U are still viewing it's as a 2D. Will post up some relevant soon mate.

XRW 147 (if im not mistaken) used to belong to a person called "Alan Nivatongs" who now lives in Dubai. He used to frequent this community and knows a fair few of the old timers on this forum.

My point is that although you can quote license plate numbers, it really does not address the question being asked by Kato and other people. (i did question myself if it were better just deleting the entire thread).

I think my point is vaild, let's stop the urinal pee contest and get back to the actual science. If you think your theories measure up then please just state the facts and stop the implied "im better/right because customer xyz's car came to my shop".

If forum users think this to be a good move, i suggest them to "like" this post as an indicator to developing more threads of substance.

There is no need to look into it as deep as you are Mao.

We are looking at a 2D graph of Torque vs RPM.

In the fast and the furious world, people look at peak figures. "OMG my car makes 301hp where as yours only makes 299hp". We are all aware that this only makes your e-penis larger on the internet (yay for forums ).

People looking at true performance will look at the torque curve, not the power curve. Again, peak figures tell you nothing about the car. But the area between the curve and the "x-axis / rpm axis" will tell you how the car will perform. Technically (mathematically) it is calculating 'work'. For everyone else it proves that you have a very fat torque curve.

There is no need to physically calculate a number for comparison (easily do-able but not necessary), it is just a visual guide so you can look at various dyno plots and make comparisons.

I tell everyone who asks me advice to ignore peak figures and purely look at this.

I am very interested in your other information as I do love looking at the 3D graphs used in tuning. I'd also be very interested if you have anything that shows higher dyno torque at a non WOT.

If people want a bullshit long theoretical maths excersize, try calculating your hp curve from your turbo compressor map. I've done it for my TD04 and it is a great way to really understand how things connect, what volumetric efficiencies do etc etc.

__________________
[COLOR="Gray"]550Nm off a 2L... Just wish it was in the dak dak...[/COLOR]

Then you have completely misunderstood me as I do not see it as a urinal pee contest. I dont live in forums, as I do have other commitments and responsibilities. However, I will always try to answer as best as I can, when time allows.

You mentioned Torque as the element to look for. I disagree as Hp is just as the same and as important. Hp is directly proportionate to torque.
Horsepower = Torque X RPM / 5252
(Apologies again if I do not give you the formulas in metric, as I studied this is the US and I am already used to it and am sure a simple conversion won't hurt.)

Tuning is both mathematical and methodical. A smart 10yr old can easily tune AFRs on a PC by using Pg+ or Pg- and watch the Lambda meter. I strongly believe a sound understanding of both is necessary to achieve a good tune.

I disagree that it is ' it is just a 2D graph'. My reasoning: How many times are you on WOT in a day?

Dynapack does not plot 3D graphs, and I have chosen a BSFC,
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption and BSAC, Brake Specific Air Consumption.

BSFC is a measure of an engine's efficiency. and is correlated to hp. BSFC says an engine will produce a given amount of horsepower, using a certain amt of fuel.

Both Torque, HP and Volumetric efficiency are correlated to both BSFC and BSAC.

I have chosen a plot of a Ducati 848 to depict this as this is available online and is independent info. Area above the graph can be seen at the circled places below WOT. Even at 80% OT, power and torque was laying off already..


From my tuning perspective, I have also put arrows in the graph where we would normally increase the Torque or Hp. Real world adjustments, correct AFRs, Boost and Ignition timing. Reason for this is that most guys are not in WOT conditions all the time, even on the track. How about more power + torque around the 70% to 90%open throttle as this would give manuverability and power on hand in the regions you need?

I really wished WOT can tell me 90% of the vehicle's tune, life will be a lot easier. We can just tune 10% of the cells and leave the rest then.

I hope this answers some questions raised and if anyone wants me to answer any questions, do ask politely, as I will most certainly extend the same courtesy back.

Disclaimer:
I must also strongly emphasize that I am not associated and have nothing to do with 'urinal pee contest', 'life threatening jobs', 'printing certs off the internet' ,'calculus' etc.

Edit: I did not wish to mention names in a public forum, out of courtesy and respect for my mate.

Yes your pt is valid.

That's great, but obviously assumptions have to be made.

If i asked: How do you calculate how much hp you will run @WOT with just 10deg advance at 30degC air temp? Then in this case, it will be different..

Yes of course it changes it. Just saying that it is possible to base an estimate off a compressor map.

Just to be clear - estimate only. Change a variable and you have to recalculate it like anything else in the world.

As you said above you can't tell 90% of a TUNE from a dyno printout of WOT. You can estimate 90% of the vehicle's PERFORMANCE from a dyno printout, cause hey when you are wanting performance you are at WOT.

I don't disagree that hp is not essential, but as you keep repeating it is determined from the torque and rpm. So wouldn't looking at the torque graph be wise as a starting point since the hp is calculated from the torque?

On your Ducati plot, it is showing x-axis torque, z-axis rpm and y-axis ??? Is that meant to be BSFC? Is this a factory tune or aftermarket? There is a "flat spot" till a certain rpm (I can't read the axis label) so is this maximising or allowing for low rpm throttle control for take off/stability control/launch control? Since most of us are familiar with AWD cars, I am trying to eliminate variables specific to a bike.

Great discussion btw.

__________________
[COLOR="Gray"]550Nm off a 2L... Just wish it was in the dak dak...[/COLOR]

Have chosen this specific 3D as it measures the Y as coefficient, ie of power and torque. It is also accurate as left and right graphs show 2 individual cylinders plots via Alpha N (real time ecu calculations).

Good point with the external factors like Launch control. I believe that these 3D plots are adequately independent, as they meausure straght from the engine's source. We can therefore do away with the other variants like LC, transmission loss and turbine variables.

2pt heres that was discussed:

1) External variables are very difficult to calculate so the Dynapack becomes a very useful tool. As Kato has mentioned, the dyno charts are a good guide especially for the consumer. I fully agree. But do understand that on our side, estimation is luxury we don't have here especially when there is a exchange of money and time.

2) WOT Wide open throttle -- This is actually a very important point to note. As Kato mentioned, most of us expect the car to fully accelerate, boost, perform to it's max at WOT. (I know you already know this Kato but you are just bringing up a useful point for discussion, so we can clarify this point here.)

The same 'general misconception' or thoughts apply to higher rpm points as well. The point being made here is that driving at 7000 rpm or WOT on say a factory wrx, doesnt mean you are at the point of max boost and torque . A driver has to be adaptive to his machine as well. Heavy footing is not the answer, but rather drive the vehicle at the top of the torque curve, while not dismissing hp. (Hp on a race car is impt especially power to weight ratios)

This also leads me to a good read here with a comparison of torque vs hp. Both variables, I agree are just as impt. Also take note that this theory applies to turbo charged vehicles as well, but the shift points are different as max hp and torque again different for a turbo charged vehicle.
Horsepower vs torque