Unky Gale did a presentation.

He's a smart feller.....but it pains me to listen to his arrogance. I guess if you have done as much as he, you can afford to be a little arrogant....but dayum.
 
I don't have an hour to devote to listen to him pat his own back. I highly doubt he's been forcing sir into engines since 1960, but rather paying some engineer (or team of 'em) to do it for him.
 
This would be more beneficial to me if the number crunching and the "we did x y z" were separate. By all means he's done cool stuff, but stopping after every example to tell how fast a monza went is getting annoying. I did thoroughly enjoy the real world examples of factors changing power, but come on. I bookmarked it at about 55mins when he started selling me the iDash. I'll resume some other time.
 
my pops said he was the punching bag of street racing in the early 60's .. i believe they went to the same high school .
 
Finally a good explanation to all the racers and dyno Queens who think correction factors don't applie to boosted applications, due to atmosphere and elevation changes.

Watch it boys and learn!
 
DIESEL_POWER said:
Finally a good explanation to all the racers and dyno Queens who think correction factors don't applie to boosted applications, due to atmosphere and elevation changes.

Watch it boys and learn!
Click to expand...
I and others have said time and again, NA motor correction factors do not apply to forced induction engines.

This does not correlate to "Boosted engine do not need correction factors. "



Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
 
well yeah. the Correction factor is based upon the atmo air conditions that are relative to the standard. It is completely relevant. sea level and pikes peaks are different atmospheric conditions, and a boosted engine is going to feel the effects. So if you are dynoing up at the start line of Pike Peak you could correct the atmosphere to show a standard that would be say at sea level. That is the whole basis of correction factor.

Whether the dyno event is trying to compete on a "level playing field" or showing who has "the best power here today" is another topic. but that wasn't what the correction factor was designed for.


Secondly, in the video, you see a clip of a turbo/supercharged engine that looks very similar to the DX500.
 
Nootch said:
well yeah. the Correction factor is based upon the atmo air conditions that are relative to the standard. It is completely relevant. sea level and pikes peaks are different atmospheric conditions, and a boosted engine is going to feel the effects. So if you are dynoing up at the start line of Pike Peak you could correct the atmosphere to show a standard that would be say at sea level. That is the whole basis of correction factor.

Whether the dyno event is trying to compete on a "level playing field" or showing who has "the best power here today" is another topic. but that wasn't what the correction factor was designed for.


Secondly, in the video, you see a clip of a turbo/supercharged engine that looks very similar to the DX500.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we know that. The argument is that an n/a correction is not applicable to a turbocharged engine. Applying an n/a correction to a turboed engine is exactly as inaccurate, if not more so, than applying no correction.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
but N/A is still "pressured" by atmospheric conditions. and those conditions change.

when you say "N/A Correction" if this correction is a set deviation away from the "Correction to Standard Atmosphere" then we are talking apples and oranges. But as i understand the argument, you are saying that boosted engines are not affected by atmospheric conditions, and thus a correction factor to "standard" atmospheric is not required.

Problem is, at least in large scale applications as i have been used to with C175 and 3524 class engines, where the machine runs at altitude plays a big part in how it is set up to run. Different turbo's or even more turbo's to get the required MAP and MAD values needed to produce the rated HP. When i was in school, my teacher worked with Detroit Diesel who spent millions of dollars in Papua New Guinea redeveloping turbo's that wouldn't overspin and blow themselves up in the thin air VS the proving grounds at home.

variably gulping air in a turbo, or fixed spoon feeding it in with a fixed displacement charger is still going to be dependant on the atmo conditions at the time. Even when i was following tractor pulls as a kid i remember the good pullers being very aware of their temp/humidity/altitude and would adjust their engines between pulls to keep them from burning too lean or rich.

So i have to ask in turn, in what form are you referring to "N/A correction"
 
Last edited:
OMG I hate this discussion. Nootch, hit me up on IG if you want to discuss further. You got me all wrong brother.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
 
Nootch said:
but N/A is still "pressured" by atmospheric conditions. and those conditions change.

when you say "N/A Correction" if this correction is a set deviation away from the "Correction to Standard Atmosphere" then we are talking apples and oranges. But as i understand the argument, you are saying that boosted engines are not affected by atmospheric conditions, and thus a correction factor to "standard" atmospheric is not required.

Problem is, at least in large scale applications as i have been used to with C175 and 3524 class engines, where the machine runs at altitude plays a big part in how it is set up to run. Different turbo's or even more turbo's to get the required MAP and MAD values needed to produce the rated HP. When i was in school, my teacher worked with Detroit Diesel who spent millions of dollars in Papua New Guinea redeveloping turbo's that wouldn't overspin and blow themselves up in the thin air VS the proving grounds at home.

variably gulping air in a turbo, or fixed spoon feeding it in with a fixed displacement charger is still going to be dependant on the atmo conditions at the time. Even when i was following tractor pulls as a kid i remember the good pullers being very aware of their temp/humidity/altitude and would adjust their engines between pulls to keep them from burning too lean or rich.

So i have to ask in turn, in what form are you referring to "N/A correction"
Click to expand...
Because a turbo is an altitude compensator, that's what it was widely used for when they were invented. There's still loss but it's a different rate than an n/a engine. Different turbo setups lose efficiency at different rates as well, the closer you are to the right side of the map gives you you less room for atmosphere compensation. A sled puller that is limited on turbo size is probably pretty far right on a turbo map so he's going to be affected more by atmospheric changes than a setup that's properly sized.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
I kept watching this thinking something interesting was right around the corner. I fully concede his point that "MAD" is the true concern of any system. I think anyone who is involved heavily in turbo charging would agree. I refer to it as density ratio but "MAD" works to.

I don't think the boost gauge is dead though, I think it does the same thing it always has. It measures pressure above atmospheric conditions. That is all. It is not surprising that an engine making 20 psi at 10'000 feet makes less power than one doing the same at 0' elevation. atmospheric pressure at sea level is around 15psi so the total pressure to the engine 35psi. without looking it up I am going to guess that pressure at 10K feet will be around 11psi so total pressure will be 31psi, assuming my guess is close. Shocking that it makes less power at the same boost.

Perhaps people think of a boost gauge as a power gauge? Apparently Gale thinks they do. My real use of the boost gauge is to calculate my pressure ratio.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top