|
GT engine rules ?
So who are the individuals who are responsible for the current GT engine rules ? what does everyone think of these rules ? 5 port with 7 mm insert .... what was the purpose of these rules and did the rule achieve the desired purpose ? I have my own opinions of these rules that I will share later, but for now I want to find out who made up these rules and if anyone thinks these rules were effective and beneficial to GT racing or possibly feel these rules were arbitrary , ineffective and detracting from GT racing.... FYI a 7 mm insert can reduce engine output by as much as 20% and increase internal wear and tear...
|
Engine rules should be made or advised by people who have knwowledge of engines.
The 5 port rule with a 7mm insert is I believe mainly a cost rerduction so no high end 9 port engines can be bought. But nothing is sayd about the internal timings and modifications. So you have a cheap 5 port engine and then you buy a set of ceramic bearings and let it be modified by someone making it a total price of a 9 port engine..... |
Originally Posted by Roelof
(Post 14464818)
Engine rules should be made or advised by people who have knwowledge of engines.
The 5 port rule with a 7mm insert is I believe mainly a cost rerduction so no high end 9 port engines can be bought. But nothing is sayd about the internal timings and modifications. So you have a cheap 5 port engine and then you buy a set of ceramic bearings and let it be modified by someone making it a total price of a 9 port engine..... EXACTLY!! i dont understand the logic behind that:confused: a 7mm restricor is not going to reduce output 20%?? who told you that? and why would it create less wear and tear? |
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14465193)
EXACTLY!! i dont understand the logic behind that:confused:
a 7mm restricor is not going to reduce output 20%?? who told you that? and why would it create less wear and tear? The wear and tear comes from the engine being choked back and being forced to run leaner in an attempt to make power.. As well the choking the engine back narrows the tuning window and increases the likelihood of running lean The engine rules were very foolish and not well thought out and have done nothing towards making the class any more affordable, all they have done is needlessly slowed the class down and taken away some of the excitement and thrill.. In the grand scheme of things the racing is no cheaper and the cars are needlessly hobbled so these rules need to repealed and the class allowed to run at its full potential. Anyways who came up with these rules ? As you might have noticed I am not a fan of needles arbitrary rules, especially in motorsports..for some reason these RC sanctioning bodies seem to get carried away and tend to make some very shortsighted rules that have very big and substantial negative consequences to the sport... |
Originally Posted by Maximo
(Post 14465544)
The 7 mm sure does reduce output ...I am one of the few who actually owns and operate a Nitro engine dyno and have tested inset extensively ..and yes a 7 mm insert drastically reduces power , in some engines it can be more then 25% loss as opposed to a 9mm.. even in a lower timed offroad engine the losses are quite big and of course in a higher timed onroad the losses are even more....
The wear and tear comes from the engine being choked back and being forced to run leaner in an attempt to make power.. As well the choking the engine back narrows the tuning window and increases the likelihood of running lean The engine rules were very foolish and not well thought out and have done nothing towards making the class any more affordable, all they have done is needlessly slowed the class down and taken away some of the excitement and thrill.. In the grand scheme of things the racing is no cheaper and the cars are needlessly hobbled so these rules need to repealed and the class allowed to run at its full potential. Anyways who came up with these rules ? As you might have noticed I am not a fan of needles arbitrary rules, especially in motorsports..for some reason these RC sanctioning bodies seem to get carried away and tend to make some very shortsighted rules that have very big and substantial negative consequences to the sport... If a smaller venturi equals less wear and tear then why is it that offroad engines dont last nearly as long as onroad engines do? no matter what size venturi you use the engine performs best at the exact same A/F ratio. yes you have less air entering which equals less fuel which equals less castor oil for protection but as forementioned on road uses at least 2% (sometimes more!) oil for protection and lower nitro. Technically a smaller venturi could actually give more wear and tear! I dont think venturi size determines how long an engine is going to last one way or the other, especially only 1mm. I agree with you on the rules, would love to hear the true logic behind this because as we have all seen that it makes no difference at all. a Modified MITO is every bit as fast if not faster than a 9 port with 8 or 9mm venturi! Not sure if you have been to a national level GT race lately but they are very bit as fast if not faster than they were with open engines. and thats because as Roelof said earlier guys are just buying a cheap ison ,installing ceramics and having it modded to make more power than before with good if not better gas mileage. When a 5 port /7mm gets the same exact pit time as a 9 port, that tells you something right there! |
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14465807)
If a smaller venturi equals less wear and tear then why is it that offroad engines dont last nearly as long as onroad engines do?
2 reasons: 1) Offroad engines do not rev that high as GT and onroad. 2) Most specific offroad fuels have a higher oil content. |
Originally Posted by Roelof
(Post 14465823)
2 reasons:
1) Offroad engines do not rev that high as GT and onroad. 2) Most specific offroad fuels have a higher oil content. we are "supposed" to use offroad 5 ports........ which would be the same RPMs:lol: VP 30% nitro only has 9% oil VP 25% nitro has 11% |
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14465807)
Most in Gt were running 8mm venturis not 9, all 9 does is give you poor mileage in a heavy car. So you are saying going from an 8 to a 7 nets you a -20% power loss??
If a smaller venturi equals less wear and tear then why is it that offroad engines dont last nearly as long as onroad engines do? no matter what size venturi you use the engine performs best at the exact same A/F ratio. yes you have less air entering which equals less fuel which equals less castor oil for protection but as forementioned on road uses at least 2% (sometimes more!) oil for protection and lower nitro. Technically a smaller venturi could actually give more wear and tear! I dont think venturi size determines how long an engine is going to last one way or the other, especially only 1mm. I agree with you on the rules, would love to hear the true logic behind this because as we have all seen that it makes no difference at all. a Modified MITO is every bit as fast if not faster than a 9 port with 8 or 9mm venturi! Not sure if you have been to a national level GT race lately but they are very bit as fast if not faster than they were with open engines. and thats because as Roelof said earlier guys are just buying a cheap ison ,installing ceramics and having it modded to make more power than before with good if not better gas mileage. When a 5 port /7mm gets the same exact pit time as a 9 port, that tells you something right there! |
Originally Posted by Maximo
(Post 14465839)
you are very wrong to think that a engine will make its best power on a 7mm insert..... 7 and 8 mm do not make as much power as a 9mm........ as well the power drop off from 8-7 mm is much bigger then you realize, just 1 mm can result in as much as a 20% loss of peak power as well as a substantial loss in peak RPM ...and yes the 7mm venturi makes the tuning window narrower and the engines will end up on average having shorter lifespans...all the rules did was slow the cars down and the racing is no cheaper then it was before
i have a hard time seeing a 1mm rstriction equaling 20%, you have a dyno sheet to verify this? We will agree to disagree on the lifespan subject.... The rule did not slow the class down at all. Last race i had a very hard time keeping up with a modded MITO, in fact he had more top end than i did with a non modded 9port/8mm. before the rule most did not bother modding engiens we just all ran 9ports but now if you want to keep up with the elite you have to have a modded 5port which is faster! At least thats my logic and what i have experienced here lately anyway! |
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14465835)
we are "supposed" to use offroad 5 ports........ which would be the same RPMs:lol:
VP 30% nitro only has 9% oil VP 25% nitro has 11% |
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14465851)
I never said it would make its best power with a 7mm, thats not what i meant but a modded 7mm can make more power than a non modded engine with a larger venturi. I have seen it first hand:nod:
i have a hard time seeing a 1mm rstriction equaling 20%, you have a dyno sheet to verify this? We will agree to disagree on the lifespan subject.... The rule did not slow the class down at all. Last race i had a very hard time keeping up with a modded MITO, in fact he had more top end than i did with a non modded 9port/8mm. before the rule most did not bother modding engiens we just all ran 9ports but now if you want to keep up with the elite you have to have a modded 5port which is faster! At least thats my logic and what i have experienced here lately anyway! what pipe are you guys running ? 2 chamber or 3 chamber ? this can make a huge difference.. Are you using INS boxxes ? now when you say modified and stock , would you consider removing head shims modifying ? Power and efficiency are closely tied and often times when engine is making its best power its also running most efficiently ..when we start forcing less then ideal conditions on the engine you will start to see a reduction in fuel economy .. Does your daily driver get better fuel economy with a partially clogged air filter ? 2 strokes are funny and I am finding that when I hit the magic spot power wise on a modified engine we are also seeing extremely good runtime as well....now what has to be taken into account here is that when a engine is making more power it is also capable of doing more work, which can change the runtime.... what I am getting at here is that comparing runtime between a fully modded 9 port on a 9mm against a choked back 5 port may not give the full picture...the modified fully opened up 9 port can be getting better efficiency but doing more work in the same amount of time as the less efficient 5 port , so their final runtime looks the same ..meanwhile the 9 port is cutting faster laps and hitting 4 MPH higher down the straight.... I am fully willing to dyno test any combo someone wants me too...just let me know the engine and pipe, or send me your engine and pipe... |
Originally Posted by Maximo
(Post 14465952)
what pipe are you guys running ? 2 chamber or 3 chamber ? this can make a huge difference.. Are you using INS boxxes ?
now when you say modified and stock , would you consider removing head shims modifying ? Power and efficiency are closely tied and often times when engine is making its best power its also running most efficiently ..when we start forcing less then ideal conditions on the engine you will start to see a reduction in fuel economy .. Does your daily driver get better fuel economy with a partially clogged air filter ? 2 strokes are funny and I am finding that when I hit the magic spot power wise on a modified engine we are also seeing extremely good runtime as well....now what has to be taken into account here is that when a engine is making more power it is also capable of doing more work, which can change the runtime.... what I am getting at here is that comparing runtime between a fully modded 9 port on a 9mm against a choked back 5 port may not give the full picture...the modified fully opened up 9 port can be getting better efficiency but doing more work in the same amount of time as the less efficient 5 port , so their final runtime looks the same ..meanwhile the 9 port is cutting faster laps and hitting 4 MPH higher down the straight.... I am fully willing to dyno test any combo someone wants me too...just let me know the engine and pipe, or send me your engine and pipe... yes INS boxes I understand exactly what you are saiying but at the end of the day its about what happens race time and on the track. we all were coming in within a lap of each other. my car was second fastest over all of the other 5 port by alot actually (picco, ison) while the modded Mito had me by a few mph. My engine is not modded at all. I would like to see this 20% loss that you mentioned earlier though, where are you getting that from? i assume your dyno right? when i say mod I mean port, polish etc etc |
Originally Posted by Roelof
(Post 14465914)
If you think the amount of ports is determing the performance then think again....
Which goes back to your original statemnt about how only those who know about engines should make engine rules!! |
OK...
I have been at several EFRA AGM's and the EFRA wants to lower down the noise for years. Something they are failing for many years by approving loud noise exhausts. But with one AGM they come up with 2 thoughts to lower down the noise in the future: 1) forbid AAC engines because the aluminium sleeve is making more noise. 2) max 5 port engines because less ports is making less noise. Both to my knowledge picked out of nothing. I asked if they can show me a test based on 2 same engines with one AAC and the other ABC, they could not. Also as I was running modified 5 port engines I shared my knowledge that my 5 port engines were not making less noise than 7 and 9 port engines. These thoughts of the EFRA never came back on the agenda, but it shows how stupid organisations can be..... |
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14466348)
9886 and short header modded straight or conical
yes INS boxes I understand exactly what you are saiying but at the end of the day its about what happens race time and on the track. we all were coming in within a lap of each other. my car was second fastest over all of the other 5 port by alot actually (picco, ison) while the modded Mito had me by a few mph. My engine is not modded at all. I would like to see this 20% loss that you mentioned earlier though, where are you getting that from? i assume your dyno right? when i say mod I mean port, polish etc etc This pipe is not legal 9886......has not been for a while. DJ Apolaro |
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14466348)
9886 and short header modded straight or conical
yes INS boxes I understand exactly what you are saiying but at the end of the day its about what happens race time and on the track. we all were coming in within a lap of each other. my car was second fastest over all of the other 5 port by alot actually (picco, ison) while the modded Mito had me by a few mph. My engine is not modded at all. I would like to see this 20% loss that you mentioned earlier though, where are you getting that from? i assume your dyno right? when i say mod I mean port, polish etc etc the stupid INS box is choking the hell out of the engines...add in a 7 mm insert and your down well over 20% power........ these rules are retarded and are hurting nitro far more then they are helping....time for the racers to stand up and tell the clowns at EFFRA to go pound it in the sand.... they are just a small group of guys who are looking for a easy cash grab.....making these silly arbitrary rules all over some imaginary noise issue.... time for people to wake up and see whats really happening here ! .. And you haven't gone against one of my modified 7 ports, as one of mine fully opened up on a 9mm with no INS would eat your Ison 7mm/INS like a bon bon....complete and utter destruction..I would have at least 40% more HP then you ... milder engines don't mind being choked back as much as powerful engines do...... these rules you guys follow are crippling the performance of your cars..all over some imaginary noise issues that only exist at one or two tracks in Europe..... I owned a track for 5 years and the only complaints we got was from the PA system...never from the cars........... I am going to do everything I can to see to it that the EFFRA engine rules get put in the dumpster where they belong..or at the least only enforced at tracks where the track owner feels there is a noise issue.... other then that lets let open innovation win and not cripple any potential evolution with some arbitrary rules nobody seems to understand the purpose of...... |
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14466348)
9886 and short header modded straight or conical
yes INS boxes I understand exactly what you are saiying but at the end of the day its about what happens race time and on the track. we all were coming in within a lap of each other. my car was second fastest over all of the other 5 port by alot actually (picco, ison) while the modded Mito had me by a few mph. My engine is not modded at all. I would like to see this 20% loss that you mentioned earlier though, where are you getting that from? i assume your dyno right? when i say mod I mean port, polish etc etc in the end these engine rules have not resulted in cheaper racing, all they have done is substantially slowed the cars down... is this what the racers want ? do you racers really like the idea of leaving all that extra power on the table because of some noise issues at a track in Europe ? |
Regarding enviroment laws, in Europe they are much stronger than on other parts of the world. Even our Zandvoort F1 track can not hold a F1 race because they would go over all sound limits for the rest of the year. Most clubs have a time window in where they can make noise
I have to agree that several ruling of the EFRA has something more of a commercial side. Approving loud exhausts is basically money in the pocket and new rules with measuring noise levels is handing the problem over to the driver. To reject all responsebillities the have scrapped the word homologation and call it now registration. The INS BOX was a product devellopped by Serpent and indeed in the 1st year it was mandatory Serpent as the only producer had sold a lot but saddly many engines did fail. The INS-BOXes have changed over the years and are for sure no reason for engine failures. If the EFRA did reject all exhausts making more noise than the 83dB standard then the EFRA had no races to run. On the other hand, the Hipex 2095 exhaust shows it can be done without damaging engines, again saddly no other manufacturer is willing to comply. But hey, beside the EFRA we now have the ENS with almost no noise rules, guess who will win the hart of the racers and actually allready has done with 160 drivers on an ENS and barely 60 drivers at a EC. Even the EC-B for this year has been canceled. (see EFRA site) |
Originally Posted by dj apolaro
(Post 14466814)
This pipe is not legal 9886......has not been for a while.
DJ Apolaro We do not run ROAR rules so it makes no difference to me, thats why i run a 9 port:D
Originally Posted by Maximo
(Post 14466848)
the stupid INS box is choking the hell out of the engines...add in a 7 mm insert and your down well over 20% power........
true but that is relative since we all run INS boxes these rules are retarded and are hurting nitro far more then they are helping....time for the racers to stand up and tell the clowns at EFFRA to go pound it in the sand.... they are just a small group of guys who are looking for a easy cash grab.....making these silly arbitrary rules all over some imaginary noise issue.... time for people to wake up and see whats really happening here ! .. AGREED! And you haven't gone against one of my modified 7 ports, as one of mine fully opened up on a 9mm with no INS would eat your Ison 7mm/INS like a bon bon....complete and utter destruction..I would have at least 40% more HP then you ... Doubt that, plus the modded 5port i am referring to is on a murnan sponsored driver, say what you want about murnan but the engine is fast. i have been building race engines my entire adult life. Plus of course your engine would be faster than a INS/7mm engine??? thats comparing apples to oranges. milder engines don't mind being choked back as much as powerful engines do...... True these rules you guys follow are crippling the performance of your cars..all over some imaginary noise issues that only exist at one or two tracks in Europe..... I owned a track for 5 years and the only complaints we got was from the PA system...never from the cars........... I am going to do everything I can to see to it that the EFFRA engine rules get put in the dumpster where they belong..or at the least only enforced at tracks where the track owner feels there is a noise issue.... other then that lets let open innovation win and not cripple any potential evolution with some arbitrary rules nobody seems to understand the purpose of......
Originally Posted by Maximo
(Post 14466878)
these engines are very sensitive to airflow restriction.....the power losses are very big from just small changes..... air filter too dense , small insert, INS box...all of it will cripple these engines and result in huge power losses....the more powerful the engine the higher the power losses...
But the scenario is relative, they all use INS boxes in the end these engine rules have not resulted in cheaper racing, all they have done is substantially slowed the cars down... is this what the racers want ? do you racers really like the idea of leaving all that extra power on the table because of some noise issues at a track in Europe ? LOL thats so true! |
Originally Posted by Roelof
(Post 14466901)
Regarding enviroment laws, in Europe they are much stronger than on other parts of the world. Even our Zandvoort F1 track can not hold a F1 race because they would go over all sound limits for the rest of the year. Most clubs have a time window in where they can make noise
I have to agree that several ruling of the EFRA has something more of a commercial side. Approving loud exhausts is basically money in the pocket and new rules with measuring noise levels is handing the problem over to the driver. To reject all responsebillities the have scrapped the word homologation and call it now registration. The INS BOX was a product devellopped by Serpent and indeed in the 1st year it was mandatory Serpent as the only producer had sold a lot but saddly many engines did fail. The INS-BOXes have changed over the years and are for sure no reason for engine failures. If the EFRA did reject all exhausts making more noise than the 83dB standard then the EFRA had no races to run. On the other hand, the Hipex 2095 exhaust shows it can be done without damaging engines, again saddly no other manufacturer is willing to comply. But hey, beside the EFRA we now have the ENS with almost no noise rules, guess who will win the hart of the racers and actually allready has done with 160 drivers on an ENS and barely 60 drivers at a EC. Even the EC-B for this year has been canceled. (see EFRA site) |
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14466912)
We do not run ROAR rules so it makes no difference to me, thats why i run a 9 port:D
LOL thats so true! more and more your going to see my engines at the onroad tracks.... open up the intake and stop choking them back and you will see the cream rise to the top, restricting the intake with a INS is a equalizer and allowing the small dogs to run better with the bog dogs...take that off and the small dogs wont be running with the big dogs nearly as easily ! you guys are choking your engines back, substantially reducing power to slightly reduce noise when you likely didn't have a noise issue to begin with..... |
I would be more then happy to dyno test any of your engine combo's and let the results epak for themselves...7mm, 8mm, 9mm, INS box no INS box....5 port GT, 9 port doesn't matter.....thats why I built the dyno to begin with
|
agreed with all maximo and roelof......chocking the engines with stupid rules makes lough and cry .....when we are talking about noise lets check some supercars and superbikes and superboats ,,lets see top fuel dragsters ,,,i mean when big money is around there are no rules ,,,,,,and more and more all these useless rules are pushing new comers to electric rc toys ,,,,i wood say fricking noise and high rpms are for men ,,,,its what i keeping us around the rc engines ,,,,there can be some rules but killing the excitement is killing the rc nitro hobby...
|
I agree with you Neal, but I also have a different view that I like to share.
Here in Sweden (maybe in other countries as well) it's common to start complaining about something that has existed for a long time. Like a gun range close by that had been in use for a half century or so, and all was well until someone decided to lay out a exercising path that was going close by. They started to complain about the noise and the houses around chimed in when the petition list came, even though they had moved there knowing they might hear some noises. The individual that complaint the most was also the most frequent visitor to the gun range... :confused: This happens to our race tracks, airports etc, people are moving in and start to complain after that, so they need to shut down or move the activities that are generating noise. With this in mind, many here are protective of their hobbies and try to circumvent this by addressing issues before the petition lists comes, as then it's most of the time to late... That EFRA is regulating what IFMAR should do is something I don't understand, maybe someone has more knowledge in that department. |
I do wonder how big impact the 16% rule has on noise...
It would be an easy rule to adopt instead of what they have now, if it does anything. |
The EFRA had for 1 year the rule to use an 8mm restrictor, due many blown Picco engines the rule was scrapped after a year. The 16% rule is for 2 reasons, the anti terrorist laws making high nitro content fluids difficult to get and noise and the noise from which we have never seen any test results.
The funny thing with the EFRA is that there are no testreports at all. Not of the homologated exhausts, not of the batteries, not of the bodies etc. With all noise restrictions the EFRA did not show us the testresults of what the change will give. Even with the 30xx exhausts the only story from the EFRA was that it does not affect engines and there could be a slight power loss. In that year the engines did become hot and some exhausts weren't even giving a good power. But over 40 30xx exhausts were homologated with in a total of about 15.000 euro is earned with the homologation. The last compleete drawing of an EFRA exhaust was from the 2052, all later models are not listed in drawings and dimensions. How can a technical inspection see or test if it is the right exhaust? |
A quick look at Hipex and you realize that there is room for interpretation, four 2069 pipes and three 2034...
The new regulations regarding nitro is a pain in the b**t! I still blend my own fuel, but shipping etc is through the roof. I don't think it had much impact otherwise, as it's allowed with 30% by weight or 23% by volume, so I think all 25% fuels are allowed. |
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14466912)
We do not run ROAR rules so it makes no difference to me, thats why i run a 9 port:D
LOL thats so true! The pipe is not a Roar rule. It is Ifmar..... http://ifmar.org/pdf/mufflers/IFMAR%...8th%202015.pdf DJ Apolaro |
If 5 ports is the max, what is to stop someone from taking a 7 or 9 port and cutting out a bridge in the sleeve to create a 5 port? Are there rules in place prohibiting this? I've heard of guys doing this. If this is happening the motor rules other than .21 cubes might as well just be tossed out....
|
Originally Posted by Maximo
(Post 14466922)
INS hurts the more powerful engines more...
i dont disagree with that more and more your going to see my engines at the onroad tracks.... open up the intake and stop choking them back and you will see the cream rise to the top, restricting the intake with a INS is a equalizer and allowing the small dogs to run better with the bog dogs...take that off and the small dogs wont be running with the big dogs nearly as easily ! you guys are choking your engines back, substantially reducing power to slightly reduce noise when you likely didn't have a noise issue to begin with.....
Originally Posted by dj apolaro
(Post 14467273)
The pipe is not a Roar rule. It is Ifmar.....
http://ifmar.org/pdf/mufflers/IFMAR%...8th%202015.pdf DJ Apolaro |
Originally Posted by Roelof
(Post 14467187)
The EFRA had for 1 year the rule to use an 8mm restrictor, due many blown Picco engines the rule was scrapped after a year. The 16% rule is for 2 reasons, the anti terrorist laws making high nitro content fluids difficult to get and noise and the noise from which we have never seen any test results.
The funny thing with the EFRA is that there are no testreports at all. Not of the homologated exhausts, not of the batteries, not of the bodies etc. With all noise restrictions the EFRA did not show us the testresults of what the change will give. Even with the 30xx exhausts the only story from the EFRA was that it does not affect engines and there could be a slight power loss. In that year the engines did become hot and some exhausts weren't even giving a good power. But over 40 30xx exhausts were homologated with in a total of about 15.000 euro is earned with the homologation. The last compleete drawing of an EFRA exhaust was from the 2052, all later models are not listed in drawings and dimensions. How can a technical inspection see or test if it is the right exhaust? MAN, that is some interesting info there, makes you wonder whats really going on:weird: |
Originally Posted by Maximo
(Post 14466978)
I would be more then happy to dyno test any of your engine combo's and let the results epak for themselves...7mm, 8mm, 9mm, INS box no INS box....5 port GT, 9 port doesn't matter.....thats why I built the dyno to begin with
how are you loading your dyno? eddie current, wheel or brake?and does your software compensate for downforce, drivetrain loss etc etc Owning my own Dynojet 1:1 chassis dyno i find it hard to see what freespinning a nitro engine up to max RPM without a real life load on it can do really much good other than comparing just those numbers. |
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14468034)
how are you loading your dyno? eddie current, wheel or brake?and does your software compensate for downforce, drivetrain loss etc etc Owning my own Dynojet 1:1 chassis dyno i find it hard to see what freespinning a nitro engine up to max RPM without a real life load on it can do really much good other than comparing just those numbers.
And if your not forced to why run a INS ? enjoy slowing your engine down ? |
Originally Posted by Maximo
(Post 14468281)
its a inertial dyno, there is nothing free spinning....... the results are very accurate for measuring engine output..........as I say a 7MM insert murders power.....INS box hurts power....these goofy 3 chamber pipes hurt power.........Do you enjoy the idea of choking back your engine ? why are you defending this 7mm rule so much ?
And if your not forced to why run a INS ? enjoy slowing your engine down ? I am not defending it at all i think its Stupid as hell. I just dont think going from a 8mm to 7mm venturi is equal to 20% power loss. i dont run a 5 port, pipe is "illegal" and my INS box is modified so its not choking anything ( i have a 3d printer!!) |
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14469235)
I am not defending it at all i think its Stupid as hell. I just dont think going from a 8mm to 7mm venturi is equal to 20% power loss.
i dont run a 5 port, pipe is "illegal" and my INS box is modified so its not choking anything ( i have a 3d printer!!) |
Originally Posted by Maximo
(Post 14469497)
I will dig up a few of the dyno reports....I think your going to be surprised how much a 7mm can hurt the performance...
Great, i look forward to seeing that! PM me , i have something you may be interested in especially if you are serious about getting into the engine game.:sneaky: |
Originally Posted by Roelof
(Post 14466749)
OK...
I have been at several EFRA AGM's and the EFRA wants to lower down the noise for years. Something they are failing for many years by approving loud noise exhausts. But with one AGM they come up with 2 thoughts to lower down the noise in the future: 1) forbid AAC engines because the aluminium sleeve is making more noise. 2) max 5 port engines because less ports is making less noise. Both to my knowledge picked out of nothing. I asked if they can show me a test based on 2 same engines with one AAC and the other ABC, they could not. Also as I was running modified 5 port engines I shared my knowledge that my 5 port engines were not making less noise than 7 and 9 port engines. These thoughts of the EFRA never came back on the agenda, but it shows how stupid organisations can be..... |
Originally Posted by beebone
(Post 14471833)
Alright, I test different engine on my GT, Buggy engine makes car easy to drive because of low end torque. GT engine needs proper clutch adjustment to reduce low end stumble and stall. On road engine needs extremely late clutch engagement to get the right low end torque, I think the 8 or 9 mm insert help to bring the torque earlier right? But the run time.
|
Originally Posted by MantisWorx
(Post 14470084)
Great, i look forward to seeing that!
PM me , i have something you may be interested in especially if you are serious about getting into the engine game.:sneaky: |
| All times are GMT -7. It is currently 06:36 AM. |
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.3.9 Patch Level 3
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.