Joined
·
520 Posts
I know we have had loads of discussion on rolling roads on here before, but to quote from Guy's comment in the 'fastest R34 in the UK' thread:
If all the runs were done in 4th gear for example, then an R34 is always going to return a higher PAW figure than an R33 due to the lower ratio gear of the 6 speed box. Does that sound correct?
Is the suggestion to use a 'fixed' transmission loss value for each model. i.e. 150bhp for an R33, 120bhp for an R34 etc and use this to 'calculate' a flywheel estimate?
The subject of rolling roads really annoys me, as I really want a reasonably accurate and relatively inexpensive way to measure (or more so compare) the power of our cars. It appears though that one does not exist.
Have we decided that PAW + fixed loss is better than having the RR calculate drivetrain losses?
If my understanding of the way rolling roads work is correct then measuring PAW will leave us unable to realisticly compare power between different models (R33 to R34 for example), due to the different gearing.We are however now moving towards dynos that measure power-at-wheels
If all the runs were done in 4th gear for example, then an R34 is always going to return a higher PAW figure than an R33 due to the lower ratio gear of the 6 speed box. Does that sound correct?
Is the suggestion to use a 'fixed' transmission loss value for each model. i.e. 150bhp for an R33, 120bhp for an R34 etc and use this to 'calculate' a flywheel estimate?
The subject of rolling roads really annoys me, as I really want a reasonably accurate and relatively inexpensive way to measure (or more so compare) the power of our cars. It appears though that one does not exist.
Have we decided that PAW + fixed loss is better than having the RR calculate drivetrain losses?