Took car out on the G-Tech for first time!
06-08-04, 04:33 PM
#26
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by Kento
It's when you start saying this is a highly accurate measurement that I have major disagreements.
It's when you start saying this is a highly accurate measurement that I have major disagreements.
06-09-04, 11:22 PM
#27
Shiftin' and Smokin'
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 544
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by SlingShotRX7
DUDE ..
First of all, Throw that Piece of **** G tech away.
and all the #'s you got from it is JUNK.. DOn't even
consider it..
To have trap speeds of 125mph give or take a MPH
You would be running 10 and 11's. .
To put t hings in perspective.. at that MPH
11.23 @ 123mph, and thats on a ZX7. With a so so launch.
and to answer your other question.
DUDE no matter what you do to your stock TWINS.
Most HP you can squeeze at its LIMITS is 350.
Thats at THEEEEEE MOST.
a T78 Single turbo can up out 450RWHP @15psi.
The t78 will make your TWINs look like a Windchime.
Forget the Gtech. Get a STOP watch.. Mark off 1/4mile
Start stop watch, as you past marked spot, Stop stop watch. and Look at MPH.. That guessamate is better
that that Gtech.
Sorry to burst your bubble.. BUT haha its funny.
running mid to high 13's at 125mph.. LOL hilarious.
DUDE ..
First of all, Throw that Piece of **** G tech away.
and all the #'s you got from it is JUNK.. DOn't even
consider it..
To have trap speeds of 125mph give or take a MPH
You would be running 10 and 11's. .
To put t hings in perspective.. at that MPH
11.23 @ 123mph, and thats on a ZX7. With a so so launch.
and to answer your other question.
DUDE no matter what you do to your stock TWINS.
Most HP you can squeeze at its LIMITS is 350.
Thats at THEEEEEE MOST.
a T78 Single turbo can up out 450RWHP @15psi.
The t78 will make your TWINs look like a Windchime.
Forget the Gtech. Get a STOP watch.. Mark off 1/4mile
Start stop watch, as you past marked spot, Stop stop watch. and Look at MPH.. That guessamate is better
that that Gtech.
Sorry to burst your bubble.. BUT haha its funny.
running mid to high 13's at 125mph.. LOL hilarious.
Come on, gimmie a break! Go push that stopwatch **** on some kid who has never been to the track at all.
I wanted to get a rough idea what this thing was doing in the 1/4 and WOULD do some changes before I went to the track. The good thing about this G-Tech is that it is consistent with the changes that are being made...and Kento...NOBODY on this thread said it was accurate so calm down.
I said the car went 13.0's at 123 right? The car was dynoed at 340RWHP, and other people launching on slicks with that power are hitting high 11's. And guess what, that's what this car will do. 13.0's BLOWING 1st and 2nd right off!! I would be happy if I could just completely hook 2nd let alone first. I have many friends that have used this before and it is usually 2mph high and 1/10 to 2/10's slower. This was the street, I would hook better at the track even with these shitty tires.
Some people like me, can't get to the track often since it is a distance away. I did 3 different runs, unplugged it in between, tried different boost settings and launch techniques and it was consistent. Next time out(on same road) different shift points, drop tire pressure, try turning boost down, try my stock 16's again. Then, pick up drag radials or slicks and launch the snot out of it.
I posted this just to show what I did, and it had nothing to do with competing against anyone's time or proving anything. This car runs and pulls very hard(suprisingly for stock twins) and was tuned properly by KD. I have owned 12 second cars, this is NO DOUBT faster. No launch at all...no 2000 dump, just a gradual hit and blew both gears off. A 6000 dump with slicks or any tire that sticks will no doubt knock more than a second off this car. I was hoping for a high 12 on the G-Tech, then I'd know for sure it is an 11 sec car on slicks.
To say the G-Tech is inaccurate is true, to say it's a piece of junk is ignorant.
06-09-04, 11:42 PM
#28
DRFTRX7
Originally posted by hardbodeez
Come on, gimmie a break! Go push that stopwatch **** on some kid who has never been to the track at all.
I wanted to get a rough idea what this thing was doing in the 1/4 and WOULD do some changes before I went to the track. The good thing about this G-Tech is that it is consistent with the changes that are being made...and Kento...NOBODY on this thread said it was accurate so calm down.
I said the car went 13.0's at 123 right? The car was dynoed at 340RWHP, and other people launching on slicks with that power are hitting high 11's. And guess what, that's what this car will do. 13.0's BLOWING 1st and 2nd right off!! I would be happy if I could just completely hook 2nd let alone first. I have many friends that have used this before and it is usually 2mph high and 1/10 to 2/10's slower. This was the street, I would hook better at the track even with these shitty tires.
Some people like me, can't get to the track often since it is a distance away. I did 3 different runs, unplugged it in between, tried different boost settings and launch techniques and it was consistent. Next time out(on same road) different shift points, drop tire pressure, try turning boost down, try my stock 16's again. Then, pick up drag radials or slicks and launch the snot out of it.
I posted this just to show what I did, and it had nothing to do with competing against anyone's time or proving anything. This car runs and pulls very hard(suprisingly for stock twins) and was tuned properly by KD. I have owned 12 second cars, this is NO DOUBT faster. No launch at all...no 2000 dump, just a gradual hit and blew both gears off. A 6000 dump with slicks or any tire that sticks will no doubt knock more than a second off this car. I was hoping for a high 12 on the G-Tech, then I'd know for sure it is an 11 sec car on slicks.
To say the G-Tech is inaccurate is true, to say it's a piece of junk is ignorant.
Come on, gimmie a break! Go push that stopwatch **** on some kid who has never been to the track at all.
I wanted to get a rough idea what this thing was doing in the 1/4 and WOULD do some changes before I went to the track. The good thing about this G-Tech is that it is consistent with the changes that are being made...and Kento...NOBODY on this thread said it was accurate so calm down.
I said the car went 13.0's at 123 right? The car was dynoed at 340RWHP, and other people launching on slicks with that power are hitting high 11's. And guess what, that's what this car will do. 13.0's BLOWING 1st and 2nd right off!! I would be happy if I could just completely hook 2nd let alone first. I have many friends that have used this before and it is usually 2mph high and 1/10 to 2/10's slower. This was the street, I would hook better at the track even with these shitty tires.
Some people like me, can't get to the track often since it is a distance away. I did 3 different runs, unplugged it in between, tried different boost settings and launch techniques and it was consistent. Next time out(on same road) different shift points, drop tire pressure, try turning boost down, try my stock 16's again. Then, pick up drag radials or slicks and launch the snot out of it.
I posted this just to show what I did, and it had nothing to do with competing against anyone's time or proving anything. This car runs and pulls very hard(suprisingly for stock twins) and was tuned properly by KD. I have owned 12 second cars, this is NO DOUBT faster. No launch at all...no 2000 dump, just a gradual hit and blew both gears off. A 6000 dump with slicks or any tire that sticks will no doubt knock more than a second off this car. I was hoping for a high 12 on the G-Tech, then I'd know for sure it is an 11 sec car on slicks.
To say the G-Tech is inaccurate is true, to say it's a piece of junk is ignorant.
I run a T78 with Nitto 555r's and it hooks up great even at 17lbs of boost. You just have to get used to launching and not pressing your foot to the floor right when you take off. Ease off the clutch and then ease into WOT. I just started racing my car and on the third time I raced it, I had an insane launch.
Craig
06-10-04, 10:05 AM
#30
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by hardbodeez
I did 3 different runs, unplugged it in between, tried different boost settings and launch techniques and it was consistent.
I did 3 different runs, unplugged it in between, tried different boost settings and launch techniques and it was consistent.
06-10-04, 11:19 AM
#31
FD = Mr. Toad's Wild Ride
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by SlingShotRX7
Tracey..
are you talking Fly WHEEL HP?? or
REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER???
and if you talking FLYWHEEL.. Take 15% off those #'s
and Whaaala... Less than 350 RWHP..
and the guy that had 400+ HP on stock TWINS..
I WOULD have to say BUUUULLLLLLL SHIIEETT ,
on that one..
Tracey..
are you talking Fly WHEEL HP?? or
REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER???
and if you talking FLYWHEEL.. Take 15% off those #'s
and Whaaala... Less than 350 RWHP..
and the guy that had 400+ HP on stock TWINS..
I WOULD have to say BUUUULLLLLLL SHIIEETT ,
on that one..
And about the 400+ HP. I found the article about it: http://www.rxtuner.com/farticles/EvilTwins.pdf
Dyno at 402rwhp, so 472HP at the flywheel.
06-10-04, 11:22 AM
#32
2/4 wheel cornering fiend
Originally posted by hardbodeez
...and Kento...NOBODY on this thread said it was accurate so calm down.
...and Kento...NOBODY on this thread said it was accurate so calm down.
....
Originally posted by Sonny
The GTECH trap speed is always high because it gives you actual MPH at the end of the run . At the track, your MPH over the last 50 ft or so is averaged.
The GTECH trap speed is always high because it gives you actual MPH at the end of the run . At the track, your MPH over the last 50 ft or so is averaged.
Originally posted by TracyRX7
Because people on forums all over the place are complaining about the accuracy of their product since it measures actual top speed and not the 66' average like people see on their time slips.
Because people on forums all over the place are complaining about the accuracy of their product since it measures actual top speed and not the 66' average like people see on their time slips.
To say the G-Tech is inaccurate is true, to say it's a piece of junk is ignorant.
06-10-04, 11:31 AM
#33
Shiftin' and Smokin'
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 544
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by DamonB
Consistent to what? You can't notice a change that you expected and insist that is consistent unless you're also comparing it to something proven.
Consistent to what? You can't notice a change that you expected and insist that is consistent unless you're also comparing it to something proven.
Consistent to the first run. I finished, unplugged it, plugged it back in, then ran it again. Unplugged it again, then ran it again. Consistent to the first run. This isn't rocket science, everyone is trying to make this more complicated than it really is.
Proven meaning actaul dragstrip slips...no. Proven meaning same road same elevation, yes. First run was a bit of a baseline run, how many do you expect me to do, 3, 5?
If it's showing changes when I try new things, then I know it's working. If I lived 10 minutes away from a dragstrip then it would be ideal, but I don't and I'm making the best from what I have to work with.
06-10-04, 11:33 AM
#34
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by hardbodeez
Proven meaning same road same elevation, yes. First run was a bit of a baseline run, how many do you expect me to do, 3, 5?
If it's showing changes when I try new things, then I know it's working.
Proven meaning same road same elevation, yes. First run was a bit of a baseline run, how many do you expect me to do, 3, 5?
If it's showing changes when I try new things, then I know it's working.
06-10-04, 11:47 AM
#36
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by yzf-r1
I'd just like to say, GTech is
stop being a cheap and lazy bastard, take your car to the strip or shut up
I'd just like to say, GTech is
stop being a cheap and lazy bastard, take your car to the strip or shut up
While the The G-tech may not produce the most ACCURATE results, it WILL produce PRECISE results if used on the same piece of road in similar conditions. For those of you who don't know the difference, look it up....
06-10-04, 11:58 AM
#37
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh bullshit
take it to the strip and let's see what the REAL WORLD empirical data is....don't give me this "good estimate" stuff
ask yourself, WHAT THE HECK IS THE POINT OF IT ALL? is it not all about your silly little bragging rights?? so if you're going to boast, at least boast with empirical data that someone with above plant life IQ will respect
drag racing separates the men from the wanna be punks that listen to rap music and wear ear rings....get off the porch
take it to the strip and let's see what the REAL WORLD empirical data is....don't give me this "good estimate" stuff
ask yourself, WHAT THE HECK IS THE POINT OF IT ALL? is it not all about your silly little bragging rights?? so if you're going to boast, at least boast with empirical data that someone with above plant life IQ will respect
drag racing separates the men from the wanna be punks that listen to rap music and wear ear rings....get off the porch
06-10-04, 01:13 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Carl Junction, MO
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by yzf-r1
oh bullshit
take it to the strip and let's see what the REAL WORLD empirical data is....don't give me this "good estimate" stuff
ask yourself, WHAT THE HECK IS THE POINT OF IT ALL? is it not all about your silly little bragging rights?? so if you're going to boast, at least boast with empirical data that someone with above plant life IQ will respect
drag racing separates the men from the wanna be punks that listen to rap music and wear ear rings....get off the porch
oh bullshit
take it to the strip and let's see what the REAL WORLD empirical data is....don't give me this "good estimate" stuff
ask yourself, WHAT THE HECK IS THE POINT OF IT ALL? is it not all about your silly little bragging rights?? so if you're going to boast, at least boast with empirical data that someone with above plant life IQ will respect
drag racing separates the men from the wanna be punks that listen to rap music and wear ear rings....get off the porch
"While the The G-tech may not produce the most ACCURATE results, it WILL produce PRECISE results if used on the same piece of road in similar conditions"
now if you don't understand what that is saying...it means he can make a change to his car and see if that change either helped or hurt his cars performance. what is wrong with using the G-tech for this purpose?
06-10-04, 01:18 PM
#39
R1derful
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: N Cali
Posts: 702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is very simple: to measure relative change
1) Find a stretch of road
2) Do a couple of runs in both directions
3) Average the results
4) Make the changes you want to make
5) Goto step 1
Are you faster? Yes? Your changes did something good. No? Your changes did not help.
It's that simple.
Example from using a G-tech on another car:
Timing map for baseline run:
0-4 psi of boost: pull .25 deg of timing per 1 psi of boost
4-8 psi of boost: pull .50 deg of timing per 1 psi of boost
8-12 psi o boost: pull .75 deg of timing per 1 psi of boost
End result = 6 deg of retard at 12 psi of boost
Timing map for run #2:
0-8 psi of boost = pull no timing at all
8-12 psi of boost = pull 1.5 deg per 1 psi of boost
End result = 6 deg of retard at 12 psi of boost
Results:
1) baseline "trap" = 107 mph (average of 5 runs)
2) modified "trap" = 105 mph (average of 5 runs)
Result #2 also results in lots of detonation at tip-in.
Before you jump on me for my timing maps, I will state that these are not from a boosted rotary.
As I said before, Gtech is a good tool for measuring relative change.
Sonny
1) Find a stretch of road
2) Do a couple of runs in both directions
3) Average the results
4) Make the changes you want to make
5) Goto step 1
Are you faster? Yes? Your changes did something good. No? Your changes did not help.
It's that simple.
Example from using a G-tech on another car:
Timing map for baseline run:
0-4 psi of boost: pull .25 deg of timing per 1 psi of boost
4-8 psi of boost: pull .50 deg of timing per 1 psi of boost
8-12 psi o boost: pull .75 deg of timing per 1 psi of boost
End result = 6 deg of retard at 12 psi of boost
Timing map for run #2:
0-8 psi of boost = pull no timing at all
8-12 psi of boost = pull 1.5 deg per 1 psi of boost
End result = 6 deg of retard at 12 psi of boost
Results:
1) baseline "trap" = 107 mph (average of 5 runs)
2) modified "trap" = 105 mph (average of 5 runs)
Result #2 also results in lots of detonation at tip-in.
Before you jump on me for my timing maps, I will state that these are not from a boosted rotary.
As I said before, Gtech is a good tool for measuring relative change.
Sonny
06-10-04, 01:45 PM
#40
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) baseline "trap" = 107 mph (average of 5 runs)
2) modified "trap" = 105 mph (average of 5 runs)
that small of a difference could easily be instrument "inaccuracy"/error and a host of other variables....oh but wait, it's PRECISE, lol
do your tuning on a dyno with a wideband and then take it to the strip....call me old fashioned, it's data that passes red face test
2) modified "trap" = 105 mph (average of 5 runs)
that small of a difference could easily be instrument "inaccuracy"/error and a host of other variables....oh but wait, it's PRECISE, lol
do your tuning on a dyno with a wideband and then take it to the strip....call me old fashioned, it's data that passes red face test
06-10-04, 01:51 PM
#41
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by yzf-r1
do your tuning on a dyno with a wideband and then take it to the strip....call me old fashioned, it's data that passes red face test
do your tuning on a dyno with a wideband and then take it to the strip....call me old fashioned, it's data that passes red face test
06-10-04, 01:51 PM
#42
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
Originally posted by yzf-r1
oh bullshit
take it to the strip and let's see what the REAL WORLD empirical data is....don't give me this "good estimate" stuff
ask yourself, WHAT THE HECK IS THE POINT OF IT ALL? is it not all about your silly little bragging rights?? so if you're going to boast, at least boast with empirical data that someone with above plant life IQ will respect
drag racing separates the men from the wanna be punks that listen to rap music and wear ear rings....get off the porch
oh bullshit
take it to the strip and let's see what the REAL WORLD empirical data is....don't give me this "good estimate" stuff
ask yourself, WHAT THE HECK IS THE POINT OF IT ALL? is it not all about your silly little bragging rights?? so if you're going to boast, at least boast with empirical data that someone with above plant life IQ will respect
drag racing separates the men from the wanna be punks that listen to rap music and wear ear rings....get off the porch
the guy needs some track time....cant argue those numbers....i agree.
Anyways...did the original poster list his mods?
What the hell are the mods on this car?
06-10-04, 01:52 PM
#43
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: DC
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you YZF R1.. Nicely said.
BTW what year is your bike??
OK so you can get 400HP out of STOCK twins??
**** wondery why everyone go SINGLE Turbos.
when you can get 400HP on STOCK TWINS..
400RWHP on stock twins, I am skeptical.
BTW: G TECH = JUNK
JUNK IN = JUNK OUT
BTW what year is your bike??
OK so you can get 400HP out of STOCK twins??
**** wondery why everyone go SINGLE Turbos.
when you can get 400HP on STOCK TWINS..
400RWHP on stock twins, I am skeptical.
BTW: G TECH = JUNK
JUNK IN = JUNK OUT
06-10-04, 03:44 PM
#45
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, the calculations G-Tech uses aren't too bad. It's simple physics. Basically it's integrating acceleration(based on the reading from the accelerometer) with time to get velocity. V=a*t + Vo. Vo being the current velocity. But it's not doing true integration, it's multiplying the average acceleration for a given time bracket(delta t) and adding it to the current velocity. This is the fundemental way to integrate. As the time bracket, delta t, gets smaller, you get closer to a true integration. From what I can remember from Calculas, this technique is called L'hopital's method. I'm not saying the G-tech is perfect, but the theory behind how it achieves is measurements is correct. To get distance(basically how it figures out how far you've gone), it double ingrates using the same technique. Once you get velocity, you multiply that times your delta t and you get position.
As far as accuracy goes, G-tech quotes out some pretty good numbers on the Competition. I've owned both and the new competition is definitely a nicer piece of equipment. Also, it's accuracy is supposed to be 10 times better than the original if I remember right. Not bad for the money.
Now for the argument of wheel spin, the G-tech, unlike other units like the Blitz and Apexi, should not be affected by it. The Blitz and Apexi use the signal from the vehicle speed sensor. I'm not sure about the RX7, but a lot of cars get that number off the transimission, not the front wheels. That means if your wheels are spinning, the unit thinks you're actually moving at that spin speed. Essentially, you could do a brake stand and get a 0-60 time(if you can manage to be in second gear) without ever moving.
I think the best way to get these numbers is from an out of car unit, like a laptop connected to a radar gun or a full blown 1/4 mile track. But since most of us aren't rich, the best option is one of these in car units. I have to admit, the technology Tesla(makers of G-tech) have is pretty cool. Especially the ignition pulse sensing feature that determines your engine RPMs through the cigarette lighter outlet. What can I say, gadgets are cool, I guess that's why I'm a mechanical engineer.
As far as accuracy goes, G-tech quotes out some pretty good numbers on the Competition. I've owned both and the new competition is definitely a nicer piece of equipment. Also, it's accuracy is supposed to be 10 times better than the original if I remember right. Not bad for the money.
Now for the argument of wheel spin, the G-tech, unlike other units like the Blitz and Apexi, should not be affected by it. The Blitz and Apexi use the signal from the vehicle speed sensor. I'm not sure about the RX7, but a lot of cars get that number off the transimission, not the front wheels. That means if your wheels are spinning, the unit thinks you're actually moving at that spin speed. Essentially, you could do a brake stand and get a 0-60 time(if you can manage to be in second gear) without ever moving.
I think the best way to get these numbers is from an out of car unit, like a laptop connected to a radar gun or a full blown 1/4 mile track. But since most of us aren't rich, the best option is one of these in car units. I have to admit, the technology Tesla(makers of G-tech) have is pretty cool. Especially the ignition pulse sensing feature that determines your engine RPMs through the cigarette lighter outlet. What can I say, gadgets are cool, I guess that's why I'm a mechanical engineer.
Last edited by Houdini; 06-10-04 at 04:00 PM.
06-10-04, 04:12 PM
#46
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by Houdini
Basically it's integrating acceleration(based on the reading from the accelerometer) with time to get velocity. V=a*t + Vo. Vo being the current velocity. But it's not doing true integration, it's multiplying the average acceleration for a given time bracket(delta t) and adding it to the current velocity. This is the fundemental way to integrate. As the time bracket, delta t, gets smaller, you get closer to a true integration. From what I can remember from Calculas, this technique is called L'hopital's method.
Basically it's integrating acceleration(based on the reading from the accelerometer) with time to get velocity. V=a*t + Vo. Vo being the current velocity. But it's not doing true integration, it's multiplying the average acceleration for a given time bracket(delta t) and adding it to the current velocity. This is the fundemental way to integrate. As the time bracket, delta t, gets smaller, you get closer to a true integration. From what I can remember from Calculas, this technique is called L'hopital's method.
L'Hopital's Method; dear god I don't want to be back in calculus class again.Anybody know the sampling rate the G-Tech Pro operates at by chance?
06-10-04, 04:49 PM
#47
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DamonB
Everyone is going to insist you're making that up and are just trying to sound smart L'Hopital's Method; dear god I don't want to be back in calculus class again.
Anybody know the sampling rate the G-Tech Pro operates at by chance?
Everyone is going to insist you're making that up and are just trying to sound smart
L'Hopital's Method; dear god I don't want to be back in calculus class again.Anybody know the sampling rate the G-Tech Pro operates at by chance?
As far as the sampling rate goes, I'm not sure. The first one gave you 1/4 et out to 2 sig figs(1/100 sec) but I think the Comp goes out to 3. So I assume it's at least as good as that, otherwise how would it report it. 1/1000 of a sec is pretty good, but what's the resolution of the accelerometer? I think that also goes out to 3 decimel places, so that's 1/1000 of a g. But this is just a display of it's resolution, not accuracy, so who knows what the error is on it. They do quote out some amazingly good numbers for Accuracy andpeatability on their site.
There are several significant improvements over the original G-TECH/Pro Performance Meter that have been implemented in the new COMPETITION model. First of all, there are 3 accelerometers and they are fully temperature compensated. This in itself is a huge improvement in accuracy. Secondly there is a very sophisticated new calibration algorithm that allows much higher precision. Also the system now has 32 times higher resolution which speaks for itself. New Noise-Correction algorithms have improved overall accuracy as well. With all of these valuable features we are very proud to announce that the accuracy is now within 5/100 second. With the consistency at 5/1000 of a second! Absolute Horsepower and Torque measurements are within 3% and consistency within .5%!
06-12-04, 01:34 AM
#48
Shiftin' and Smokin'
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 544
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Update on the G-Tech.
Tonight I figured I would lower my tire pressure from 38 pounds to 30 pounds. Tires seemed to sit flatter. Anyways...
First run, kept the boost on low, since tirespin is my enemy. I let the clutch out too fast, bogged the start, and then spun all over the place thru 1st and 2nd again. Time 13.37@120.2MPH, terrible run.
Second run I thought, screw this I'm keeping high boost and learn how to work the wheelspin.
I revved to 3000, let the clutch out slow(actually rode out abit) until my revs caught at 3000 then punched it. Car spun around 6000RPM to 8500 then I powered 2nd, which still spun a little then powered 3rd.
12.64@125.0MPH
This is great. The car's pickin' up!!
3rd run I tried the same(riding the clutch to 3000) but the car spun again in 1st and when I hit 2nd it spun like a few days ago, car skidded sideways but I stayed in it and rowed thru the gears. 12.84@124.6MPH
G-Tech was right on with my little wheelspin and how it slowed the E.T. and MPH down. Perfect!
I then had to leave because it was quite a bit of noise at 2:00AM.
What did I learn? On the same road in the same spot with the same tires I quickened the car by a different launch and deflating the tires. And, I backed up my 12.6 run with a 12.8 at a pretty close MPH. I'm damn happy and there is a TON of things left to try. This G-Tech is consistent and well worth the money IMO. A Mid 12 second car on shitty, junky rock-hard normal radials, that's great.
Who's got something to say now?
Tonight I figured I would lower my tire pressure from 38 pounds to 30 pounds. Tires seemed to sit flatter. Anyways...
First run, kept the boost on low, since tirespin is my enemy. I let the clutch out too fast, bogged the start, and then spun all over the place thru 1st and 2nd again. Time 13.37@120.2MPH, terrible run.
Second run I thought, screw this I'm keeping high boost and learn how to work the wheelspin.
I revved to 3000, let the clutch out slow(actually rode out abit) until my revs caught at 3000 then punched it. Car spun around 6000RPM to 8500 then I powered 2nd, which still spun a little then powered 3rd.
12.64@125.0MPH
This is great. The car's pickin' up!!
3rd run I tried the same(riding the clutch to 3000) but the car spun again in 1st and when I hit 2nd it spun like a few days ago, car skidded sideways but I stayed in it and rowed thru the gears. 12.84@124.6MPH
G-Tech was right on with my little wheelspin and how it slowed the E.T. and MPH down. Perfect!
I then had to leave because it was quite a bit of noise at 2:00AM.
What did I learn? On the same road in the same spot with the same tires I quickened the car by a different launch and deflating the tires. And, I backed up my 12.6 run with a 12.8 at a pretty close MPH. I'm damn happy and there is a TON of things left to try. This G-Tech is consistent and well worth the money IMO. A Mid 12 second car on shitty, junky rock-hard normal radials, that's great.
Who's got something to say now?
06-12-04, 05:49 AM
#49
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
I do. 
1. Why the hell were you running around at 38 psi? Or was that your hot pressure?
2. When are you going to get some real tires?
BTW, what is the "rollout" set to on your G-tech?
1. Why the hell were you running around at 38 psi? Or was that your hot pressure?
2. When are you going to get some real tires?
BTW, what is the "rollout" set to on your G-tech?
06-12-04, 09:44 AM
#50
Shiftin' and Smokin'
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 544
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by rynberg
I do.
1. Why the hell were you running around at 38 psi? Or was that your hot pressure?
2. When are you going to get some real tires?
BTW, what is the "rollout" set to on your G-tech?
I do.
1. Why the hell were you running around at 38 psi? Or was that your hot pressure?
2. When are you going to get some real tires?
BTW, what is the "rollout" set to on your G-tech?
2) The tires....what do I go with? I can buy Hoosier Quick Time Pro's and the car will stick like glue. But they would have to be mounted on my stock rims and only used to run someone. Or, buy the new BFGoodrich g-force drag radial which now comes in an 275/35/18. But I highly doubt they'll hook totally, and probably not work after a month. Don't forget these would be 18" drag radials not the 16" most people use....I don't know, anyone have any experience with these tires?
3) I read through that manual and it said nothing about setting rollout. As soon as you move the timer starts counting, so I don't think there is rollout allowed on this.
Also, what do you think would be a better all around handling tire for this car? The Bridgestone Potenza S-O3 or the BFGoodrich G-Force KD?