000rpm, and add more load (start to climb a hill) the torque applied to the ground no longer is sufficient to maintain that road speed, and it will slow down. once the torque supplied by engine is high enough to overcome the resistance, it stabilizes. since this is lower rate of work being done, the horsepower number is lower....but hte engine is STILL at 100% output.
on a brake dyno, if the user applies more braking force than the engine can overcome,the engine slows down. the engine is STILL making maximum power. it is STILL not exceeding its design limits, because it physically can NOT do so. but hte load is more than the torque available can overcome. so the engine slows. on most engines i have experience with, the torque peak is somewhat lower than the horsepower peak, and as the engine slows its torque output will increase. this overcomes the resistance at a new equilibrium value. since the work per unit time is less, the power is lower...but the engine is STILL only at 100% output.
of course now it seems that the engine which was at higher speed, slowed down and made *more* power is now able to overcome the new resistance added by creating more output.
in a SENSE this is correct, because the torque curve is a great indicator of engine EFFICIENCY throughout engine speed range. so at lower engine speeds, it is more efficient.
i am not sure what is so damned hard to comprehend about this. every bit of energy is converted BY that engine. it can NOT exceed 100% output. once you hit the torque peak,and the load is still too great, the engine will slow until it stalls.
quote:
Slug: 3)the internal forces will be a maximum of what that particular engine can apply to itself.
Reply: 3) I agree! However, we are not discussing internal resistance against the motor's ability to create power. I am NOT and have NEVER been discussing an engines power output ability. I am discussing an "EXTERNAL"....ARTIFICIAL RESISTANCE called a dyno. Dyno's are NOT NATURAL and thusly have different qualities that they return to the engine.
i am not sure what to say to this, it is obvious you have no understanding of the reality that power (or to be specific, engine output limits) IS the key. the resistance is NOT the key issue here. the RESISTANCE does not damage things, the force applied to mechanical parts is what does the damage. that force comes from one place. the combustion of fuel in the cylinder.
UNLESS the dyno drum DRIVES the engine. THEN AND ONLY THEN will the dyno ADD energy to the engine. ANY OTHER TIME the dyno is the LOAD, and RECEIVES the energy output OF the engine.
the force in this case is caused by the rapid burning of gasoline inside the cylinder. the engine doesn'tknow or care whether it is on a dyno or the open road. all it sees is valves open, air fuel in, valves close, compression, fire, burn, expansion, valves open, exhaust gases exit, valves close, repeat. what happens on output has no bearing on the ability of that fuel burn to exert MORE pressure on the inside of that engine.
now, with more load on the engine, its speed will increase more slowly.
which is why i don't get the assertion that a 4th gear on street rollon is LESS sustained forces on engine than a 4th gear on dyno pull. it takes a LOT longer to get to speed on the road than the dyno pull. this would indicate that the force retarding the bike's motion on street is MORE than the force retarding the dyno drum's motion.
quote:
In response to HP produced by a motor, hear this clearly! The amount of HP a motor produces is also produced while the bike is on a rear wheel stand during a test with NO resistance.
since i am now being very specific, and am not using the word power generically, and we are now talking torque and horsepower seperately....
not sure the answer. WILL an engine spun with no load ever develope the same horsepower? it won't expend the same energy to do the same 'work'(though arguably it is not doing ANY work compared to being on road or dyno...), so i think unloaded on stand is a different beast entirely from whatever load may be applied. apples & oranges...
quote:
So power is not the issue, Slug can you see this?! That same power will not hurt the motor. I am saying what you say a little later, that the dyno is able to produce a 100% resistance stress on a motor, that 100% stress creates conditions favorable for engine failure. Those stress conditions are not found naturally!!!
so, wait, an engine that fails when 100% stress is applied was KILLED by the dyno? 100% stress implies that is what the engine is designed to do....
so if it fails at 100% output (which is all the dyno can make the engine do) then WHY is it the dyno's fault?
quote:
(unless at maxton or Utah salt flats or somewhere in Texas.....smile) The power of the motor alone does not destroy.
then where did the extra energy come from. please give the SOURCE of the energy that broke the part in the engine.
quote:
The dyno creates conditions by "design" that will ALWAYS destroy engines.....ie: 100% maximal stress!
always? always? paid any attention to ANYONE who has had their engines tuned on a dyno? get off your ignorant high horse. that is the most ignorant comment made yet.
quote:
In these conditions something must give in....tire spin, bearing clearances, engine rpms.
at 100% load, NOTHING should give. that's design, and last i checked MOST engines were built with quite a bit of tolerance. to take mods etc. so a perfectly stock engine should be able to be modified to make 110 or 115% of stock output and STILL not fail. but there are no gaurantees there. because anything over stock is exceeding the stock 100% output level.
by modified, i mean increase the engine's ability to flow air and fuel mixture, and increase efficiency of combustion. this leads to a greater than normal output. (the gains shown on dyno runs after modifications are completed)
NOTHING you have said makes me beleive that a dyno will destroy a perfectly good engine. it is impossible to beleive that a non-flawed engine will fail if it is made to produce 100% output. NOTHING that is made correctly will fail at 100% design stress levels.
i know of no reason to expect that a stock engine properly broken in would not run on the dyno JUST AS WELL as on the street as long as it was kept cool and proper maintenance was done.
granted, running an engine at 100% all the time may cause it to wear out faster, and once it is worn out, then all bets are off, it can, and probably will, fail. whatever component is the weakest and wears out first will fail first. and it won't matter if it is on the dyno or on the cherohala skyway.
  
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted August 20, 2004 03:01 PM
YCIS: sorry, my use of that analogy was flawed int hat the dyno DOES spin up more quickly, and as such puts less prolonged strain on the engine.
but a 4th gear roll on hte street and 4th gear on the dyno BOTH make the engine do the same thing, produce 100% output. in both cases the engine is accelerating the load as quickly as it can. on the street there is more resistance to the torque output of the engine, so it does the accelerating more slowly. the dyno spins up much more quickly.
(excepting steady-state runs on brake dyno,which apply the load continuously, but still for that engine speed it is at 100% output)
my only point in all of this, a dyno does not kill a perfectly good engine. a perfectly good engine will take 100% load indefinately
a worn out engine will fail. an engine with a flawed component will fail.
the dyno does NOT cause the flaw, it exposes it. a dyno will NOT destroy a good engine.
like was said above, i'd rather the engine grenade on a dyno. i would NOT want it to grenade during a 1/4 mile run, or at the top of 6th gear on back straight at the favorite racetrack.
|
psycho1122
Pro
Posts: 1608
|
posted August 20, 2004 03:55 PM
quote:
Ra12r Your an idiot.
LOL! LOL! 
____________
You say PSYCHO like it's a BAD thing!!
|
1bad12r
Zone Head
Posts: 567
|
posted August 21, 2004 09:36 AM
quote:
500 passes (large number but less than 75miles)
LMFAO! Dude...stop while you are ahead. PLEASE!!!!!!
For the last time.....it is NOT the dyno. Dyno owners give the warning....becasue we DONT know what condition you engine is in. We are not going to be responsible for a piece of shiat blowing up on the dyno and the owner claiming it was a brand new engine and wanting it fixed...OR that same bike owner just put his engine together and forgot to tight the rod,cam,head bolts down to specs...... comes to dyno it and it blows.
IT IS NOT THE DYNO!!!!
oh yteah....500 pulls equals more thn...way more than 75 miles.
Yep, like i said when ya got tha $$$$, its no big deal !
____________
768 Ryderz
------------
|
entropy
Moderator
Posts: 8671
|
posted August 21, 2004 05:01 PM
quote:
... a dyno does not kill a perfectly good engine
....a worn out engine will fail. an engine with a flawed component will fail.
...the dyno does NOT cause the flaw, it exposes it. a dyno will NOT destroy a good engine.
... i'd rather the engine grenade on a dyno.
yes, yes, yes, and emphatically YES!
____________
This moderator uses moderation in moderation
|
Ra12r
Zone Head
Posts: 919
|
posted August 23, 2004 06:10 AM
Well I am an idiot that really does understand that something MAJOR is different between real world conditions and dyno runs. However, after reading the several excellent discussion replies, I know that the difference is the 100% stress that the dyno is able to apply.
It adding to finding flaws, when an engine assembly is flawed, it does NOT take 1000 miles or a dyno for the flaw to be exposed. Regular riding (ie: OEM break-in style) will reveal the flaw. Usually in very quick time frame like while ideling on startup or just a few miles. (ie: BA) Engines NOT assembled correctly will never, make it back to a dyno without issues. Is there tolerances to error, YES, however I kinda go by this general rule, if an engine can survive 10mi and at least 3 heat cycles then it is "okay". After 100mi and several redline roll-ons it is fully broke-in.
There are very few points above that i disagree with, and the reading was good information. However, acedemically dynos don't hurt anything. Realistically, there are many experiences concerning engine failures only after or on a dyno. Maybe folks would be more comfortable saying that the forces the dyno creates kill motors. 100% stress conditions are VERY HARD to create in the real world. But, very easy to create on a dyno.
Do I need 100% stress conditions to determine my engines output performance?? To answer my own question, I say NO. I do not need those conditions to measure my engines performance.
If my engine is running fine, on the street and the track, should I 100% stress test my motor to see if it will fail at 100% stress, since at less than 100% it does not fail??
Is a motor more likely to fail after a 100% stress test??
Am I an idiot for watching a dyno contest in which bikes in fine running condition explode after making their maximum HP on a dyno. Then these same fine running bikes have to be put on a truck and pulled home instead of riding around and enjoying the day during a bike fest or whatever. Under any and all conditions on the street those same motors would last for many years. Am I the idiot for thinking that they were an idiot to believe that the dyno would NOT HURT their bike? Who here believes that stressing the HELL out of anything makes it better? If you are looking for a weakness then fine, as the purpose is now different. Because all 100% stress test are truly designed to do is find the breaking point and what the week link is at the breaking point. But, how many here stress the Hell out of our prime bike and then feel we have made it better?
Why would the sport rider test bike lose HP after dyno runs??
Conclusion.... If you put your bike on the dyno, it is not a matter of "IF" then motor will fail, it is only "WHEN" the motor will fail. One pull or 1000 pulls........it is just when.
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted August 23, 2004 06:36 AM
Ra12r.....
I understand what you are saying about the 100% load on the dyno, but I have to disagree on a couple of points:
1) Is 100% neccesary? I think it is. From my limited experience with mapping a few bikes, without the 100% load it is difficult to accurately map a bike. I have heard rumours of secondary map built into our ECU's that are not triggered without sufficient load. Is this at 100% load? I don't honestly know, but I have heard that without having circumstances that trigger the secondary map, the bike is not truely in a good state of tune. We go to ridiculous lengths to modifiy our bikes and then need to make them run well afterwards. How do you propose to map big bores, strokers, piped bike, etc? You could use the "butt dyno", but I personally trust that as much as using an impact gun to torque cylinder head bolts.
2) It has been said in previous posts that street riding rarely has an engine see 100% load. That explains why some "perfectly" running bikes get on a dyno and pop the engine. There was a flaw in the engine, it just didn't show up until it was loaded up (either more or differently than it is "used to"). It's the same as buying a car from a little old lady, who drove the thing at a maximum of 40 MPH for years and never had a problem, then you buy the car, pull out to pass someone and the engine begins to knock. Are you now going to forever say that passing vehicles is bad for the engine and eventually all engines, used to pass vehicles, will fail? That isn't good science.
3)The statement of "If you put your bike on the dyno, it is not a matter of "IF" then motor will fail, it is only "WHEN" the motor will fail. One pull or 1000 pulls........it is just when." is true of any engine, at any time, in any circumstance. Engines fail everyday, and 99.999999% of them NEVER have even seen a dyno (other than perhaps at the factory during initial break in). All engines wear out over time. Whether it's bearing wear that eventually causes the bearing to spin, or poor ring seating that causes the engine to burn blue, they all fail eventually. Do dyno's accelerate wear? I don't think so....... providing that the cooling system is solid, the oil system is in good condition, and the operator of the dyno is qualified.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted August 23, 2004 05:58 PM
what i don't get is this: if dynos will kill all engines, how do dyno shops stay in business? How many thousands of dyno runs do they do eachyear, and what is the failure rate?
You hear a lot about failed engines when dealing with a high performance board, and people who do a lot of work on engines. but does that constitute a majority? or a small minority?
A great example:If you read the R6 Messagenet, youwould beleive that every R6 built would strip the geardogs on 2nd gear within 10000 miles. You would further think that yamaha feels that R6 riders alone cannot shift their bikes.
So, online community has a high percentage of failures (possible 10% compared to the population regtistered)
Now, i think there were a few thousand users onthat board, and maybe 100 people with the "fatal R6 2nd gear flaw"
How many total bikes were sold since it was introduced in 1999? 10s of thousands.
Just backing away from the local dataset puts the information in to a different perspective.
A shop that does 2000 dyno runs a year, and only fails 2-5 engines in that time, no big deal. BUT if those 2-5 engines belonged to a few members of one forum, then you start to get in to trouble
RA12R: you would need to do a thorough study to determine actual numbers of dyno failures, and non-dyno failures. also include the number of total dyno runs done by the shops affected. THEN you would have some meaningful data.
but if every engine that hit the dyno failed, or even 10-15% of them, that shop would have a bad reputation inthe local community. and people would not use that service. "don't take your bike to Jim Bob's Backyard Mechanic shop for a dyno run, i know a bunch of people whose engines he has destroyed"
the kind of failure rates you imply would be BIG news. and they simply don't exist.
or is it just a huge coverup by dynojet, factory pro, and service shops to keep people from knowing the 'evil truth' about dynos?
|
Hells Dark Lord
Needs a life
living life, and loving it.
Posts: 7981
|
posted August 24, 2004 06:55 PM
bump again....
____________
When in doubt, lean farther and go faster....
|
Ra12r
Zone Head
Posts: 919
|
posted August 25, 2004 06:39 AM
Slug you ask some very good questions. I must agree that reading the R6 web site, I got concerned about my 01 R6...... I also agree that actual information about % runs and % failures is not exactly what I have to work with. I do know that MOST riders are not on the web sites. (at least in the circles that I travel) I do know of, in my city, of multiple failures that I would never have heard of without knowing the mechanics in several shops. So yes, I do believe it is bad for business to announce how many bikes actually fail on a dyno. But, if a dyno operator didn't have these failures, then they wouldn't be so concerned about the liability of the motor.
There are multiple dyno owners and operators on this site. It doesn't make any sense for any of them to announce how many bike motors "THEY" have blown up (since it is not the dyno.....LOL)
Here is a question, how many runs does it take to prove that a motor is in "perfect condition"?? After lets say 5 pulls and the bike has survived, if the bike blows up on the 7th pull then it should be the OPERATORS fault correct?! Slug and others who feels that the machine is infallable, do you think that is really fair to the OPERATOR?? or even to a good builder??
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted August 25, 2004 07:03 AM
Ra,
The liability release is just a CYA thing....it's the same waiver you sign when you go to the drag strip, or sprint car track, or motocross race. Waivers don't seem to hold up well in court, but it least is a last opportunity to get the user to think and second guess him/her self. You pretty much don't get any work done on any vehicle (at any reputable place) without signing your life away. the waiver at my shop even excludes the shop from liability from things like driver (employee) error, insurance, parking lot damage and even theft from the shop's parking lot. I don't blame dyno operators at all for covering their asses.
As to your question of how many runs proves the engine is in perfect condition: if the motor runs 5 and is fine, and runs 7 and fails, then the engine is faulty. Here is my example: yesterday I rode my bike for 4 hours to get to a reputable dyno shop, ran 9 passes on the dyno (1 sweep test and 8 step tests), and then rode 4 hours home. I NOW trust that my engine is solid. Despite the horrible consequences of my bike popping the engine on the dyno, I had to know how it was tuned, and my best "Butt dyno tune" was almost 15 hp off of optimum.....and was rich in some areas and lean in others. I would have never known this without having run the bike on the dyno. Let's never lose sight of the fast that the dyno is a tuning tool...however the reality of life these days is that there are so many posers that are just running their bikes on the dyno, just so that they have something to contribute to the pissing contest. That is the worst part of the whole thing (IMHO). Don't get me wrong.......Sportbike West is happening this weekend, and there will be a dyno there, and I will be running both of my 12's on that dyno.....just for shits and giggles.
|
Outlaw1
Zone Head
Posts: 803
|
posted August 25, 2004 07:36 AM
#1 The engine has a rev limiter. Period
#2 If I had an engine I felt something go bump, In the middle of a 1/4 mile run, I would load it up and take it home, Next I would take it to the dyno and make at least 6-10 pulls, I would much rather the dyno get oil soaked than my rear tire.
#3 I believe the dyno a reasonable load and real world conditions.
RA12r the next time you see a dyno run, Go put your foot on the drum as the bike is spinning down. If you dont break your leg reply back. The load is there.
If there is a defect the dyno will find it. Just as the Drag Strip will find it, Just as a burnout will expose a flaw, The last place you want to see a flaw is 150+ going thru the traps. That is why I called you an idiot. Do you want to ride out a oil soaked rear tire at 150. I damn sure dont.
Dynos see bikes in all different conditions, and also different maint procedures on said bikes.
The Dyno has save many folks from death, If not for the dyno the engine would have came apart on the road IMHO.
____________
Lead, Follow, Or get the hell outta the way.
|
psycho1122
Pro
Posts: 1608
|
posted August 25, 2004 07:44 AM
Edited By: psycho1122 on 25 Aug 2004 08:45
ra12r
quote:
LMFAO! Dude...stop while you are ahead. PLEASE!!!!!!
It's time to stop now......Your not ahead anymore here.
____________
You say PSYCHO like it's a BAD thing!!
|
Outlaw1
Zone Head
Posts: 803
|
posted August 25, 2004 07:46 AM
RA12 you talk like you know the numbers.
Put the numbers up, Load/inerta/etc if not its you viewpoint with no evidence......
If I was against Dynos I could come up with hard facts. Since I am not its not worth my time, And If I made a statement such as yours on this forum I would have hard numbers to back it up. So Now you see why I called you an idiot. I wasted to much time explaining and you cant understand.
____________
Lead, Follow, Or get the hell outta the way.
|
Outlaw1
Zone Head
Posts: 803
|
posted August 25, 2004 07:50 AM
Disclaimer,
Please do not put your foot on Dyno drum as it spins down unless you want serious time off work and white plaster all over your said leg.
____________
Lead, Follow, Or get the hell outta the way.
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted August 25, 2004 09:42 AM
quote:
Disclaimer,
Please do not put your foot on Dyno drum as it spins down unless you want serious time off work and white plaster all over your said leg.
Outlaw....that is some funny shit!! LOL I was so tempted to do that yesterday and resisted the tempatation!!! LOL!!
|
dougmeyer
Needs a job
moderated
Posts: 2713
|
posted August 27, 2004 02:55 PM
This has been a very interesting read for me since I'v been working with dynos since 1967 with engines from 40 hp to 1400 hp. Heenan Froude, Stuska, Schenk, Dyno Jet. Steady state and inertial, running tests designed to cause failures and to prove reliability as well as power. I could tell you my opinions but here's my short observation:
SLUG has it exactly right, supported by Tearinitup. Canadamaxxer has a grip. Ra12- YOU DO NOT GET IT. YOU ARE WRONG. It's about the science and physics, not your opinion. (nothing personal, of course)
Doug
|
ra12r
Zone Head
Posts: 919
|
posted August 27, 2004 06:56 PM
Thanks Doug for that insight. I may be wrong according to your opinion and experience, but emperical observation is also hard to deny or explain away as the fault of every builder.
____________
All must bow to the "Ra Supremecy"...
|
dougmeyer
Needs a job
moderated
Posts: 2713
|
posted August 27, 2004 07:20 PM
Edited By: dougmeyer on 27 Aug 2004 20:21
That's the point. Empirical observations create opinions. Those opinions then must be anaylized and tested for fact. That's the scientific method.
Hypothesy, experiment, data, conclusion. You have a hypothesy, no experiment, very little data and an OPINION. What those guys are pointing out are conclusions based on data and immutable laws of physics and mechanics. Hey, I'm not saying things don't blow up, but it is physically impossible for a dyno to create and impart any additional energy into the system.
The only variable is the time the load is in effect. (That's why Cook Nielsen called Bonneville "The Great Salt Dyno", because it is the only place other than a dyno that you could impart full throttle loads for minutes at a time).
Here- think about this. At peak torque you have x psi of average pressure
pushing on the piston (called bmep). This pressure pushes on the rod, the crank converts this linear pressure to a circular pressure (torque) and then this torque is multiplied by the gears to the countershaft which is pulling on a chain with y pounds of force. After that, the "engine" doesn't "know" what the hell that power is being used for. It could be turning a tire, spinning a prop, or accelerating the drum on a dyno jet. It matters not. It matters not one bit. But, this is not to say that for instance if you take that engine and put it in a dyno cell without sufficient cooling equal to what it would see while in motion in actual use, that you wouldn't have a failure. But that's not the dyno's fault. That's human stupidity.
Ra12, I think the Ra Supremecy should know when to throw in the towel....
Doug
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted August 28, 2004 01:37 PM
This is what I mean, and meant in previous posts.
It was a good question. Without more information, it can look like something could be going on here that we don't know why.
We have now gotten a lot more information. Obviously, Doug Meyer has far more than enough dyno pulls under his belt, as well as knowing intimately how often engines fail under other high load conditions such as various forms of racing, to be able to judge reasonably whether the rate of failure is noticeably higher on the dyno for similar engine operation; or not.
So the question brought out good information and good discussion. For myself I have to conclude the weight of the evidence obviously strongly is that for the same sorts of operation (times at given rpm's and power output) and with proper cooling, it matters not to engine safety whether you're doing that on the dyno, the track, or the street.
|
ra12r
Zone Head
Posts: 919
|
posted August 29, 2004 04:13 AM
Okay, all Dyno's part 2 has been some good info. The scientific method appears to currently result in my hypothesis as the null hypothesis. One point of clearity however, I was NOT asserting that the dyno adding any "energy" to the process. However, I was asserting that the dyno was adding resistance. Resistance is not energy, but it is a force.
The Ra supremecy request of the board a recess to the Dyno vs Engines murder trial. .......
____________
All must bow to the "Ra Supremecy"...
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC