Virtual Dyno Plotting Bug ??

[86azms3]

Also a Dynojet will not necessarily replicate load on the street due to vehicle weight, dyno might only replicate a 3000lb load.....besides the fore mentioned stuff.

[phate]

Originally Posted by 86azms3 Also a Dynojet will not necessarily replicate load on the street due to vehicle weight, dyno might only replicate a 3000lb load.....besides the fore mentioned stuff.

Tis why we need load bearing dyno's.

From what I have seen, 1.09CF represents non-load bearing dynojets. 1.01 seems representative of the eddy current load control dynojets. LC's are effin sweet.

[himurax13]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 I chalked it off to the heat.

I did the same, but I was also wondering if I fucked something up when I did the Injector seal replacement, TIG Installation, coolant bypass, oil catch can installation, intake valve cleaning, EGR delete, CS SRI/TIP Install, 3 BAR MAP Install, and a 1 Step Colder Plug Install in the same weekend. According to the VD Charts I lost 30 to 40 HP.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by phate Tis why we need load bearing dyno's. From what I have seen, 1.09CF represents non-load bearing dynojets. 1.01 seems representative of the eddy current load control dynojets. LC's are effin sweet.

ahhhhhhhh haaaaaaaaa....now...right from the horses mouth....we know where 1.01 came from....buuuuuuut still

NO MATTER WHAT CF YOU USE VD 1.1.8 READS HIGHER THAN ALL OTHER VERSIONS

I say since the vast majority of Dynojets are non load bearing, we use a CF of 1.09 AND verify that still matches a real dyno and holds true in VD 1.1.9 forward.

If you want to be uber anal retentive like phate and probably silvapain those guys need to come up with a new CF for loaded dynojets since I think phate came up with that CF on v 1.1.8. I bet it is NOT 1.01 anymore.

phate should be able to plug in some older logs into vd 1.1.9 and verify the CF required. [That is if he has screen shots from the older version.] I can post up v 1.1.8 if need be.

edit: phate here is a copy of 1.1.8 you can load up if you want. disable your internet connection first

oh and it will over write any other version on your machine...unfortunate but true...you can't pick another destination folder. you can switch back and forth between the two by running the setup again. takes seconds.

[silvapain]

I'll be more than happy to do some VD versus loaded DynoJet comparisons once my car is running again. I will need to Dyno tune the new engine anyways.


Tapadatass

[rfinkle2]

There is a 25 person dyno day in PA in October which ATVfreek and I are going to.

He is going to dyno his car, and I am as well, and both of us agreed it would be cool to take a few logs (as close to dyno as possible) and compare them to the dyno afterwards.

We are dynoing on a non-load bearing dynojet.

[trf5000]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 There is a 25 person dyno day in PA in October which ATVfreek and I are going to. He is going to dyno his car, and I am as well, and both of us agreed it would be cool to take a few logs (as close to dyno as possible) and compare them to the dyno afterwards. We are dynoing on a non-load bearing dynojet.

Were actually gonna be on an AWD mustang. Sorry If the other thread was misleading about that fact.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by trf5000 Were actually gonna be on an AWD mustang. Sorry If the other thread was misleading about that fact.

Oh that is actually better, but I thought dturboman stated we would be on their dynojet.

[trf5000]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 Oh that is actually better, but I thought dturboman stated we would be on their dynojet.

When we went there, they said its much easier to get cars on and off the mustang. Also, I think Dan said their mustang reads like a dynojet, as they have their mustang calibrated to read similarly to their dynojet so their dyno give comparable numbers.

Vid of a Scoob on the dyno we will be using:

Subaru WRX STI huge dyno pull! 390 lbs/ft tourque / 340 whp - YouTube

Subaru WRX STI huge dyno pull! 390 lbs/ft tourque / 340 whp - YouTube

[rfinkle2]

Ahh that was it. Sorry Tyler.

For clarification we will be on a Mustang dyno calibrated to read like a dynojet.

For Fucks sake, I can't keep all of this shit straight.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 Ahh that was it. Sorry Tyler. For clarification we will be on a Mustang dyno calibrated to read like a dynojet. For Fucks sake, I can't keep all of this shit straight.

it will be interesting to see the plots but IMO setting a Mustang to read like a DJ is like adding correction factors on top of corrections factors....then we are applying a VD correction factor...lol. no bueno.

I think it will be best to validate your plots and dyno numbers with true DJ numbers.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 Ahh that was it. Sorry Tyler. For clarification we will be on a Mustang dyno calibrated to read like a dynojet. For Fucks sake, I can't keep all of this shit straight.

I personally want to be on a Zebra calibrated to read like a Unicorn.

Shops self calibrating dymos kills me. At least the drum Dynojets can't be tweaked and that makes them consistent from shop to shop.

[TiGraySpeed6]

I hear mustang dyno and I instantly think "soul crushing heartless bitch"

The local 4wheel dyno is a mustang, and it's a SCHB, doubly so since they won't rig fans to push air through top mounts.

I've never seen so much knock or such hellish BAT's.
I don't like to talk about the resulting HP numbers cause they were only in the upper & lower 260's.... No big, had to break my dyno cherry somewhere...

[phate]

Someone just want to post up 1.1.8 vs 1.1.9 plots of the same logs? I have no idea which version I was using, I'll have look my old screenshots.

Dynos are tools for tuning. Period. [Meaning I don't really care, and I don't think VD is good enough for anything but looking at very drastic changes in power.]

[TiGraySpeed6]

If it helps, these are the logs from the MD runs, and screenshots of the dyno results
hot and knocky...

[skiptowncat]

Lol at the fan 6 feet from the front of the car!!
Recently went on one that was in a small garage with 27c ambient temps. Ran the car up to 3k to "teach" the dyno, only then did he switch a fan on that was about 6 feet from the front of the car. Due to the fact I'm load tuning and stupid high temps, it pushed the psi required over the map sensor threshold and I couldn't get a run without a cut.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by phate Someone just want to post up 1.1.8 vs 1.1.9 plots of the same logs? I have no idea which version I was using, I'll have look my old screenshots. Dynos are tools for tuning. Period. [Meaning I don't really care, and I don't think VD is good enough for anything but looking at very drastic changes in power.]

OP is full of them

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by TiGraySpeed6 I hear mustang dyno and I instantly think "soul crushing heartless bitch" The local 4wheel dyno is a mustang, and it's a SCHB, doubly so since they won't rig fans to push air through top mounts. I've never seen so much knock or such hellish BAT's. I don't like to talk about the resulting HP numbers cause they were only in the upper & lower 260's.... No big, had to break my dyno cherry somewhere...

If they're not gonna put a fan on the top mount, then shut the hood and use the ducting for what it's there for.

[phate]

My comparison was actually done with VD version 1.1.2:


______________


Glad I take actual screenshots

PS - Can't wait for some NASTY torque like this (or lots more) again with AWD. Car was in rocket ship mode like this.

PPS - And if you remember (I barely do), the correction factor FROM THE DYNO (224xLC dynojet) was 1.01 on these runs.

[phate]

If 1.1.9 is similar to 1.1.2, which I think it is, then we should stick with whatever correction factor makes you guys content. 1.1.8 was happy, it seems, for whatever reason. It's an anomaly, so I don't think it's relevant. I never took notice of the actual numbers in any version because this is used to compare: and I load all the runs I want to compare at once.

If Brad can supply a version of 1.1.2 to test against, we'll have our answer. But I think this was a lot of uproar for no reason, lol.

I do think something close to 1.00-1.01 is most similar to LC dynojets, and ~1.09 is similar to regular dynojets.

[himurax13]

Here is my buddy's VD plot that we took a few hours ago. I was riding shotgun since he didn't know how to take a log. He has a 2012 White Pu that is fully bolted with all COBB parts (except fuel pump internals which are Autotechs) and was tuned by SoCal COBB. On their mustang Dyno he got 289hp and 312 torque targeting 18 lbs on 91 octane. The knock rarely went past 1.0.


DynoJet




Mustang




It seems to me in this example the CF should be more like 1.03 for a Live Mustang Dyno

[Tokay444]

You should edit your log in virtual dyno in the throttle position % plane to read 77 all the way down.

[bbarnhill]

Originally Posted by phate But I think this was a lot of uproar for no reason, lol.

[TiGraySpeed6]

And, just to say it, Damn glad you're here Brad (love fest...)

If we didn't like and use the hell out of your software we wouldn't care enough to bicker like this. Glad to have it.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by phate ... But I think this was a lot of uproar for no reason, lol.

not sure I would classify this thread an uproar, a significant plotting difference in the versions was brought to light.

It was causing me a lot of heart burn, apparently others as well, and I wanted to figure out what was going on.

[phate]

Originally Posted by Dano not sure I would classify this thread an uproar, a significant plotting difference in the versions was brought to light. It was causing me a lot of heart burn, apparently others as well, and I wanted to figure out what was going on.

I understand what you're saying. It becomes a liability with stock bottom end BT cars, where some are trying to avoid excess torque or excess power. When we say "400hp/400tq" is the limit, and the measuring stick changes, it has some potentially devastating results. In this case, of course, the measuring stick shifted in a direction that wasn't harmful...

[Tokay444]

Well everyone's numbers shifted down, so for those striving for the edge of 400 and 400, they would have likely gone over than in real numbers had we not discussed this a brought up the thought of a new standard correction factor.

A shift upwards in VD numbers would have been safer.

[phate]

The anomaly was 1.1.8. Why did no one bitch when 1.1.8 was suddenly reading higher than 1.1.7 or any other prior versions? This thread is killing me guys, we're talking about chasing numbers.

The only time it should have messed up ANYONE was if they started using VD on version 1.1.8, then saw a sudden decrease in 1.1.9. For the astute, they would have realized it. Those that didn't realize it probably aren't tuning themselves.

I think the question is really, "was 1.1.8 the only version to have skewed numbers". If 1.1.9 is the only version to read low, then I side with the "potentially harmful" argument. The comparison should probably be between 1.1.9 and 1.1.7.

Quite honestly, though, if you are tuning THAT close to the edge, and thinking it will be safe, or NEEDING it to be safe, you shouldn't be that close to the edge. We have had so many blown engines at stock/250hp/300hp/350hp/400hp that having a definite "400/400 figure" is impossible. We've seen solidly tuned cars let go well before that, it's a risk we all take.

[himurax13]

Originally Posted by Tokay444 You should edit your log in virtual dyno in the throttle position % plane to read 77 all the way down.

Done .

[Dano]

Originally Posted by phate The only time it should have messed up ANYONE was if they started using VD on version 1.1.8, then saw a sudden decrease in 1.1.9. For the astute, they would have realized it. Those that didn't realize it probably aren't tuning themselves.

haha well I guess I am not astute b/c this is the exact scenario I was operating under for my own tune and noticed with e-tunes the measured power from a fully bolted car was 30-40whp less than expected. Like many other guys I attributed it to the much hotter summer we have had. Once the cooler weather rolled around I was sure there was an issue with VD.

I was upgrading hardware in an attempt to gain more power.... when you make said hardware change AND went from VD8 to VD9 and saw a drop in HP you ask yourself WTF is going on here. did the HW change cause the drop in power...was it the map...so you start swapping maps and hardware back around only to find that the program you relied on to graph your deltas is the root cause. Now in hindsight it is easy to see that all logs, old and new, should be replotted in the current version. This does take quite a bit more time than going back to an already plotted screenshot.

Its not realistic to use a real dyno for these type of changes nor is it necessary.

I wasn't even addressing the potential safety issues you brought up b/c like you, I don't think you need to run to the edge of safety on a virtual plotting program, although it is pretty damn accurate if you control the inputs.

That is all I am saying and if you don't see that point nor agree we can respectfully disagree with each other...its really no big deal now that the issue has been uncovered.

I see this thread as a constructive analysis of the differences uncovered in VDs plotting algorithms. nothing more nothing less.

peace brother phate

[phate]

I still love you <3

[Dano]

Haha

We were each just expressing our opinions, nothing wrong with that.

Oh and I know I'm hard to love, being old and stubborn so I do appreciate that you still do.


Tappin

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by phate The anomaly was 1.1.8. Why did no one bitch when 1.1.8 was suddenly reading higher than 1.1.7 or any other prior versions? This thread is killing me guys, we're talking about chasing numbers. The only time it should have messed up ANYONE was if they started using VD on version 1.1.8, then saw a sudden decrease in 1.1.9. For the astute, they would have realized it. Those that didn't realize it probably aren't tuning themselves. I think the question is really, "was 1.1.8 the only version to have skewed numbers". If 1.1.9 is the only version to read low, then I side with the "potentially harmful" argument. The comparison should probably be between 1.1.9 and 1.1.7. Quite honestly, though, if you are tuning THAT close to the edge, and thinking it will be safe, or NEEDING it to be safe, you shouldn't be that close to the edge. We have had so many blown engines at stock/250hp/300hp/350hp/400hp that having a definite "400/400 figure" is impossible. We've seen solidly tuned cars let go well before that, it's a risk we all take.

I started on 1.1.8 and it messed me up.

[bbarnhill]

I still stand behind that its just in the smoothing factors from 118 and 119. The calculation of power has not changed in the least since 1.0.1

[Dano]

I don't and never did dispute that fact...lol I just pointed out that the global, behind the scenes, smoothing changed between versions which does change how the HP is plotted.

so in effect it changes the HP calculation given to the end user.

BTW lastnight I just happened to pull up a plot from 1.1.7 for one of the guys I tuned back in March to post up in another thread. I plotted those same logs in v 1.1.9....guess what?

v 1.1.8 is not an outlier...v 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 plot the same.

you can definitely see the newer version cuts down the wild datalog runs as evidenced by the blue runs in each plot.

it is what it is.

[phate]

Originally Posted by Dano v 1.1.8 is not an outlier...v 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 plot the same.

ONOES! I wonder how 1.1.2 stacks up...

[TiGraySpeed6]

Don't care anymore....

Done with the old stuff, just looking forward to the final decision on what CF to use so we can all go back to measuring our (slightly shorter now) dicks....

[Ziggo]

More fuel for the fire. This datalog lines up pre close in both versions with only the smoothing changed from 4 in 1.1.8 to 3 in 1.1.9

[Dano]

The better the log/run the closer they will be due to the global smoothing.

No road bumps, dips etc.


Tappin

[bbarnhill]

The two logs above in 118 and 119 ... those are what I would expect since smoothing was increased per level so it takes less to smooth the same amount.