Why is quicker not faster???

I would suggest keeping the scale in seconds. Looking at the two graphs you can see in the second graph that you're on the spray for a longer period of time before the 60' mark because of the slow launch.

Can you extrapulate how much time you were on the spray for each run? Toss your raw data into an excel file, zero out the time at launch and then you can overlay the two runs together.

Daco - I'm constantly looking at data files and performing analysis work. If you want, I would gladly slap this stuff together for you. You can email me the data in a .csv file. PM me and I'll gladly pass along my email address to you. :beerchug:
 
Commuta: Thanks for the offer. Let me see if I can get to it tonight / tomorrow. The point I was trying to make was that even to the 60' mark (before I'm even on the spray) quicker is slower (by a lot). I just find it counter-intuitive.
 
The only thing is relating to the equation that you were trying to develop we need to understand the accelleration curve (mph vs time) to determine how close we could make that equation in a simple form, or will we have to get our differential equation hats on to account for the contious change in accelleration. Thinking about it last night a little as well a chart for another value of weight/power needs to be developed for the end result, because I am a fat a$$ at 275 - 280lbs and being able to enter this in is important.

Two #23 jet huh, I am getting together the last of what I need to have the N2O on my bike and looking forward to going back to NED. Look out for me, I'm the slow fat guy on the orange Busa!! With the pressure in your bottle regulated so low you won't need large tempature increases to maintain it there, is your bottle steel or aluminum?
"O"
 
O-Factor said:
With the pressure in your bottle regulated so low you won't need large tempature increases to maintain it there, is your bottle steel or aluminum?
"O"
Click to expand...

Thats the beauty of the regulator system. Half the pressure seems to give about half the flow, so if you use big jets and low pressure, you never see the variation in A/F. My logs show 12.5 :1 through the entire run after the nitrous is activated.

Next year the system will be gutted and I'll go to a much bigger wet shot, but with the economy the way it is, I wanted a simple system that only uses $4 of pump gas and $5 of nitrous on a given race day. CHEAP.
 
Well I just finished my MBA last week, so now I have a little time to put toward some fun things like my bike, one of the first things in my pressure system that I was mentioning and when I get that squared away and ready to test perhaps you'd be interesting in test or two, I live near the Tweeter/Comcast center. If you can convert those to MPH vs Time I would start working on the equation for fun, again we'll have to see how linear the graph is. Cheap is the name of the game right and you are moving pretty damn fast for the money. What is your goal with the wet system? It would seem you could still go faster with what you have.
"O"
 
I found this kind of interesting...This is a method of calculating your theoretical best 60' time.

From the raw data off the log, I can calculate the slope of my maximum accleration in First gear which is equal to about 4350 rpm / second, or about 28 mph / second. If I was perfect with the clutch, and I kept the motor in the peak torque band of the motor, I could accelerate from a stop at 28 mph every second in first gear. If I extrapolate this slope back to zero it gives me my theoretcial perfect 60' time give the power the motor can make, and the gearing it has. After looking the raw data, The blue line shows that my 1.414 is approximatly .090 seconds slower than I should be. My best 60' is a 1.396, but theoretically I should be able to do a 1.314 (approximate) with the motor and the gearing.

ImageShack Links Do Not Work
 
sounds to me like you have a starting line launch that is near perfect.. I would jumping up and down myself... Do you have video of your launches? less than an eye blink left for improvement... awesome setup...
 
I've got to wrap my brain around this... your rate of acceleration is normaly shown in ft/sec^2...

edit 1 add -> also if your using constant peak torque then you may want to look at rear wheel thrust to come up with the force.

edit 2 add -> at 46mph you're traveling at a rate of 67.4667 feet per second per second.
 
Last edited:
Commuta_Busa said:
I've got to wrap my brain around this... your rate of acceleration is normaly shown in ft/sec^2...

also if your using constant peak torque then you may want to look at rear wheel thrust to come up with the force.
Click to expand...

28 MPH / sec = 41.1 Feet/sec^2.

I'm not using torque measurements to calculate acceleration, but rather noting that from 8k to 11 k rpm, the measured acceleration is approximately a straight line, and using the slope of the line to calculate a constant acceleration of 41 ft/sec^2.
 
gotacha! ok that makes more sense to me.:beerchug: Sometimes I just have to hear/see it in a different way/term. :laugh: I'll stop babbling now.
 
Hey Draco,
Now how much of your time is spent in that RPM range? What we need to see is how linear that line is outside those RPM points so we can develope the differential of accelleration during the time not between 8-11. I am at work and can't look at your graph, damn blockers, but I will look at it again when I get home because I think you had RPM on the previous graphs you provided us. I am on vacation next week two so I will sit and put my thinking cap on between chores on my Honey-do list!!
"O"
 
Very nice info in this thread... :thumbsup:

Which logger are you using to record your info...?

By your sig, I'm guessing you eek'd a little more out of her... :laugh:
 
Got-Busa? said:
Very nice info in this thread... :thumbsup:

Which logger are you using to record your info...?

By your sig, I'm guessing you eek'd a little more out of her... :laugh:
Click to expand...

I have had the same logger for about 7 years. Its an Innovate LM1 with 4 anolog channels plus O2 and RPM. The newer ones are very impressive. I moniter clutch position, nitrous activation and duty cycle, RPM, Throttle Position, nitrous pressure, and Air Fuel. I would strongly recomend purchasing a logger to anyone interested in spending money on a dyno tune. For just a little bit more money, you get much better results.
 
I had planned on picking one up for LSR but didn't have time for the last race. I was researching an LM2 but know several people are having problems with them. Now I'm trying to decide if I should go with the older LM1 or try the LM2...? I wish they would come up with something smaller to record the info during a run; then give you the ability to plug the meter into after a run. It's kind of big when you are running out of room in the tail... :(
 
I haven't seen a good post like yours in a long while. :cheerleader:

You provided some really good information for everyone. Thanks for the great post (even if isn't here :poke: ). :laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Red 04 Limited
First time at track
Replies
13
Views
1,186
sully
sully
allmotor01
pb 4 me tonight
Replies
3
Views
753
allmotor01
allmotor01
fstbusa
friday night
Replies
9
Views
1,237
fstbusa
fstbusa
L
1st time out, nothing impressive
Replies
15
Views
1,784
LCW
L
allmotor01
8.9s average ?
Replies
12
Views
2,978
allmotor01
allmotor01
Back
Top