Peripheral Port Renesis dyno's
12-24-2007, 08:48 PM
#51
BDC Motorsports
Brian - I applaud you for answering this stuff.
I didn't have it in me to do it again.
And again.
And again.
I think this is a sticky somewhere, isn't it? Oh, that's right:
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-aftermarket-performance-modifications-23/so-you-wanna-tuner-100333/
I didn't have it in me to do it again.
And again.
And again.
I think this is a sticky somewhere, isn't it? Oh, that's right:
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-aftermarket-performance-modifications-23/so-you-wanna-tuner-100333/
B
12-24-2007, 09:28 PM
#53
BDC Motorsports
12-24-2007, 10:00 PM
#54
Yeah, most of his timing/pulse width stuff is pretty generic, so I had to go through it and rework some of the math so it would apply to the rotary.
"Overview of the Combustion Process" (which is what we were talking about here), is completely bespoke.
That is what was cumulative to this thread: https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-tech-garage-22/rotary-math-106294/
"Overview of the Combustion Process" (which is what we were talking about here), is completely bespoke.
That is what was cumulative to this thread: https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-tech-garage-22/rotary-math-106294/
12-24-2007, 10:37 PM
#55
BDC Motorsports
Yeah, most of his timing/pulse width stuff is pretty generic, so I had to go through it and rework some of the math so it would apply to the rotary.
"Overview of the Combustion Process" (which is what we were talking about here), is completely bespoke.
That is what was cumulative to this thread: https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=106294
"Overview of the Combustion Process" (which is what we were talking about here), is completely bespoke.
That is what was cumulative to this thread: https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=106294
B
12-25-2007, 02:23 AM
#57
BDC Motorsports
That would be me.
There are a couple of paraphrases of Jeff Hartman mixed in, but most of it is my original material.
There are a couple of paraphrases of Jeff Hartman mixed in, but most of it is my original material.
- You removed the sentence, "Bob Norwood typically saves up a calibration by removing 2-3 percent timing and adding the same percentage of fuel" from the tail-end of the paragraph starting, "Assuming the engine is not knock-limited..."
- You added the words, "ported engines" and "highly ported engines" when the words "big-cammed" and "mild-cammed" popped up twice
Perhaps you should credit Jeff Hartman for having written this section of his book How to Tune & Modify Engine Management Systems (page 136). Otherwise, it's complete plagiarism. You certainly didn't write this and it's nowhere near "paraphrasing".
B
12-25-2007, 03:16 AM
#58
Quotation of sources have been added as applicable.
You gotta realize, I soak this stuff up like a sponge. I dial 411 and I've forgotten the first 3 numbers before I get to the end of the next 4.
But when I even skim an SAE paper or something similar, all of the content gets stuck in my brain like a thorny burr.
I can tell you what my datalogged ignition timing was at 7200 RPM on my last 4th gear run last Thursday off the top of my head.
However, I have no idea what's the date of Thanksgiving.
You gotta realize, I soak this stuff up like a sponge. I dial 411 and I've forgotten the first 3 numbers before I get to the end of the next 4.
But when I even skim an SAE paper or something similar, all of the content gets stuck in my brain like a thorny burr.
I can tell you what my datalogged ignition timing was at 7200 RPM on my last 4th gear run last Thursday off the top of my head.
However, I have no idea what's the date of Thanksgiving.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 12-25-2007 at 03:24 AM.
12-26-2007, 03:33 AM
#59
BDC Motorsports
Baloney. You plagiarised; plain and simple. You took credit for someone else's research and work in three ways:
- Implicitly by implying that it was yours in your initial posts
- Explicitly when your response to my question was, "That would be me." but also when you tried to pass it off as, "paraphrasing"
- Tacitly when you neglected to respond to the many posts by others on this forum who responded to your initial thread. You were willing to accept the praise but none of the responsibility by way of your lack of forthright response regarding the real source.
I think you're trying to assume the glory of Jeff Hartman's work instead of having the fortitude to tell the truth -- he wrote that and you did not. What's even more noteworthy about it is the scant, few words you added/modified still don't even give it the impression that it has anything to do with rotaries even though that appears to be your motive. If you're willing to borrow someone else's writing, it compels me to wonder that perhaps you really don't know what you are talking about, especially seeing as how your attempt to show-off and one-up me with this link to Jeff Hartman's plagiarised work that you so dutifully cut and pasted had little to nothing to do with what I was writing about in the first place.
That's called backpeddling. I hope it doesn't fool anyone.
B
- Implicitly by implying that it was yours in your initial posts
- Explicitly when your response to my question was, "That would be me." but also when you tried to pass it off as, "paraphrasing"
- Tacitly when you neglected to respond to the many posts by others on this forum who responded to your initial thread. You were willing to accept the praise but none of the responsibility by way of your lack of forthright response regarding the real source.
I think you're trying to assume the glory of Jeff Hartman's work instead of having the fortitude to tell the truth -- he wrote that and you did not. What's even more noteworthy about it is the scant, few words you added/modified still don't even give it the impression that it has anything to do with rotaries even though that appears to be your motive. If you're willing to borrow someone else's writing, it compels me to wonder that perhaps you really don't know what you are talking about, especially seeing as how your attempt to show-off and one-up me with this link to Jeff Hartman's plagiarised work that you so dutifully cut and pasted had little to nothing to do with what I was writing about in the first place.
You gotta realize, I soak this stuff up like a sponge. I dial 411 and I've forgotten the first 3 numbers before I get to the end of the next 4.
But when I even skim an SAE paper or something similar, all of the content gets stuck in my brain like a thorny burr.
I can tell you what my datalogged ignition timing was at 7200 RPM on my last 4th gear run last Thursday off the top of my head.
However, I have no idea what's the date of Thanksgiving.
But when I even skim an SAE paper or something similar, all of the content gets stuck in my brain like a thorny burr.
I can tell you what my datalogged ignition timing was at 7200 RPM on my last 4th gear run last Thursday off the top of my head.
However, I have no idea what's the date of Thanksgiving.
B
12-26-2007, 03:20 PM
#62
maybe on your Renesis, but not on mine
we proved beyond a doubt over many dyno runs that the difference between 91 and what I run (yeah, I'm not telling you the specific higher number) was an automatic 10 HP peak loss, 87 was substantially worse than 91 ...
we proved beyond a doubt over many dyno runs that the difference between 91 and what I run (yeah, I'm not telling you the specific higher number) was an automatic 10 HP peak loss, 87 was substantially worse than 91 ...
12-26-2007, 04:23 PM
#65
The Professor
12-26-2007, 04:29 PM
#66
Registered
Thread Starter
And I've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that due to my wallet being lighter (I'm not telling you by how much though), expensive high octane fuels make me faster!
12-26-2007, 04:35 PM
#67
Indeed. I have a copy of that movie around here, somewhere...
I can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my wallet, being exactly the same weight as it was when I bought it a Target 6 or 7 years ago, indicates that I have absolutely no conclusive proof that high octane fuel makes any God damn difference other than knock resistance.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 12-26-2007 at 04:38 PM.
12-26-2007, 10:15 PM
#71
The Professor
But in any sense, its hardly an equal comparison to match pump gas vs. your special blend that probably cost you $7 a gallon.
12-27-2007, 04:28 AM
#73
Registered
12-27-2007, 12:39 PM
#74
Administrator
Glenmorangie
thats just not correct.
octane is not a measure of how fast or slow any given gasoline will burn. it is only a measure of the fuel's resistance to pre-ignition. pre-ignition is defined as the fuel igniting on its own due to pressure and heat before the arrival of the flame front.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part3/ importantly 6.2 and 6.3 as well as 6.13 6.16 and 6.17
on modern engine management systems you will only get the most power out of a given engine by using the octane that limits knock effectively. if you go lower than that number the PCM will hear the knock and adjust your timing to reduce power.
If you're using a standalone and doing your own tuning you may be able to tune for a lower octane than originally called for by the manufacturer - since they always leave a margin of error- but by doing so you leave yourself at the mercy of one bad tank of gas.
Higher octane fuels take more energy to light and burn more slowly. Higher octane fuels are more stable and can therefore be used with higher loads or hotter environments. Higher octane fuels, all else remaining the same, produces less torque per stroke due to its lesser volatility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflagration
It's a more volatile fuel. Takes less energy typically to light and start burning. It burns more quickly, so each punch of energy that's produced is stronger. It's more ferocious than a higher octane fuel. Think of it that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflagration
It's a more volatile fuel. Takes less energy typically to light and start burning. It burns more quickly, so each punch of energy that's produced is stronger. It's more ferocious than a higher octane fuel. Think of it that way.
octane is not a measure of how fast or slow any given gasoline will burn. it is only a measure of the fuel's resistance to pre-ignition. pre-ignition is defined as the fuel igniting on its own due to pressure and heat before the arrival of the flame front.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part3/ importantly 6.2 and 6.3 as well as 6.13 6.16 and 6.17
on modern engine management systems you will only get the most power out of a given engine by using the octane that limits knock effectively. if you go lower than that number the PCM will hear the knock and adjust your timing to reduce power.
If you're using a standalone and doing your own tuning you may be able to tune for a lower octane than originally called for by the manufacturer - since they always leave a margin of error- but by doing so you leave yourself at the mercy of one bad tank of gas.
12-27-2007, 01:04 PM
#75
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I'd like to see a renesis with a small auxilary peripheral exhaust port and the centre plates merged side exit welded up, keeping the other side exits to give 4 exhaust ports as normal but two of them peripheral and far better flowing with no pulse interferance.