[Camaro1973]

Originally Posted by sr71bb

THOSE are GREAT results JSH especially at that elevation!!!

CONGRATS!!!

It’s good numbers but it doesn’t take account for altitude. It’s applying a 18-20% CF to his numbers so subtract 19%.

He’s making right about 800whp at his elevation because he’s making it up
In boost. He’s running a 75mm and 70mm pulley to account for the boost loss.

On that blower that would be 20+ psi at sea level. (Hence the 900+ numbers)

So yes 795whp to 800whp is very good at his altitude. But he wouldn’t be able to run that at sea level.

[JSH]

I see my, troll Camaro1973, who's on my ignore list, posted no doubt downplaying and trying to minimize every element of my post, as he does on all my posts. I would bet every issue he raises is wrong. He didn't read the chart, or understand what it says.

[Camaro1973]

Originally Posted by JSH

I see my troll Camaro1973 who's on my ignore list posted no doubt downplaying and trying to minimize every element of my post as he does on all my posts. I would bet every issue he raises is wrong. He didn't read the chart, or understand what it says.

No I simply explained it better so the less experienced people understand easier.

You really need to stop acting like a baby on here. I’ve tried to help you a dozen times but you don’t like constructive criticism, unfortunately.

[JSH]

He surely will try to minimize the 981 (sea level) horsepower by incorrectly calculating the actual Denver horsepower figure that has to be corrected. So I'll show him how.
Actual Denver hp is corrected as shown on the dyno chart by 1.18. You have to do some simple arithmetic to find the number that, when multiplied by 1.18, equals 981. The answer is (Denver) 832 hp.
He'll also misstate boost. The car made 20# boost yesterday and would make 22-23# at sea level, if I have enough fuel pressure. All you have to do is subtract Denver atmospheric pressure of 12.0 from sea level atmospheric pressure 14.7 to get the additional boost the engine would see If it went to sea level, or 2.7 psia.
832 Denver
981 sea level
This is beyond rebuttal but this troll will try

[arpad_m]

The "troll" is actually putting results into perspective. You made very good numbers indeed, not downplayed in any way—all he's saying is extrapolating actual (physical) performance to a lower altitude with higher fueling demand comes with a big and likely invalid assumption that no bottlenecks would arise when the same car is taken down to sea level. Quoting power numbers the car did not physically make and are heavily extrapolated (well beyond 10-20 hp) is unproven, no matter how appealing.

Feel free to call me a troll, too, but believe it or not, nobody here is out to get you.

[Z OH 6]

Originally Posted by Camaro1973

No I simply explained it better so the less experienced people understand easier.

You really need to stop acting like a baby on here. I’ve tried to help you a dozen times but you don’t like constructive criticism, unfortunately.

[Z OH 6]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

The "troll" is actually putting results into perspective. You made very good numbers indeed, not downplayed in any way—all he's saying is extrapolating actual (physical) performance to a lower altitude with higher fueling demand comes with a big and likely invalid assumption that no bottlenecks would arise when the same car is taken down to sea level. Quoting power numbers the car did not physically make and are heavily extrapolated (well beyond 10-20 hp) is unproven, no matter how appealing.

Feel free to call me a troll, too, but believe it or not, nobody here is out to get you.

100%

[Camaro1973]

Originally Posted by JSH

He surely will try to minimize the 981 (sea level) horsepower by incorrectly calculating the actual Denver horsepower figure that has to be corrected. So I'll show him how.
Actual Denver hp is corrected as shown on the dyno chart by 1.18. You have to do some simple arithmetic to find the number that, when multiplied by 1.18, equals 981. The answer is (Denver) 832 hp.
He'll also misstate boost. The car made 20# boost yesterday and would make 22-23# at sea level, if I have enough fuel pressure. All you have to do is subtract Denver atmospheric pressure of 12.0 from sea level atmospheric pressure 14.7 to get the additional boost the engine would see If it went to sea level, or 2.7 psia.
832 Denver
981 sea level
This is beyond rebuttal but this troll will try

You’ve just repeated everything I just said, accept the fact you cannot go and justify corrected numbers if your car is not capable of making that power at sea level. And the math is simple. At sea level most SAE correction depending on air will be around .98 to 1.

Everything I said about your power in Denver is 100% correct and accurate.

23psi on your SBE not a chance. Even 20 psi is pushing it.

I really don’t know what your problem Is.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

The "troll" is actually putting results into perspective. You made very good numbers indeed, not downplayed in any way—all he's saying is extrapolating actual (physical) performance to a lower altitude with higher fueling demand comes with a big and likely invalid assumption that no bottlenecks would arise when the same car is taken down to sea level. Quoting power numbers the car did not physically make and are heavily extrapolated (well beyond 10-20 hp) is unproven, no matter how appealing.

Feel free to call me a troll, too, but believe it or not, nobody here is out to get you.

I'm using the same methods as everyone else here. An active member here recently moved from Denver to sea level and has proven these hp percentages. This is old news to those of us who race at sea level and altitude. You're just arguing

[CW3SF]

Originally Posted by JSH

I'm using the same methods as everyone else here. An active member here recently moved from Denver to sea level and has proven these hp percentages. This is old news to those of us who race at sea level and altitude. You're just arguing

My car made 714SAE in Denver and 10lbs of boost. Driving it down to sea level in made 13 lbs of boost and 740whp uncorrected with wheels spin on the dyno. So yeah, you’d absolutely make more boost at sea level. That’s a fact. If you have the fuel system to keep up, you’d make quite a bit more power than you are making in Denver.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by CW3SF

My car made 714SAE in Denver and 10lbs of boost. Driving it down to sea level in made 13 lbs of boost and 740whp uncorrected with wheels spin on the dyno. So yeah, you’d absolutely make more boost at sea level. That’s a fact. If you have the fuel system to keep up, you’d make quite a bit more power than you are making in Denver.

So it made 714 corrected and 740 uncorrected. Lol we need corrected v corrected or un versus uncorrected.

[CW3SF]

Originally Posted by JSH

So it made 714 corrected and 740 uncorrected. Lol we need corrected v corrected or un versus uncorrected.

616whp uncorrected in Denver on 10lbs and 740whp uncorrected in Virginia on 13lbs

[laynlo15]

I think I'm going to just post ET and MPH next year. This is not pointing to anyone but the dyno numbers just confuse people and really don't mean anything at the drag strip. Yes, you should tune on the dyno, but you should also log at the track and make changes to go faster at the track and on the dyno. Now I may post after the track of what it made on the dyno and then everyone can have their concerns about that. Wallace racing really has a good calculator for HP/Weight/ET/MPH. Just because a car makes 800, 900 and up it only shows that on the track, I caclulated my DT and I should have only run 137, however I ran 142. So even though I will still dyno I'll let the ET and mph speak for itself. Everyone should post what they want after they start their thread, still proof is in the pudding at the track. JSH, I don't know what a 950 plus rwhp run a the mile high but I'm hoping you'll post some numbers next year to let us know.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by laynlo15

JSH, I don't know what a 950 plus rwhp run a the mile high but I'm hoping you'll post some numbers next year to let us know.

Yes I will post my ETs but they will reflect a 3925# car with 830-850 or so uncorrected hp up here. I'm guessing 9.80s.

But back to dynos. Everyone here posts corrected hp and trq figures. And I'm guessing 5% correction is the median.