My name is peter Burgess and I am a tuning junky
Discussion
Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a non confrontational thread? Here goes, maybe?
In the ideal World Dave would still be my mate and lap up all the power figures I get especially the coastdown variations we record and incorporate the data into his hard earned engine performance software. I would log down all the variations so Dave and Stan could use the figures, but I don't as it would be time consuming. Dave and I used to spend hours messing about on the rollers and flow bench and generally talking rubbish as us power junkies do
My credentials;I have an excellent track record for producing championship winning heads, engines and cars since 1987 and I am still improving the power outputs of our work as we have to keep up or better the opposition so our stuff can keep winning, which it does.
Here we go, Dyno Anonymous.... I am Peter Burgess and I do dynoing.
I have owned and operated a rolling road dyno since 1987.
First dyno Clayton water brake. Power figures varied depending if I loaded down from revs, different fast to steady load. readings would vary if I did fast unloads to slow unloads. I tried to keep things (including same operator for same car) as constant as I could. Dial out put gauges so we had to write down all the figures. Lots of seat of the pants stuff.
2010 and I invested in a Dynocom twin roller (actually quad roller centre split so runs more bearing than the Clayton so less harmonic vibration from length of rollers) this cost £26000 at the time, the 'now' price is horrendous with the plunging pound. I chose twin rollers from habit and personal prefernce incase of problems. In 30 years I have had a few engines go, dip clucth fast, a few boxes and diffs go (pray). Inertia of rollers propels vehicle backwards out of the rollers. I have had one wheel fall off and luckily the diff rested on the centre, non roller part of the dynocom so no damage to the rollers. I have had one instantaneous tyre blow out, car went wobbly and I thought tie down straps had let go, but, as the tyre went the starps went slack as they were not working against the tyre. I was thankful for the twin rollers and wonder what would have been the effect of the blow out on a single roller.
The Dynocom has inertia rollers and a pau on the front (rear if I put car in opposite way). The dyno was comissioned and built for us, not an off the shelf item. It was explained to me that inertia testing is the most repeatable way of tuning on the rollers and that the eddy brake pau can and does vary its ability to absorb power depending on pau temp as the gap between the electromagnets and the vented rotors will change and this affects the calibration of the strain gauge so, whenever possible run in inertia mode.
My mission...get best performance and or economy from vehicle on rollers.
The way I use the dyno....
Put car on rollers and line it up, strap it down ( not so it doesn't fly out of the rollers, if the car ever climbed out it doesn't go far as the car has no momentum) to make sure contact is maintained front and rear rollers as the software uses the inertia of both rollers for the power readings. It does no climb out of the front roler with the pau like the old Clayton one did as it is not holding the load. If we hold the load for mapping/ pinking testing it does try and climb out but contact with rear roller is not vital as long as we hold the load speed.
Put info into laptop, decide what rpm to record from. For road cars this is usually 2000 rpm. I then run the car on the rollers, check what mph is at 2000 rpm direct drive gear, usually 4th on 5 speed box. I warm the car and rollers up and steadily build up speed and throttle openings. I then watch max power on the laptop, after about ten runs when the car is first on the rollers I get a consisyent max bhp figure. At this point I start the recording from whatever mph is 2000 rpm. I finish the run by pressing the stop record button and then lifting off. Lift off before pressing stop record and get weird readings imo. I then do a run from below 2000 rpm as it is ob vious engines do not start producing power only from that rpm, this gives us a more realistic reading. I start the runs from the same lower rpm everytime or I get a different power curve below say 2500 rpm and I want consistency.
I trhen check the fuel curve, throttle openings etc etc then do another run, but, I cruise the car to even out temps and friction etc etc, then I do a run up and watch max power reading, I repeat this until I get consistent power reading, I then record a run. The process is repeated with changes to fuelling, ignition timing, cam timing if accessible, etc etc. At the end I do a coastdown test which involves dropping the car into neutral from peak test speed and letting the software time the deceleration.
Job is a good one and we all enjoy the tuning including the customer as I prefer working with the customer there as it is part of the experience rather than end up with a bit of paper and a dyno plot and not having been involved with the process ( I try and be holistic).
The bad bits we have found. On big power cars (usually 500 bhp plus) I put a load on the pau as this seems to steady the whole system, turbo cars do not work without a load to spool up the turbo.. I usually put a 1% load on (750 bhp pau so 7.5 bhp) Minis stall on this and will not accelerat to put it into perspective. The 1000 bhp Viper that showed 970?( cant recall) on our rollers took a 3% load to get sensible power curve. When the turbo works properly we get a characteristic curve which shouts...TURBO! With the load on I cannot gauge optimum reading for recording so, from experience I do three/four runs before taking a reading.
On one occasion we were running a big bhp car on a 1% load with side exhaust in front of rear wheel. We were having varying readings which confused me. Keith suddenly realised the exhaust was roasting the pau, problem solved as we shielded the pau aperture! It reminded me about what Paul said when he built the dyno....if you use the pau for say one minute, let it cool for at least a minute or you will get spurious readings!
That is what I do when I am dynoing. I make no mention of accuracy of figures obtained. I could be measuring monkey nuts for all it matters. I try and get the best monkeynut output at all rpms!
The inertia testing, has, in my opinion, helped me move forwards more than anything else in my 30 years of owning a dyno and I can see why Factory Race and Race teams swear by them. The numbers are irrelevant as long as they are the best one can get.
I only run the one roller setup so I only conmpare like for like power readings. The inertia calibration doesn't vary.
I hope to get the Superflow engine dyno running in a month or two, I need to make a device for adapting the crank/flywheel to fit the 1 3/8 ten spline spigot shaft on the dyno and work out adaptor plate dimensions, then we are all steam ahead.
I would be interested to hear other dyno operators experiences and all those involved with dynos including junkies who cant spend enough time on the rollers. I am one of them so I am lucky I do it day in and day out
Peter
In the ideal World Dave would still be my mate and lap up all the power figures I get especially the coastdown variations we record and incorporate the data into his hard earned engine performance software. I would log down all the variations so Dave and Stan could use the figures, but I don't as it would be time consuming. Dave and I used to spend hours messing about on the rollers and flow bench and generally talking rubbish as us power junkies do
My credentials;I have an excellent track record for producing championship winning heads, engines and cars since 1987 and I am still improving the power outputs of our work as we have to keep up or better the opposition so our stuff can keep winning, which it does.
Here we go, Dyno Anonymous.... I am Peter Burgess and I do dynoing.
I have owned and operated a rolling road dyno since 1987.
First dyno Clayton water brake. Power figures varied depending if I loaded down from revs, different fast to steady load. readings would vary if I did fast unloads to slow unloads. I tried to keep things (including same operator for same car) as constant as I could. Dial out put gauges so we had to write down all the figures. Lots of seat of the pants stuff.
2010 and I invested in a Dynocom twin roller (actually quad roller centre split so runs more bearing than the Clayton so less harmonic vibration from length of rollers) this cost £26000 at the time, the 'now' price is horrendous with the plunging pound. I chose twin rollers from habit and personal prefernce incase of problems. In 30 years I have had a few engines go, dip clucth fast, a few boxes and diffs go (pray). Inertia of rollers propels vehicle backwards out of the rollers. I have had one wheel fall off and luckily the diff rested on the centre, non roller part of the dynocom so no damage to the rollers. I have had one instantaneous tyre blow out, car went wobbly and I thought tie down straps had let go, but, as the tyre went the starps went slack as they were not working against the tyre. I was thankful for the twin rollers and wonder what would have been the effect of the blow out on a single roller.
The Dynocom has inertia rollers and a pau on the front (rear if I put car in opposite way). The dyno was comissioned and built for us, not an off the shelf item. It was explained to me that inertia testing is the most repeatable way of tuning on the rollers and that the eddy brake pau can and does vary its ability to absorb power depending on pau temp as the gap between the electromagnets and the vented rotors will change and this affects the calibration of the strain gauge so, whenever possible run in inertia mode.
My mission...get best performance and or economy from vehicle on rollers.
The way I use the dyno....
Put car on rollers and line it up, strap it down ( not so it doesn't fly out of the rollers, if the car ever climbed out it doesn't go far as the car has no momentum) to make sure contact is maintained front and rear rollers as the software uses the inertia of both rollers for the power readings. It does no climb out of the front roler with the pau like the old Clayton one did as it is not holding the load. If we hold the load for mapping/ pinking testing it does try and climb out but contact with rear roller is not vital as long as we hold the load speed.
Put info into laptop, decide what rpm to record from. For road cars this is usually 2000 rpm. I then run the car on the rollers, check what mph is at 2000 rpm direct drive gear, usually 4th on 5 speed box. I warm the car and rollers up and steadily build up speed and throttle openings. I then watch max power on the laptop, after about ten runs when the car is first on the rollers I get a consisyent max bhp figure. At this point I start the recording from whatever mph is 2000 rpm. I finish the run by pressing the stop record button and then lifting off. Lift off before pressing stop record and get weird readings imo. I then do a run from below 2000 rpm as it is ob vious engines do not start producing power only from that rpm, this gives us a more realistic reading. I start the runs from the same lower rpm everytime or I get a different power curve below say 2500 rpm and I want consistency.
I trhen check the fuel curve, throttle openings etc etc then do another run, but, I cruise the car to even out temps and friction etc etc, then I do a run up and watch max power reading, I repeat this until I get consistent power reading, I then record a run. The process is repeated with changes to fuelling, ignition timing, cam timing if accessible, etc etc. At the end I do a coastdown test which involves dropping the car into neutral from peak test speed and letting the software time the deceleration.
Job is a good one and we all enjoy the tuning including the customer as I prefer working with the customer there as it is part of the experience rather than end up with a bit of paper and a dyno plot and not having been involved with the process ( I try and be holistic).
The bad bits we have found. On big power cars (usually 500 bhp plus) I put a load on the pau as this seems to steady the whole system, turbo cars do not work without a load to spool up the turbo.. I usually put a 1% load on (750 bhp pau so 7.5 bhp) Minis stall on this and will not accelerat to put it into perspective. The 1000 bhp Viper that showed 970?( cant recall) on our rollers took a 3% load to get sensible power curve. When the turbo works properly we get a characteristic curve which shouts...TURBO! With the load on I cannot gauge optimum reading for recording so, from experience I do three/four runs before taking a reading.
On one occasion we were running a big bhp car on a 1% load with side exhaust in front of rear wheel. We were having varying readings which confused me. Keith suddenly realised the exhaust was roasting the pau, problem solved as we shielded the pau aperture! It reminded me about what Paul said when he built the dyno....if you use the pau for say one minute, let it cool for at least a minute or you will get spurious readings!
That is what I do when I am dynoing. I make no mention of accuracy of figures obtained. I could be measuring monkey nuts for all it matters. I try and get the best monkeynut output at all rpms!
The inertia testing, has, in my opinion, helped me move forwards more than anything else in my 30 years of owning a dyno and I can see why Factory Race and Race teams swear by them. The numbers are irrelevant as long as they are the best one can get.
I only run the one roller setup so I only conmpare like for like power readings. The inertia calibration doesn't vary.
I hope to get the Superflow engine dyno running in a month or two, I need to make a device for adapting the crank/flywheel to fit the 1 3/8 ten spline spigot shaft on the dyno and work out adaptor plate dimensions, then we are all steam ahead.
I would be interested to hear other dyno operators experiences and all those involved with dynos including junkies who cant spend enough time on the rollers. I am one of them so I am lucky I do it day in and day out
Peter
I will keep posting when I have something interesting and yes I do expect flak but I do not manipulate figures its as it left the factory, apart from the repairs and renewals electronically; delicate circuits don't like vibrations or static shocks from cars! Inertia dynos also show bigger numbers with lighter running gear and engine components, which cannot be so on a static dyno unless per sec runs in which case figures are lower because of inertia! On the track, the ones with the most power at the wheels on an inertia dyno accelerate faster than identical power spec on the engine dyno cars that have less on the inertia tests. To me, I see it as measuring road/track performance capabilities on an inertia dyno. I am really impressed with the repeatability of this type of testing and can see why the Silkolene guy said that was the ultimate way of tuning the race bikes for them.
I get the horrible feeling, when I get the engine dyno running and share figures ( when I can as I have a fair few folk wanting to do some research type work which will not be public domain stuff unless I am lucky), it will set the cat amongst the pigeons even more.
I suppose some of this is we have a tendency to want things to be ordered in some way in our heads so we can make 'concrete' sense of them and shades of grey (not sexually!) can be unnerving, that is why our brains join the black dots and we see a Dalmatian...or not
https://www.moillusions.com/mysterious-dots-optica...
I started this thread as I am hoping it develops into a constructive thread where we ALL benefit from everyone's input and go away richer and it doesn't degenerate into a destructive 'you are!' in the playground thread.
Peter
Mike, I'll be happier when I find a clutch plate suitable to adapt the dyno Thanks for trying.
I get the horrible feeling, when I get the engine dyno running and share figures ( when I can as I have a fair few folk wanting to do some research type work which will not be public domain stuff unless I am lucky), it will set the cat amongst the pigeons even more.
I suppose some of this is we have a tendency to want things to be ordered in some way in our heads so we can make 'concrete' sense of them and shades of grey (not sexually!) can be unnerving, that is why our brains join the black dots and we see a Dalmatian...or not
https://www.moillusions.com/mysterious-dots-optica...
I started this thread as I am hoping it develops into a constructive thread where we ALL benefit from everyone's input and go away richer and it doesn't degenerate into a destructive 'you are!' in the playground thread.
Peter
Mike, I'll be happier when I find a clutch plate suitable to adapt the dyno
Thanks for trying.Edited by PeterBurgess on Thursday 23 February 08:55
Hi Stevie
I attach a pic of the adaptor we want to make up, these ones cost around £800 plus duties to the UK. SF says use clutch on OE engine and fit spigot shaft to match, we want to run the usa 1 3/8th 10 spline on everything and the pic is an example of a workaround to achieve this.
Peter
I attach a pic of the adaptor we want to make up, these ones cost around £800 plus duties to the UK. SF says use clutch on OE engine and fit spigot shaft to match, we want to run the usa 1 3/8th 10 spline on everything and the pic is an example of a workaround to achieve this.
Peter
Thanks Stan, I'll bear that in mind. I think most of these size centres are off big USA motors and trucks so I should be ok.
There are lots of things to learn with the new dyno. I had a friend checking over our installation today and he pointed out I should put 1/4" steel plates to the walls adjacent to the crank line in case of grenading of engine, he says he has seen bits go through walls! On the rolling road I have always assumed the inner wings and bodywork will absorb the bits. I suppose with endurance testing this sort of 'BOOM!' is more likely to occur on the engine dyno.
Stevie, it is solid to adapt to flywheels.
Peter
There are lots of things to learn with the new dyno. I had a friend checking over our installation today and he pointed out I should put 1/4" steel plates to the walls adjacent to the crank line in case of grenading of engine, he says he has seen bits go through walls! On the rolling road I have always assumed the inner wings and bodywork will absorb the bits. I suppose with endurance testing this sort of 'BOOM!' is more likely to occur on the engine dyno.
Stevie, it is solid to adapt to flywheels.
Peter
Yes we go into neutral and the software times the -ve acceleration and works out the drag based on the inertia of the rollers, opposite of the power measuring test. It is excellent for comparing transmissions like for like for efficiency. I have mentioned before, we had a car in which was around 5 bhp down at the wheels compared to the last visit, on a hunch I checked the coast down losses and they had gone up around 5, on questioning the owner said he had put some treacle consistency anti leak stuff into his diff to cure a drip!
Yes Stevie, I will see if I get anywhere with the contacts I have, if not I'll ask other folk as you have suggested.
Peter
Yes Stevie, I will see if I get anywhere with the contacts I have, if not I'll ask other folk as you have suggested.
Peter
I find it fascinating folk seem to just look for the negatives not positives. Stevie, am I right you only work mainly on your one comp car? I use the figures we get to compare and improve many cars and bikes. Tango, I haven't a clue what you do maybe you would enlighten me?
The coastdown losses are for comparison purposes, I think most folk would think it a pretty good idea to get all that lovely power to the wheels rather than lose it in unnecessary friction? It works well for our race stuff.
Was that Performance Bikes mag? I got on well with John R when I met him for an article in the late 80s and I stil get on well with Dave W now running Emerald, I have a lot or respect for them.
Tango, a 100 hp motor and all the time to fit and try and make it work would be both time consuming and expensive, how would it benefit my customers and my research and how much do you think it would cost? Maybe you would like to produce a project we could discuss?
Overall, with the Dynocom rollers we have moved forwards and improved power outputs both at the engine and through transmission testing. There may be various criticisms of the set up as with all dynos whether rollers or engine dyno, that is fair play. However, I would ask those who knock, how do they compare and contrast power outputs and transmission losses? Without reliable, repeatable measuring it can only be guesswork or head in sand or 'it'll be alright on the night'philosophy? When a race car comes in with the driver saying it feels a little soft we do runs to check wheel power and transmission losses to see how the graphs compare to the last time in. This way we have picked up diffs failing, gearboxes failing and even prop joint failure onsets. Without measuring and testing it is guesswork and or seat of the pants. As I said, many race teams use the inertia testing, including coastdowns to optimise power output, must be a reason for that. Over the years I have found folk who don't rate dynos and the uses of dynos, rollers or engine and even pooh pooh the humble static state flow bench don't win much on the track. The other positive I get is a lot of input from many different race drivers and engine builders and head modifiers, I learn from these meetings and we all move forwards. Isolated and we lose the race.
I started the thread to invite dyno operators, engineers, power junkies etc to join in, does no one have positives? Would that be a sad indictment of the attitude of threaders? Or maybe some folk are concerned about posting in case they get attacked?
Peter
The coastdown losses are for comparison purposes, I think most folk would think it a pretty good idea to get all that lovely power to the wheels rather than lose it in unnecessary friction? It works well for our race stuff.
Was that Performance Bikes mag? I got on well with John R when I met him for an article in the late 80s and I stil get on well with Dave W now running Emerald, I have a lot or respect for them.
Tango, a 100 hp motor and all the time to fit and try and make it work would be both time consuming and expensive, how would it benefit my customers and my research and how much do you think it would cost? Maybe you would like to produce a project we could discuss?
Overall, with the Dynocom rollers we have moved forwards and improved power outputs both at the engine and through transmission testing. There may be various criticisms of the set up as with all dynos whether rollers or engine dyno, that is fair play. However, I would ask those who knock, how do they compare and contrast power outputs and transmission losses? Without reliable, repeatable measuring it can only be guesswork or head in sand or 'it'll be alright on the night'philosophy? When a race car comes in with the driver saying it feels a little soft we do runs to check wheel power and transmission losses to see how the graphs compare to the last time in. This way we have picked up diffs failing, gearboxes failing and even prop joint failure onsets. Without measuring and testing it is guesswork and or seat of the pants. As I said, many race teams use the inertia testing, including coastdowns to optimise power output, must be a reason for that. Over the years I have found folk who don't rate dynos and the uses of dynos, rollers or engine and even pooh pooh the humble static state flow bench don't win much on the track. The other positive I get is a lot of input from many different race drivers and engine builders and head modifiers, I learn from these meetings and we all move forwards. Isolated and we lose the race.
I started the thread to invite dyno operators, engineers, power junkies etc to join in, does no one have positives? Would that be a sad indictment of the attitude of threaders? Or maybe some folk are concerned about posting in case they get attacked?
Peter
Paul, I am very happy to pass on any experience I can, we all have different skills and it is nice to share. I pressed a mental 'like' when I read your post.
It is the same with my engine dyno install. I have slowed down to a crawl but cheered up as I had a phone call about prepping a head for a firm and during the conversation the topic of dynos came up. Low and behold, this was the guy who originally was responsible for buying, installing and running the Lister dyno we bought. He said it was last used in 2004 and gave me loads of info and kindly offered to jump in and help if we need it. Then, yesterday another mate comes in who has dealings with SU and sportdevices dyno software as well as running a comp car prep business. I haven't seen him for a couple of years so showed him our dyno...turns out he worked on it in the early 2000s, small world and yet more kind offers of sleeves rolled up and let's get stuck in
I have often thought, in your specific case Stevie, you are an unusual (in terms of not many folk in your enviable position) yet very lucky man who suffers from a surfeit of power when the rest of us are trying to wring out every last drop of power and grunt juice
Peter
It is the same with my engine dyno install. I have slowed down to a crawl but cheered up as I had a phone call about prepping a head for a firm and during the conversation the topic of dynos came up. Low and behold, this was the guy who originally was responsible for buying, installing and running the Lister dyno we bought. He said it was last used in 2004 and gave me loads of info and kindly offered to jump in and help if we need it. Then, yesterday another mate comes in who has dealings with SU and sportdevices dyno software as well as running a comp car prep business. I haven't seen him for a couple of years so showed him our dyno...turns out he worked on it in the early 2000s, small world and yet more kind offers of sleeves rolled up and let's get stuck in
I have often thought, in your specific case Stevie, you are an unusual (in terms of not many folk in your enviable position) yet very lucky man who suffers from a surfeit of power when the rest of us are trying to wring out every last drop of power and grunt juice
Peter
Hi Peter
Who am I to judge what is positive or not? It is good you have come on and posted about what you have done, I rather think you fall into tuner junky purely on the hours hands on tuning and probably the many, many more hours thinking about it and what if and why not!
We have quite a few customers who do all they can then do a run or three on the rollers to see how close they were and if we can improve it, all part and parcel of 'The Game'
Peter
Who am I to judge what is positive or not? It is good you have come on and posted about what you have done, I rather think you fall into tuner junky purely on the hours hands on tuning and probably the many, many more hours thinking about it and what if and why not!
We have quite a few customers who do all they can then do a run or three on the rollers to see how close they were and if we can improve it, all part and parcel of 'The Game'
Peter
Hi Adrian
You have given me loads of useful info before.
Are you running pau runs to have that quick an effect on power readings?
I presume I get less deflection running inertia rather than full pau controlled runs?
One topic I think folk are a little frightened of talking about is turbo engine testing. I find it damned nigh impossible to keep all temps just so. I prefer testing in the winter time when it is usually cooler. What I do find fascinating is the power graphs vs temp with turbos. It is very near perfect power differences for manifold temps almost like a physics lesson BUT doesn't help tuning!
Peter
You have given me loads of useful info before.
Are you running pau runs to have that quick an effect on power readings?
I presume I get less deflection running inertia rather than full pau controlled runs?
One topic I think folk are a little frightened of talking about is turbo engine testing. I find it damned nigh impossible to keep all temps just so. I prefer testing in the winter time when it is usually cooler. What I do find fascinating is the power graphs vs temp with turbos. It is very near perfect power differences for manifold temps almost like a physics lesson BUT doesn't help tuning!
Peter
Excellent news that you are being positive. What sort of power supply might I need , how do I connect it to my rollers? I imagine a 100 hp motor is pretty hefty volune wise and weight wise? The rollers are fairly small compared to the tyre size so I wonder how we could gear up the motor in some way? Most motors only do about 1500 or 3000rpm? Not my skillset I am afraid, it is why I ask you. Do you fancy coming up and seeing if we have the room for the fitting as you describe it? I suppose one would need some sort of software to manage this? Sounds rather an expensive project to me? Do many rolling roads come equipped with a 100hp motor to power up the car/test transmission?
I found these specs 562kg is hefty and I think 132 amp is a lot for a basic three phase supply? looks like a higher voltage is preffered but I don't know what I am talking about,
TEC Electric Motors 280S Frame 75kW 4 Pole Cast Iron High Efficiency AC Induction Motor for 400V or 690V 3 phase supply. Suitable for use with a Variable Frequency Drive or fixed-frequency mains supply at 50/60Hz.
Power Output: 75kW (100HP) at 50Hz
Speed: 1480RPM at 50Hz
Torque: 484Nm at 50Hz
Full Load Current: 132.7 at 400V, 76.6A at 690V
Power Factor: 0.87 (when mains connected at 50Hz)
Efficiency: 93.8%
Rated: 40°C Ambient.
Size: 550mm Wide x 985mm Long x 680mm High
Shaft: Shaft is 75mm Diameter x 140mm Length with 20mm Key.
Mounting: Mount via 4 x 24mm holes on 457mm x 368mm centres, 190mm back from the shaft shoulder.
Weight: 562kg.
Set terminal box links 'three-a-breast' for 400V 'Delta' connection.
Set terminal box links 'two at one side' for 690V 'Star' connection.
Ventilation space required at rear cooling air intake.
Full part number is - TECC2-280S-4 B3
From Jan 1st 2017, three phase electric induction motors with a rated output of 0.75kW to 375kW and efficiency less than IE3 must be equipped with a variable speed drive (Inverter Drive). For exceptions, see EC Commission Regulation 640/2009.
I look for consistency with my rollers and am content with what I achieve. Have you worked on many rolling roads or been to many test sessions?
Peter
I found these specs 562kg is hefty and I think 132 amp is a lot for a basic three phase supply? looks like a higher voltage is preffered but I don't know what I am talking about,
TEC Electric Motors 280S Frame 75kW 4 Pole Cast Iron High Efficiency AC Induction Motor for 400V or 690V 3 phase supply. Suitable for use with a Variable Frequency Drive or fixed-frequency mains supply at 50/60Hz.
Power Output: 75kW (100HP) at 50Hz
Speed: 1480RPM at 50Hz
Torque: 484Nm at 50Hz
Full Load Current: 132.7 at 400V, 76.6A at 690V
Power Factor: 0.87 (when mains connected at 50Hz)
Efficiency: 93.8%
Rated: 40°C Ambient.
Size: 550mm Wide x 985mm Long x 680mm High
Shaft: Shaft is 75mm Diameter x 140mm Length with 20mm Key.
Mounting: Mount via 4 x 24mm holes on 457mm x 368mm centres, 190mm back from the shaft shoulder.
Weight: 562kg.
Set terminal box links 'three-a-breast' for 400V 'Delta' connection.
Set terminal box links 'two at one side' for 690V 'Star' connection.
Ventilation space required at rear cooling air intake.
Full part number is - TECC2-280S-4 B3
From Jan 1st 2017, three phase electric induction motors with a rated output of 0.75kW to 375kW and efficiency less than IE3 must be equipped with a variable speed drive (Inverter Drive). For exceptions, see EC Commission Regulation 640/2009.
I look for consistency with my rollers and am content with what I achieve. Have you worked on many rolling roads or been to many test sessions?
Peter
Spot on, I suppose it would have to be motored from the other end of the gearbox, then, if it isn't as powerful as the inputting si or ci engine it would not pick up this tyre deflection problem or the %increase in gear losses should they happen with greater power input.
I suppose the nearest one could get is if Adrian builds an engine dyno, uses the same dyno on some rollers then uses the same dyno on his hub dynos, that would give numbers for one car and transmission and could not be extrapolated to other cars even of the same type Hence we do power tests and coastdown tests on all cars, this gives us some numbers which can be used for comparison purposes, over nearly seven years we have retuned many cars and seen how close the figures remain, unless there is a change in the engine/transmission which shows up comparing coastdown and power figures. The system is boring and simple but gives really consistent results. These can only really be appreciated in terms of I have done nearly every run and have seen the figures mount up and build up a picture, especially the transmission coast downs.
Least power losses live back axle (crap for cornering) worst losses old fashioned uj drive shafts and centre (De Dion style) diff on such as TR6s, you can even hear the rubbers on the driveshafts creak! Low tyre pressures, not good. Wide and sticky tyres power sappers. Modern boxes are more efficient than old ones. Slippy diffs sap more power. I know this is common knowledge, but, I have been able to quantify differences as the data mounts up. So we can see types of transmission variation and we can compare like with like to ensure all is well.
I do not do coastdowns on autos. However, looking at the wheel power of old 3speed boxes versus manual boxes, the losses seem pretty high. Modern autos seem pretty good, a lot of v8 specials run the modern auto stuff, power delivery is good and gear changes so slick!
Peter
I suppose the nearest one could get is if Adrian builds an engine dyno, uses the same dyno on some rollers then uses the same dyno on his hub dynos, that would give numbers for one car and transmission and could not be extrapolated to other cars even of the same type
Hence we do power tests and coastdown tests on all cars, this gives us some numbers which can be used for comparison purposes, over nearly seven years we have retuned many cars and seen how close the figures remain, unless there is a change in the engine/transmission which shows up comparing coastdown and power figures. The system is boring and simple but gives really consistent results. These can only really be appreciated in terms of I have done nearly every run and have seen the figures mount up and build up a picture, especially the transmission coast downs.Least power losses live back axle (crap for cornering) worst losses old fashioned uj drive shafts and centre (De Dion style) diff on such as TR6s, you can even hear the rubbers on the driveshafts creak! Low tyre pressures, not good. Wide and sticky tyres power sappers. Modern boxes are more efficient than old ones. Slippy diffs sap more power. I know this is common knowledge, but, I have been able to quantify differences as the data mounts up. So we can see types of transmission variation and we can compare like with like to ensure all is well.
I do not do coastdowns on autos. However, looking at the wheel power of old 3speed boxes versus manual boxes, the losses seem pretty high. Modern autos seem pretty good, a lot of v8 specials run the modern auto stuff, power delivery is good and gear changes so slick!
Peter
It depends on the percentage lock. I have seen 4 on a locked (welded!) diff, having said that we got about the same as that when our customer cured a diff leak with gloop syrup!
I have no idea why it absorbs power, not my field I am afraid, hopefully a diff savvy person will explain? Too much camber on one wheel (fwd) grasstracker lost 6 extra! It was very, very cambered though!
The worst we have ever had, not transmission was a grasstrack racer conned into crushing his rear ex pipe as he was told it would help with backpressure etc etc.....wheel power went from 18 to 40 when we used mole grips (other brands are available!) to sort of restore the shape!
Which takes me to another point, on the engine dyno, we built the cell so we can run the full ex system to be used on the car as I have never understood why only headers seem to be used? We can also test ex systems then
Peter
I have no idea why it absorbs power, not my field I am afraid, hopefully a diff savvy person will explain? Too much camber on one wheel (fwd) grasstracker lost 6 extra! It was very, very cambered though!
The worst we have ever had, not transmission was a grasstrack racer conned into crushing his rear ex pipe as he was told it would help with backpressure etc etc.....wheel power went from 18 to 40 when we used mole grips (other brands are available!) to sort of restore the shape!
Which takes me to another point, on the engine dyno, we built the cell so we can run the full ex system to be used on the car as I have never understood why only headers seem to be used? We can also test ex systems then
Peter
Hi Stan
I think they must be the same, a limited slip diff, I note my Cherokee XJ jeeps have these as standard.
How about, tyres not perfectly matched because of wear etc etc, standard diff would cope but limited slip wouldnt?
I know diffs on range rovers can 'wind up' whatever that means? We tend to run permamnent 4wd by using centre diff lock and removing front prop. When the wind up happens the engine about stalls, to cure it I have to reverse the car gently on the rollers until the transmission sorts itself.
Peter
I think they must be the same, a limited slip diff, I note my Cherokee XJ jeeps have these as standard.
How about, tyres not perfectly matched because of wear etc etc, standard diff would cope but limited slip wouldnt?
I know diffs on range rovers can 'wind up' whatever that means? We tend to run permamnent 4wd by using centre diff lock and removing front prop. When the wind up happens the engine about stalls, to cure it I have to reverse the car gently on the rollers until the transmission sorts itself.
Peter
I hadn't thought of the extra lump of oil on the diff causing power loss Peter, good call.
Paul, I will try and remember to ask what sort of lsd (non hallucinogenic variety) they have when I do cars with them.
On TR4s the FIA car was allowed an lsd but smaller engine, the big boys had big engines but no lsd, at power circuits the big boys won, at circuits with twisty bits like the hairpin at Mallory the FIA ones held there own by snapping at the heels of the big boys coming out of the hairpin.
On another note, about 14 years ago I had a V8 MGB roadster I loaned it out to a mate for sprint and hillclimbs, it ran a tuned 3.9 for several years with no problems winning its class nicely, we then bought a 4.6 and tuned that, twice it crashed coming out of hairpins which had us scratching our heads, it nearly spat me into a parked lorry trailer when I was testing throttle response with a new distributor. Frightened the cr*p out of me! Those in the know told me it needed a slippy diff to control the power output, once fitted the problem never occurred again, transmission losses not even considered
One of our championship winning MGB drivers used oil like treacle in his diff, it acted like a slippy diff when we were pushing the car around. On my old Clayton Rollers ( no coastdown facility) it always took around ten full power runs and cooling in between to get the most out of it, we think the treacl was sapping around 12 bhp until it warmed up. The reason was, first three or four laps gave lsd effect on bends so he could break away from the pack, rest of race running as usual diff as the grease/oil had thinned. It takes us back to aggregation of marginal improvements.
I suppose the pro race teams choose oils etc to give adequate protection for the length of the event. Thin oils sap less power but I presume do not protect as well on endurance events. It made us think you want as thin as possible in the transmission for drag racing as it is all over in a few seconds. Sa,me as we found around 10 bhp mors at thye wheels of Keith's(stepson) Camper van when we took the fanbelt off the ginormous cooling fan, It went from about 77 to 87 at the wheels, all important if you want to break that 19s 1/4 mile and be welcomed to 'The Club'. Running it without the fan for say 20 secs hard and the engine wouldn't even know it wasn't cooling properly. We were excited to find this and thought we were treading new ground....Keith's son Kev says.....they do that on the strip already Dad
Peter
Paul, I will try and remember to ask what sort of lsd (non hallucinogenic variety) they have when I do cars with them.
On TR4s the FIA car was allowed an lsd but smaller engine, the big boys had big engines but no lsd, at power circuits the big boys won, at circuits with twisty bits like the hairpin at Mallory the FIA ones held there own by snapping at the heels of the big boys coming out of the hairpin.
On another note, about 14 years ago I had a V8 MGB roadster I loaned it out to a mate for sprint and hillclimbs, it ran a tuned 3.9 for several years with no problems winning its class nicely, we then bought a 4.6 and tuned that, twice it crashed coming out of hairpins which had us scratching our heads, it nearly spat me into a parked lorry trailer when I was testing throttle response with a new distributor. Frightened the cr*p out of me! Those in the know told me it needed a slippy diff to control the power output, once fitted the problem never occurred again, transmission losses not even considered
One of our championship winning MGB drivers used oil like treacle in his diff, it acted like a slippy diff when we were pushing the car around. On my old Clayton Rollers ( no coastdown facility) it always took around ten full power runs and cooling in between to get the most out of it, we think the treacl was sapping around 12 bhp until it warmed up. The reason was, first three or four laps gave lsd effect on bends so he could break away from the pack, rest of race running as usual diff as the grease/oil had thinned. It takes us back to aggregation of marginal improvements.
I suppose the pro race teams choose oils etc to give adequate protection for the length of the event. Thin oils sap less power but I presume do not protect as well on endurance events. It made us think you want as thin as possible in the transmission for drag racing as it is all over in a few seconds. Sa,me as we found around 10 bhp mors at thye wheels of Keith's(stepson) Camper van when we took the fanbelt off the ginormous cooling fan, It went from about 77 to 87 at the wheels, all important if you want to break that 19s 1/4 mile and be welcomed to 'The Club'. Running it without the fan for say 20 secs hard and the engine wouldn't even know it wasn't cooling properly. We were excited to find this and thought we were treading new ground....Keith's son Kev says.....they do that on the strip already Dad
Peter
Figures relating to bhp at flywheel vs bhp at the wheels on t'internet seem very scarce with no one really committing. I found a link to an article about Roush Cup engines...
Plus, Roush says parasitic losses are surprisingly minimal, with about 850 of those 900 ponies reaching the rear wheels. Maximum torque is delivered at 7000 rpm, while peak power typically comes around 9000 rpm, though the engine is capable of revving considerably higher depending on the track.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/news/a8027...
Peter
Plus, Roush says parasitic losses are surprisingly minimal, with about 850 of those 900 ponies reaching the rear wheels. Maximum torque is delivered at 7000 rpm, while peak power typically comes around 9000 rpm, though the engine is capable of revving considerably higher depending on the track.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/news/a8027...
Peter
It is tantalising isn't it? To the wheels, at the wheels, at the bit of tyre that grips? Exactly what I thought It seems no one wishes to test these things. I suppose, it doesn't really matter as long as engine and transmission are performing at their best.
Can of worms. It is why I decided we would run full systems on our engine dyno, otherwise it seems like a waste of time.
With regard to filters...twice now I have seen V8s on the rollers with 'as dynoed' engines running way too rich, pop off the supplied filters and mixes and bhp seem correct so I get the feeling dynoing had been done without airfilters as the mix was spot on without! The engine builder, had supplied everything, including the dyno tuning!
Years ago (30?) the Don part of Aldon (cut his teeth at Rover) said I would be surprised to find out how little transmissions (inc wheels/tyres) really lose. I suppose that has stuck with me ever since.
Peter
It seems no one wishes to test these things. I suppose, it doesn't really matter as long as engine and transmission are performing at their best.Can of worms. It is why I decided we would run full systems on our engine dyno, otherwise it seems like a waste of time.
With regard to filters...twice now I have seen V8s on the rollers with 'as dynoed' engines running way too rich, pop off the supplied filters and mixes and bhp seem correct so I get the feeling dynoing had been done without airfilters as the mix was spot on without! The engine builder, had supplied everything, including the dyno tuning!
Years ago (30?) the Don part of Aldon (cut his teeth at Rover) said I would be surprised to find out how little transmissions (inc wheels/tyres) really lose. I suppose that has stuck with me ever since.
Peter
Well, that's two hours gone from my life.
4th gear
30 psi(went up to 32 after runs) 73.4 and 19.6 losses = 93
26 psi(staid same after runs) 72.5 and 20.9 losses = 93.4
15 psi(went up to 17 after runs)71 and 22.4 losses = 93.4
To be expected I suppose, as tyre resistance goes up power at wheels will go down.
What I do find interesting, why did 26 psi stay static ( that is the correct running pressure for the tyres)?
Peter
4th gear
30 psi(went up to 32 after runs) 73.4 and 19.6 losses = 93
26 psi(staid same after runs) 72.5 and 20.9 losses = 93.4
15 psi(went up to 17 after runs)71 and 22.4 losses = 93.4
To be expected I suppose, as tyre resistance goes up power at wheels will go down.
What I do find interesting, why did 26 psi stay static ( that is the correct running pressure for the tyres)?
Peter
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff