Jump to content




Photo

Testing testing 1-2-3


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 16 February 2016 - 03:58 AM

What is the point of testing? Seriously. Why test? What does that even mean to test something?

 

A pup is in the woods and sees his first skunk. Curious he moves close poking at it trying to determine the nature of this creature. In a moment he will learn a lesson he wasn’t actually looking to. Was the pup testing or was he the recipient of the unintended consequence of a mindless act?

 

When you go to the track to refine your car, are you actually testing or merely poking at a skunk? Will you understand the nature of the response?

 

Look up the word ‘test’ and you will find allot of definitions. You will also find that most of them include quantifying or qualifying the result to a predetermined expectation. In manufacturing a test affirms or denies a products compliance with or to specification. In school it affirms or denies your understanding of a set of conditions or facts. In science it might affirm or deny a hypothesis or determine identity of an unknown.  

 

What a test doesn’t do is poke at skunks. It isn’t random nor unplanned or without expectation of conformance to a predetermined set of possible results or a failure to do so. So here’s a question.

 

To test effectively, or at all for that matter, does this not mean you must have some accurate knowing of the thing you wish to test to the degree that you can stipulate reasonable expectations? Form a hypothesis? Understand your result?

 

How for instance, can one test the effect of magnet strength on motor performance without a knowledge that it even has an influence on motor performance? Would you find it helpful to know in what direction strength has said influence? To what degree of magnitude? Would you find it useful to know under what states or conditions text book values apply? Does it have bounds? What assumptions are made of the knowledge of the reader of any text book? Did you know that assumptions of the reader even exist?

 

For our purposes; A test is a specified method which acts as a mirror of the physical laws of nature directly reflecting your state of accurately knowing them.

 

Testing therefore seeks to enhance and clarify an accurate understanding of these immutable laws that permits you to improve a result.


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.




#2 CoastalAngler1

CoastalAngler1

    Outlaw Racer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 14
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Quit Wishin Go Fishin

Posted 16 February 2016 - 08:20 AM

Lockheed Martin, or Skunk Works?


  • Marty N likes this

Charlie McCullough

Charlie's Speed Shop

JK Hawk Horsepower Specialist

Bartos Chassis

CHR Cars

Outisight Bodies

 


#3 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 16 February 2016 - 05:42 PM

There is a belief that the information obtained in dyno testing is useless and has no correlation to the “realities” of the track. “We don’t’ race dyno’s”. No, we do not race dynos but it is fallacious reasoning that extrapolates that premise into the false conclusion the information is useless.

 

What is it you think a dyno does? That a good question to begin with?

 

Most believe a dyno measures motor inputs and calculates outputs then displays that information in units that make some sense to the operator. Nope.

 

It fully regulates inputs, accurately measures outputs and carefully calculates; displaying results to familiar knowable understandable terms.  

 

By doing so it completely eliminates outside variables. Something track testing cannot do. It takes the track and the track conditions out of the equation. Mutes environmental influences. It eliminates the driver and the operators perceptions and subjective inclinations. It reduces the motor to its raw state; testing to a set of known and unchanging conditions.

 

 Horsepower =(((0.0336 * lbs.)*(mph*mph))-((0.0336*lbs.)*(mph*mph)))/(delta T)/550

 

It places the entire focus of the test solely and faithfully on the motor. The above equation is a F=MA equation that has been fitted with a constant that allows the use of pounds and mph from a formula whose original form used the units mass and velocity. Slugs and meters/second.  This same basic formula is used for the outputs of the dyno using different constants to use the inertia moment of a flywheel in lieu mass or weight. A fixed highly regulated and filtered voltage, A fixed inertia moment and a crazy accurate high resolution quartz clocking system with no outside interference. Heavy shielding.

 

The fact a dyno does so completely isolate makes changes you make to the motor reflect only those changes you made. You know that the result is not reflecting that days track variables. If you don’t find that of value nothing more can be said.

 

This formula can be used as well with the results from your time slip and a set of scales turning a drag strip into a dyno which does not filter out the environment and operator by consolidating a few terms OR as is to measure incremental performance. Regulation of track variables is on you to filter out. Experience helps.

What the track can’t tell you the dyno can is potential. It just reports results. Muddy results. You can work with that. It just takes more knowledge and a good deal more understanding.

 

This sort of thing can be used in a spread sheet to get instant results including graphs. Visuals are a great help. Plug in your time slips and hard measurements and as fast as you can input you have results.

 

It matters not if you believe or even understand the following. Part of me hopes you don’t.

 

When you blindly poke a skunk you are simulating a dyno that’s had all its filters removed that is providing the muddiest possible picture and lowest return for your effort. That isn’t testing. That is blind hogs hunting turnips. Dogs poking skunks.

 

The only unfair advantage that a sanctioning body cannot rule as illegal is your brain. Pure stealth. You might be amazed to find out how many “back door” parts that renders useless.

 

Don’t have a dyno? Can’t buy one? There is a work around for that…….145

 


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#4 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 18 February 2016 - 12:49 AM

Google “motor constants”. You should get over 10 million hits on those terms. There is some discrepancy between writers over the symbols used for the various units and I’m not going to address that here.

 

What is not in question is that they assume you know, as you read their various text on the topic, that they are speaking in terms of the ‘ideal’ motor. So done to simplify their calculations. These terms mathematically define motor performance. In doing so those caught unaware and upon use of what seems a simple enough equation cannot find a resolution that makes any sense.

 

Hence it is assumed that the theory does not follow practice and as such is useless drivel. Now that’s funny I don’t care who you are.

 

When you apply a fixed voltage to a motor not under load it comes to some stable rpm. It comes to that exact speed every time that same voltage is applied.  As an ideal motor the current draw would be zero amps. It comes to this rpm because as the motor increases in speed it is also generating a voltage that has an opposite polarity. Remember PMDC motors can also be generators This generated voltage opposes the applied voltage cancelling it out. When the two come to unity, that is the generated voltage is equal to the applied voltage the motors rpm becomes constant. As there is no forward voltage there is no drop over the armatures resistance and the current draw is zero thus the torque is zero. Thus ideal.

 

If now running at a constant rpm you grab the armature shaft and bring it to a stop the generated voltage goes to zero because the rpm is zero. The full forward voltage is now dropped over the resistance of the armature which draws current and that current generates a magnetic field in the coil which is amplified by the iron which is opposition to the magnet which causes a torque on the armature shaft as it attempts repulsion. Whew!

 

In these motor constant equations speed of a motor is NOT measured in rpm but in the units of angular velocity called radian seconds. That is important. They are convertible yes but not the same. It is assumed you know this. You don’t.

 

When the SI units of measurement are being used by the bright boys the units of torque and the units for velocity have different names but have identical values. That is to say 1 Newton meter amp is equal to 1 volt second. We can dispense with how radians is canceled out in the math.  Remember 1 volt = 1 amp = 1 Ohm in one second? Ohms Law.

 

Before I go on I want you to note a little fact you can check on. 1 volt second is also one weber of flux. The amount of torque produced then is directly a function of the amount of flux which in turn is a function of both current and the field of flux that generates and the strength of the magnet as these two repel each other in the air gap between them. This interlinking is fortuitous. Wordy, sorry.

What we need to know is that by measuring the motors constants we can calculate the performance of an ideal motor. There is that pesky ‘ideal’ thing again. Not a problem actually. Because all that is required is to quantify the difference between the idea motor and the one we have in hand. Simple, right? Actually yes it is if given a bit of effort.

 

What is not true is your understanding of this relationship in real world motors. As complicated as this sounds, it isn’t. And it is the root of about 99.99% of all motor myths generated.

 

This png. Picture file (shown) is the interface page between the inputs loaded into the yellow boxes as taken on the bench and the outputs given in the pink boxes. My personal unit shown. In between the two are a hidden series of referenced cell formulas, macros and look up tables that covert units and calculate states and relationships as fast as you can load it producing a reliable set of useable outputs. These are the bridge between the ideal motor and the real world motor and it is as accurate as any dynamic measurement you care to put it against. Track or Dyno.

 

It is being displayed not as a product for sale but for your edification. I just gave you enough information in this dull text to build the road map to duplicate this work on your own. Given the state of belief in such things I think that more than generous.

 

KMR is research. My personal enjoyment in slot cars is contained within that concept.

 

So…the first method, the inertia dyno is no longer in production. It’s hard to find and expensive to buy even second hand. Most scoff at its usefulness or accuracy.

 

The “Bench Dyno”, what I call this one, is and will remain a mystery to most I expect due to the lack of belief in the absolutes of natural law.

 

Still some might succeed in it's duplication. I expect most of who do will be those seeking that “unfair” advantage.

 

206

 

Attached Images

  • PaperDyno1.png

Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#5 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 19 February 2016 - 10:49 AM

For those that find measuring motor performance a daunting or useless task one can always measure the cars performance. Almost every racer who has the slightest seriousness to his program at minimum keeps a note book.

 

Question, what do you with that information?

 

What you can do is allot more than you might think. Many of the same equations that are used in the ‘Bench Dyno’ can be used for track data evaluation. The principal is the same. F = MA. Difference is your measuring result instead of potential. This type of worksheet were my earliest inquiries into what I did not know. The one shown is the latest version with the most detail. Many of the graphs and charts further up the page are generated by this spreadsheet. Like the last one you see the result of what is written in the cell reference from another cells input values.

 

Lots of people, including myself, are greatly aided with visual aids in understanding results, concepts and ideas. I still keep a note book for all the observational bits’a and measurements that have an impact I haven’t yet found a way to quantify. Like track temperature and the feel of the car rolling out. The look of the braid. Bar adjustment observations for a particular track. Tight spots and unevenness in the track and where located along its length. Details of the cars construction especially tire info. 262

 

Attached Images

  • D3.png

Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#6 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 20 February 2016 - 10:55 AM

This is the earliest version of a “paper dyno” I used done in Excel. Prototype was done in Lotus 123.  Crude but still gives useful information faster than a calculator and more of it. One step above a simple notebook, which you still should keep. Yellow boxes inputs, pink outputs. It:

  1. Converts grams to pounds for the horsepower calculation
  2. Calculates gear ratio and rollout and drive ratio
  3. Converts speed to velocity (fps) for horsepower calculation and horsepower.
  4. Track distance when the motor peaked RPM in feet and in percent.
  5. Trap RPM ignoring tire growth.

You plug in;

  1. Cars weight in grams
  2. Pinion gear and spur or crown
  3. Tire diameter in inches
  4. ET and MPH
  5. Track length in feet.

If you record you data within the spread sheet or macro it to another; graphs of the cars progress or a lack thereof can be maintained. This can be cut and paste into as many workbooks within a single file as you have cars each labeled on its own tab. 307

 

Attached Images

  • OD.png

Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#7 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 22 February 2016 - 05:53 PM

How interesting. Same repsonce as formats were no reply is possible. Think it's called window shopping. :dash2:

 ​


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#8 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 25 February 2016 - 12:02 PM

In post #5s picture you may have noticed there are speeds in the boxes beside the times for the 60 and 330 markers. Not normally outputs of timing systems for an eighth mile. (If you right click the photo it gets clearer in a larger pain).

The speeds are the result of a calculation based in kinematics. Which is an equation of linier acceleration such as that of a falling ball in a vacuum. We know a slot car does not accelerate in a linier fashion but is synchronous to the mechanical time constant of the entire system (car). Valid question not asked then would be about the accuracy of the result. Good question.

The acceleration curve of a motor/slot car is regression analysis.

http://support.ctc-c...orEquations.pdf

Follow this link for an example of how the complicated out there becomes simple at KMR. Having looked at it you can now toss it under the buss. There is an easier and useful explanation.

Lets say we have a motor whose no load 16 volt rpm is 100,000 rpm. From zero rpm we instantly apply a steady 16 volts. The motor will take time to accelerate from zero rpm to 100,000 rpm. It will do this in a very predictable fashion. If the time (T) is broken into 13 segments whose value for T is the same for each segment the motor will reach 63.2% of its no load speed within the first period.

63,200 rpm in the first of 13 segments of time. Subtracting this from the no load speed leaves us 36,800 rpm. In the second time segment the motor will accelerate 63.2% of 36,800 rpm or 23.258 rpm. This is added to the initial 63.200 so that at the end of two of the thirteen segments the motor is now at 86,458 rpm. That now subtracted from 100,000 rpm, wash, rinse and repeat eleven more times. At that point the motor is running 100,000 rpm.

Two things to note from this much simpler explanation. First is that with each passing time segment the motors acceleration is slowing by a very predictable and substantial rate of time and rpm. 38.6% of the remainder. This rate of deceleration then has a slope. Second. Yes it is not linier over 13 segments BUT over fractions of the whole is a very good approximation of linier. That is over a segment or two and the further out on the progression you get the closer to true that becomes. Which by the way works out nicely for our purpose.

The 60 mark. The motors rpm is still within the first time period. Well within it the motor reaching somewhere, inertia dependent, between 40 and 55% of its no load speed. Meaning it can be treated as linier in that any error in T is so small as to render it harmless. The next time slot at 330 is over a much lower slope and over only a few segments and this is the point of the greatest possible error in the equation. It required some further investigation. Extra timers in fact needed to be used to CONFIRM the usefulness of such an equation.

You can thank Rodger Schmitt at Mid-America Raceway who spent the time and $$$$ with Track Mate to have extra sensors added to a full system ¼ mile and the code written to support the new hardware. In the end actual measured speeds were within 2 % of the equation regardless of the actual rates of acceleration. And in every instance the equation proved to be light by the same degree. This confirmed not only the precision but the premise. Its a regression. Its predictable to a useful degree and it can be backed up with physical measurement. It is repeatable. Highly repeatable. And highly predictable.
Best of all that ridiculous equation in the link was rendered KNOWABLE by anyone who cared to give it a look.

What the simplified version does not do is give you the value of T but it does show that it holds true.

This too is useful. Ill show how in a future post. 447
Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#9 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 25 February 2016 - 05:12 PM

461 Within that silly link in the previous post is a not so silly statement I quote cut and paste:

Commercial servo motor specifications usually list these two time constants. However, it should be cautioned that these two time constants as given in the specifications are for the motor alone with no load inertia connected to the motor shaft.

The second he speaks of is the electrically time constant not here under consideration.

The part of the quote I now take from context is: alone with no load inertia connected to the motor shaft.

On an inertia dyno such as the Fantom, this is reduced to a known value. That of the inertia moment of the flywheel for which there are well known and documented methods and formula. Meaning you have a reliable repeatable standard of reference to gauge your work by IF you own or have access to one.

More importantly it tells you something of the nature of the time constant. The value of T in the time constant (Tc) is subject to load. Any load, not just that of inertia. For instance the load added by glue up. Sort of like putting your finger on the flywheel of the dyno.

It explains why the dyno is MORE accurate than any track test you can devise in MOTOR EVALUATION.

It also tells you there is possible error in any dyno IN THAT the results are dependent upon the load used for said evaluation. Electric motors by definition deliver ONLY the power required to overcome the load they are strapped to. With a very important caveat. That the maximum current possible under the conditions of stable voltage and terminal resistance are NOT exceeded.

Read that again. Unless the load is such that the FULL POSSIBLE current is being drawn the results, as far as evaluating the motor are concerned, are in question in the sense of absolute PEAK values. The guy that designed and built the Fantom is aware of this. The flywheel used is quite sufficient to assure the stated conditions of FULL current loading as one can note in the fact the flywheel for RC has a much higher inertia moment. Sized for the application. Interchanging flywheels will school you to that fact quickly.

Lets make this more concrete. A S16 on the dyno takes about 7 seconds to reach full speed. On the track roughly a second +/-. The load on the track is always greater than the load on the dyno and yet the dyno supplies enough load to assure full current draw. You now have a more solid basis for comparing your dyno information to the track performance of your car. A very large variable has been eliminated. You know that if you build that motor so that on the dyno the time to X rpm has been shortened it will assure you that this is possible on the track as well IF you dont get in its way. Youve eliminated a second wildly inherent variable. YOU. The only part of the system that can be fooled.

The fact that we can be fooled is the reason I spent so much time on fallacious argumentation and so much time on elimination of the human variable as much as is practical.

It is the fact that science is advanced enough to produce a device such as a dyno that gives some confidence in related endeavors such as analysis of motor via the measurement of observed effect. Spin the motor and measure the voltage. Drive a voltage and measure the rpm. With those two and a known voltage and observed no load current we have the ability to replicate the dyno without actually running the motor against one. AND more importantly UNDERSTAND why the results differ. Which by the way you could intuit IF you remove the dyno wheel and observed the increase in RPM at the same test voltage.
We can know the absolutes yes. But what is more valuable is knowing the relative results for which you have STANDARDS for comparison. The kinetic energy is a disc of aluminum is unchanging. Unlike your track testing. Unlike instrumentation. Unlike observations and subjective analysis.

Regardless of method, sound method chosen it becomes pointless without comparison and comparison is impossible without data.

Yep, I hear it. ET is the only measure that counts! The crowd yells. You are RIGHT. Question is what did you ET tell you?

Your slower pass you worked so hard to improve is the result ofwhat?

Your faster pass you worked so hard to improve is the result of..what?

You can guess till the lights go out.

You built a motor that was, on the dyno 20% more powerful and produces a slower track time..why? On the dyno result youve eliminated the motors power.
People who hate dynos are saying than in their experience when a more powerful motor produces a slower pass its the dynos fault. If theyre not saying that then then they admit that they havent any experience in which case they speak without knowledge. The only statement that doesnt leave one sounding silly is, I cant find one, cant afford one, dont understand them and as such FOR ME they havent a value I can USE.

Tis why so many tools were offered for your consideration.
Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#10 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 26 February 2016 - 11:47 PM

I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to convince a Tailor’s Convention that the tape measure is the appropriate tool for our trade as it’s been awhile since men measured by the span of a hand or the Kings stride, although I’ve run those methods down as well.

I don’t mind sharing. Enjoy it actually. Don't even mind being wrong. What I do mind is wasting my time. And what would be a waste of my time?

Being the key note speaker at a Tailor’s Convention were every single delegate is The Taylor of Panama, and tailoring, thus, isn’t really the point.

The title is Testing testing 1-2-3, not Lurkers 101.

 

 


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#11 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 19 March 2016 - 11:11 PM

So...you don't like dynamometers and you don't like science and you don't like change. 

 

How you feel about irrelevance?

 

 

​Best track tested setup in the world is useless without horsepower.607


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#12 havlicek

havlicek

    OCD Rewinder

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,656 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NY

Posted 20 March 2016 - 02:42 PM

Hi Marty,

 

     There are a lot of times when I'll post one of my jobs and get zippity doo dah in terms of responses.  Heck, there are a lot of times when I send a motor off to someone and get not so much as a "thank you, it's a "-----" (fill in the blanks) motor.  Don't ever assume that people aren't looking.  People most often seem to look in, make mental notes and not much else.  You get pretty wired-up sometimes, but I at least applaud your enthusiasm and approach.  ***If slots depended on folks that were just "meh", it would be even deader'n it already is!

 

-john


  • Marty N likes this
John Havlicek

#13 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 20 March 2016 - 10:57 PM

Thank's John. Yea, I...ah...err...do get amped up.....sometimes.  Part of the passion with a dash of anoyed I guess. That old saying, "Everyone wants to go to heaven, no one wants to die", comes to mind.


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.

#14 idare2bdul

idare2bdul

    Grand Champion Poster

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,629 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garner, NC

Posted 21 March 2016 - 02:31 AM

Dyno's have their place but in drag racing you have to find a motor that launches well without overpowering the tires. The motor then becomes one of several variables in the equation and its up to the racer to figure out the rest.

THE RACERS THAT ARE DANGEROUS ARE THE ONES THAT COMBINE BRAINS WITH THE WILLINGNESS TO SPEND STUPID AMOUNTS OF TIME AND MONEY ON THEIR PROGRAM WHILE LEARNING FROM THEIR SUCCESSES AND FAILURES.

When I race those guys I try for a good light and hope.


The light at the end of the tunnel is almost always a train.
Mike Boemker

#15 Marty N

Marty N

    Race Leader

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston, IL

Posted 21 March 2016 - 10:35 AM

Hello Mike. The very first line in your post I find a perfect definition of the term "balance". Yes sir, you are right, up in smoke is not the quick way down a track. Then again neither is being 50 horsepower down on the field.

 

The exception to this is the open motor no minimum weight cars where a bit less power may be in your favor on a given track. Then only if you had too much to begin with.

 

I use a controller without a wiper 90% of the time. A Parma frame that is nothing more than a switch for an automotive lighting relay and some huge short wire and gator clips. I've been told repeatedly that this type of controller "shocks" the tire and I would be much quicker if I would use even a 1 ohm wiper before engaging the relay. Of the half dozen quickest AA/FC racers East of the Mississippi that have chided me for this habit and after using their $$$$$$ controllers and proved to be slower using them, they still insist. Even when their quicker with mine. I have no idea what to do with that. Still I bought and use a Koford relay dragtrol with the stepped wire loop resister that has worked okay in some situations.

 

I ask this often. If you can contain an 800 watt 60 gram Funny Car into not shocking the tires off why do we believe a loosing 80 watt 120 gram D/S will be such an unsolvable problem with a competitive 85 watts?

 

What I'm saying is until you reach the very top of the top shelf, "too much power" is not going to be an issue and a dyno is the quickest way to find it. The cheapest way to find it, however, is generator type testing and there is little interest in that either.

 

Here's a plan I like to use. Do like Vance and Hines. Dyno all winter and find 15% or 20% more horsepower then go to the track and track test and tune the set up until your the quickest in the filed by half a tenth. Don't power down to keep a comfortable but "that's so last year" set up. You learned that one. You'll learn the next one too. It's okay to be slower for awhile. Really. Your reputation will survive. 607


Martin Nissen
 
So hard a judge they hope never to meet as themselves.





Electric Dreams Online Shop