Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
Dean, I guess the argument I'm trying to make is not that tuning w/o the dyno isn't a viable tuning method, it's just that it's lower tech than the way your car was already tuned...
|
I understand you analogy, but it is incomplete and makes some assumptions not in evidence. How did the professional calibrate his caliper? How many places on the pipe did he take his measurement? If he takes only one measurement, and I take 100, at different locations, and his tolerance is a nanometer, and mine is a millimter, my average has a higher probablity of being accurate than his single measurement.
Professionals have economic and tirme constraints that normally do not permit them to do a very thourough job. Technology has helped them do a good job in a short amount of time, but that is not the same thing.
I bet either you or I could do a better alignment in our garages with low tech tools like tape measures, and levels than most any garage could tunr out in there normal 30-60 minute alignment on a computer laser, digital whiz bang aligner. It might take us 4-8-12 hours, but we could do it. If they spent the same amount of time, they might be able to do better, but not by much.
If Nate spent 12 hours and 100 runs of different types on the Dyno tuning any of our cars, I would agree there probably wasn't much left I could get out of it, but he didn't. I can datalog hours on the street, autocross, track, etc. making miniscule changes over months of time in the actual conditions I may be competing in if possibe/needed. And along the whole process, I will be learning, or so I hope.
I also do not agree that a Dyno is higher tech than a G-tech. Dynos are so 1960s... Accelerometers etc. are the things of space travel, the 90s and beyond.