-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. RE: Racing gear discounts - from Paragonloan@aol.com
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:25:44 EDT From: Paragonloan@aol.com Subject: RE: Racing gear discounts wine country motorsports in Jupiter, FL gives BMW club discounts. I actually bought a helmet for my there yesterday. Craig is a great guy and will be happy to help you out. 1-866-320-3278 <A HREF="http://www.winecountrymotorsports.com/">http://www.winecountrymotorsports.com/</A> 1-866 1-866-320-3278
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses - from Ron Buchalski
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:17:40 -0400 From: "Ron Buchalski" <rbuchals@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses Lowell, I think you contradicted yourself... Why does a car with a lightened flywheel accelerate faster? Because the flywheel has less mass, so it requires less power from the engine to rotate it. Less energy needed to rotate the flywheel translates into less loss in the drivetrain, since the lighter flywheel requires less energy 'waste' to just spin the drivetrain. Also, a dyno run is performed with the engine under continuous (note I didn't say constant) acceleration, from idle to redline, so the engine must continuously accelerate the drivetrain. Accerating a drivetrain with a lightened flywheel requires less energy than accelerating a drivetrain with a stock flywheel, so more of the engine's power ultimately appears at the rear wheels. Ron Buchalski BMWCCA #76387 1995 E36 M3 1993 E34 525iT 1999 Mazda Miata >Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:58:01 EDT >From: LoweSeaton@aol.com >Subject: Re: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses > > >jeremy.conners@comcast.net writes: > > > I think you're missing the big picture: the rotating inertia of the > > driveline, not just the frictional losses. > > > > For example: Why else would a none frictional component like an engaged > > clutch &lightweight flywheel change the power distributed to the rear > > wheels? Simple answer: Lower rotating inertia. > > >Jeremy, > >I beg to differ with you. I think you are talking about something else. >Rotating inertia is just that - inertia. It is much like mass. Inertia >and >mass are simple physical parameters. Inertia and mass do not cause power >losses. > >I'm going to argue with Patrick in another e-mail but lets talk about >inertia >in this one. > >You mentioned the lightweight flywheel. Many people install lightened >flywheels. Why? Not because it increases engine horsepower - it doesn't. >But yet people say their M3 accelerates faster with the lightened flywheel. > >How can this be? It is because of acceleration. When you accelerate a >car, >you are accelerating the mass of the car and occupants and you are >accelerating the rotating driveline parts such as flywheel and wheels. It >takes energy to accelerate an object from rest or low speed to a higher >speed. > >The faster you accelerate, the more energy it takes. But once you reach >that >higher speed and stop accelerating, it takes less energy to maintain that >speed. This is why lightening the car makes it accelerate faster. Or >using >lighter rims and tires makes the car accelerate faster. Same for >lightweight >flywheel, it takes less energy to spin it up to speed. > <snip> _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: 15W50 Mobil 1 for summer: anyone use this? - from Gcfuller@aol.com
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:21:06 EDT From: Gcfuller@aol.com Subject: Re: 15W50 Mobil 1 for summer: anyone use this? Ron and group- I've been traveling. Sorry this took so long. The bimmerforums post with this link - http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=416& highlight=oil highlighted the point I was trying to make: With SYTHETIC oil, viscosity has very little to do with engine protection, and maybe somewhat contrary with what we have heard for years with regard to dino oil. Because of synthetics film strength, a thinner sythetic protects better than a thicker conventional. Combine this with quicker moving oil, and you get better protection, and greater heat transfer. Especially when you are racing, this is what you want - MORE oil moving QUICKLY through your bearings and lifters. A thicker oil doesn't necessarily provide more cushion, but more oil and film strength does. Thicker oil (as another post stated) is for older engines with higher tolerances - which are aren't. If your engine is tired or old, go that way, but not for most of us. For example, I have heard of unscrupulous people trading in old cars with a rod knock by filling the crankcase with gear oil. This quiets the car enough to trade it in (they just hear it idle), but it can't rev with that syrup, and the rest of the bearings will go very quickly beacause there is nothing to take the heat away from them. As for the bias of the guy who works for the oil compay referenced in the forum, he could of recommended ANY of their oils, because they have all viscosities. But, he talked about 0W30 as having the best protection due to its film strength and lighter nature. I personally believe him. It took me a long time to get over the viscosity hump, but now it makes sense to me - as long as we are dealing with synthetics. No one is going to hurt anything with 15W50 mobil one, but, the way I see it, you are giving up some power, revability, and maybe in a very very small degree protection, because it can't move as quickly (at all times, not just start up). Removing heat from a stressed engine is key - especially in bearings and lifters. They are primarily cooled by oil. The surfboard analogy also works - a quicker, stronger stream of fast moving water will keep it on the surface better than a thick, slower moving liquid. And, a hot synthetic 30 weight is still going to have better film strenth and thin out less than a hot 50 or 60 weight conventional. Again, we are splitting hairs, but I'm sticking with the thinner stuff. Unless, of course, I ever get to the point of using a lot of oil due to large clearances - but that shouldn't happen if I take care of the car and use the right oil in the first place. Your mileage will undoubtedly vary. Greg
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. RE: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses - from Ron Buchalski
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:36:22 -0400 From: "Ron Buchalski" <rbuchals@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses Patrick, As fanatical as JimC is about everything he does, do you know for a fact that he's never dyno'd a chipped engine (on an engine dyno) and compared it to a chassis dyno run with the engine installed? I'm sure that he's discussed the topic of drivetrain losses with Will Turner, or TC Kline, and many of the other BMW racers who use his products. He has worked with them extensively to create individually tuned chips for their race cars using the dyno, so they've collected and reviewed enough dyno numbers to fully understand where the power losses are, and how much they are. With his connections in BMW, he may have even discussed the topic with BMW drivetrain engineers. Regardless, JimC probably spent more time around dynos and chip tuning than many of us have spent driving on a track, so I seriously doubt that his 17.3% drivetrain loss number is something he pulled out from where the sun never shines! Ron Buchalski BMWCCA #76387 1995 E36 M3 1993 E34 525iT 1999 Mazda Miata >Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:28:29 -0400 >From: "Patrick Buthmann" <patrick@teutonic.ca> >Subject: RE: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses <snip> >Basically, >I'm saying 10-12%, and Jim C is stating 17.3%. I have to question how >Jim came up with a specific number like that, without pulling an engine, >dynoing it, and then putting it into a car, and dynoing that as well. >Even then, it's specific to one chassis only, and really only valid on >the single day in question. > > We'll never agree on the 17.3%, because unless you pull an engine >and test it on an engine dyno, you really have NO idea what it's putting >out. Along with that, take RWHP measurements with a grain of salt as >well, as I agree that unless two changes are dyno'd on the same day, >under the EXACT same conditions, you're unlikely to get really valid >results. It's one of the reasons I still hold little faith in most >CAI's, as every test I've seen on them have shown a 1-2 HP gain / loss >when used without any software. Again, well within the range of >statistical error on a dyno. <snip> _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:45:34 EDT From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses rbuchals@hotmail.com writes: > I think you contradicted yourself... > > <snip> > > Also, a dyno run is performed with the engine under continuous (note I > didn't say constant) acceleration, from idle to redline, so the engine must > > continuously accelerate the drivetrain. Accelerating a drivetrain with a > lightened flywheel requires less energy than accelerating a drivetrain with > > a stock flywheel, so more of the engine's power ultimately appears at the > rear wheels. > Ron, I know. I didn't say it but the engine acceleration (flywheel) is much slower on the dyno than do a 0-30 first gear drag race. I think everybody who has installed the lightweight flywheel have noted the increased acceleration in 1st and 2nd gear but little to no change in 4th and 5th gear. They have also noted the ability to quickly blip the throttle during gear changes to downshift. This is done with no load at all on the engine. The dyno run is done in 4th or maybe 5th gear. It takes a good bit of time for the dyno run to go from 2000 rpm up to redline. I alluded to this later in my discussion. Didn't I say "the dyno runs from a standard flywheel vs. a lightened flywheel 'should' be the same but probably are not"? This was the slight acceleration effect you referred. If you stopped the dyno run and held it at a constant rpm, then both flywheels will have the same exact reading. Or put another way, the slower you run the dyno up to redline, the closer the two flywheels will match output. Lowell Seaton '95 M3 BMW CCA #131505
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: [E36M3] JC intake vs euro airbox (or more on mods and dynos) - from Kit Wetzler
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:16:24 -0700 From: "Kit Wetzler" <kitwetzler@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] JC intake vs euro airbox (or more on mods and dynos) > So a 330hp big braked, stiffly sprung B mod car racing for the overall win > is going to be much harder on its equipment than a driver school FI car most > likely. My FI car made much more power than your B-mod car. 315 hp 270 ft lbs of torque at the wheels. Especially torque, I bet I made 30 ft lbs more than a B-mod car. A blanket statement saying that NA cars are faster is preposterous and silly. FI has been banned and/or highly regulated in most forms of racing, show me an NA rally car that doesn't get eaten alive by the FI cars. Or imagine CART without forced induction, the telltale wastegates, etc. (ok, fine, so they are switching to the slower IRL spec, 3.5l NA motor... boring, they are losing about 125-150 hp, going to a LARGER engine) The S52B32 with 10.5 compression is far from an ideal forced induction motor. Properly sorted, with enough money, making a reliable FI motor wouldn't be too difficult. You'd need forged internals for 9:1 compression, a stronger head gasket, ARP head studs, a good intercooler (preferably air to air), water injection, upgraded cooling system (al radiator, electric fans), a finned diff cover or a Euro diff, oil cooler, M5 clutch + al fluwheel etc. The failures I had in my car on the track were just wallet related, my pockets weren't deep enough to build up the car. Before you argue with cost, I guarantee that I can make a more reliable 400 hp FI S52B32 for less than I could build a 350 hp NA S52B32. -kit
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Dynojet fun! - from Kit Wetzler
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:52:32 -0700 From: "Kit Wetzler" <kitwetzler@mindspring.com> Subject: Dynojet fun! > A dyno comparison with a standard vs. lightweight flywheel should be > identical. They probably won't be but they should because if you kept the > engine speed steady at any particular rpm, the flywheel will stop > accelerating. Once acceleration stops, everything is equal. This is true of an Mustang Dyno or a Dynapak. However, a Dynojet measures acceleration. It measures the actual increase in rotational inertia of a large steel drum, which gives you horsepower. It then interpolates torque from that. Try dynoing on a Dynojet without an inductive pickup. You get a nice horsepower plot that isn't correlated to RPM or Torque. Interestingly enough because of this, a lightweight flywheel shows up on a Dynojet. Cool, huh? Hopefully by now, we've all done away with the horsepower being meaningless urban legend. :D Horsepower is a number that helps use actually use torque as a meaningful value. Torque in and of itself is pretty meaningless, as it has no time component. A cummins turbo diesel in a Ford pickup can produce 600 ft lbs of torque, our S52B32US can produce maybe 260 in a well tuned M3. The truck weighs 5500 lbs, and has a 9.167 lb / ft/lb ratio. The M3 weighs around 3200 lbs and has a 12.3 lb / ft/lb ratio. Why doesn't the truck out accelerate the M3? Because of horsepower! The truck has around 300 hp and the M3 has about 280. (we're talking about a tuned one, maybe putting out 240-245 or so at the rear wheels) The truck has a power to weigh ratio of around 20lbs/hp. The M3 is 11.4lbs/hp. We'd expect the M3 to win in a drag race. Torque measures the instantaneous force the motor can apply, Horsepower takes into account RPM and the Horsepower peak is a measure of when the engine can apply the most amount of torque the most times per minute. The M3's torque peak is probably around 4700 rpm, but it's horsepower peak is 6700rpm. 6700rpm is where the engine is producing the most torque the most number of times per second. Peak horsepower is easier than barfing all that out. It's the point at which acceleration is highest. Torque, without a time component is totally meaningless. We are trying to measure acceleration, which is measured over time, with a force that has no time component. -kit
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: [E36M3] Drivetrain Loss/Tires - from Roger Graves
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:03:21 -0400 From: Roger Graves <RogRacer@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Drivetrain Loss/Tires I think the discussion about "drivetrain loss" from an non-slipping tire has been a little misleading...and I've got to comment. The technical term for energy dissipation per cycle of tire rotation is called "hysteretic loss". Basically, as a tire rotates, the sidewalls flex on a continuous basis around the perimeter of the tire. As the sidewalls rebound.."un-flex".. they do not return all the energy back out that created the flex in the first place. This most definitely consumes energy, and therefore horsepower, without any "tire slip" whatsoever. As a point of reference...you should note that "electric" and ultra-high mpg cars run on low hysteresis tires for this very reason. It is my understanding that on performance cars like the M3, tire hysteresis can actually *exceed* the drivetrain mechanical losses....hence the commonly quoted 17% loss for the E36 M3 is not unreasonable. Roger '95M3
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. AA Track Pipe Dyno Foolery - from Michael Maigret x2196
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:01:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael Maigret x2196" <studmuffin@galaxy.nsc.com> Subject: AA Track Pipe Dyno Foolery Hi Everyone, The dyno plots referred to in previous posts regarding the AA trackpipe were from my 1998 M3/4. I personally think it is interesting what Zach did by shifting the dyno plots; however, it doesn't change the peak horsepower. Also, the shop that did the dyno runs was totally independent and could have cared less whether the trackpipe made or lost horsepower. If the dyno plots don't match RPM-wise, it is either real data or an unintentional error. I really don't know the answer to that. Anyway, I bought the trackpipe for exactly what the name implies-- the track. I could care less about losing some low-end torque for the gains above 4k RPMS. Also, as I plan on adding headers, I expect the deletion of the catalysts to enhance their effect on high-RPM performance. Although the peak numbers are not really a significant improvement, the slight shift in power higher in the RPM range was what I was looking for and I am satisfied with the results. Thanks for the electrons, Mike Maigret BMWCCA #277854
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: [E36M3] AA Track Pipe Dyno Foolery - from Zack Steinkamp
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:08:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Zack Steinkamp <edsarkiss@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] AA Track Pipe Dyno Foolery > I personally think it is interesting what Zach did > by shifting the dyno plots; > however, it doesn't change the peak horsepower. absolutely true -- but it does change the increase in HP at a given RPM value through the rest of the RPM range, particularly at the higher revs where the torque starts falling off. it also *decreases* the HP loss at lower RPMs that others refer to ... so in the shifted version, there's really no low-rpm loss shown. in taking a wild-ass look at the 'area under the torque curve', it seems that it's roughly the same between stock and "cracked" -- stock is better at 3K, but the track pipe is better at 4.5K. http://nobot.2y.net/m3/dyno_shifted.jpg the area under the HP curve is better for the "cracked" version, since torque at higher revs means more to HP than low-rev torque. tangential question: anyone out there operate a dyno? can the values be shifted like that? zs __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Alignment settings for auto-x/street - from DocWyte
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:13:32 -0700 (PDT) From: DocWyte <josh_wyte@yahoo.com> Subject: Alignment settings for auto-x/street Hey Guys, What are the general alignment specs for a car that's a daily driver and auto-x machine? I'm run Kumho Victoracers at the auto-x. I have a '95 M3 with koni SA, stock springs and the '96+ strut bearings swapped L->R for more front negative camber. What should I be setting it at for front toe and caster and rear camber, toe and caster? Thanks! -josh ===== __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com