Bigger is not better - Throttle Body that is.....

[FLTRI]

Just 'cuz it has a CF in SAE or that it was run in X gear doesn't mean that it is accurate or repeatable ... if the test was bogus in the first place. You know as well as I do that that there are many factors that can skew the readings.

Ed,
I agree, no matter what we standardize there will always be variables to contend with, I just feel at least we can eliminate those we have control of. IMO that should be a no brainer.
Also folks need to know a 1-2hp/tq difference between runs cannot quantify results of a change as there is that variable in the measuring equipment, unless the runs are back-to-back, and then it's tough to be ultra consistant.
We work hard to start and stop each run at exactly the same RPMs, twist the throttle exactly that same way each time, always use the same tire pressures and temp for runs, and use the same engine temps (oil, intake and cyl head) when trying to compare changes made. Anything less and the operator is simply not doing his job to assure as many variables are in check as he has control of.
JMHO,
Bob

[Deye76]

Gofast, that's why I couldn't care less about the format. Anyone who's gullible enough to think that a duplication of numbers is possible by purchasing parts, hasn't been here long, or will never get it. No amount of rules can help them.

[se]

Just because the dyno operator gives the customer a graph in std does not mean thet the tune is not good. i haer people always say  that the dyno is just a tool for tuning but on the other side of their mouth they are saying thet they should post their sheets in sae.
if sae is so imporant why are their so many sheets posted i sae with diffrent correction factors???
   i know of a shop that seems to get more powr out of builds and his cf is way high and even herd rumors that he is using all kinds of tricks to fudge the results so he can get more work...
if it is just a tool then why does certin people get bent out of shape and try to bash the builder and discredit the tuner if its a great tune it is a great tune the # should not matter and as long as the customer is happy so be it.
.  ....

[ederdelyi]

No bashing (at least not from me). Many (myself included) feel that too  much emphasis is being placed on the dyno sheets. All that is being said is that it would make things a little easier for most folks to judge the results if the results were posted in the same format. I merely pointed out that even that will not guarantee accuracy and repeatability.

Some of us have a problem with "closet" marketing on a forum that does not have and does not allow commercial sponsers. If that "marketing" is also somewhat "cloudy" it only makes it worse.

i don't sell products or services, I have no horse in this race. Other than my experience in test and measurement and my interest in accurate data I have no agenda.


EDIT:
BTW, the CF being different even though it's SAE CF only means that the conditions at the time of the test were different. The CF attempts to normalize the readings to a predetermined air pressure/temp/humidity. STD is also an SAE spec, just a different set of conditions. This has been covered so many times, it ought to be made a "sticky" in the Dyno section ... 'course folks would actually have to bother to read it :>)

How the Hell did this thread morph from big TB's to Dyno test standards?  

[fuzznut5197]

Re: CF- Yes, what Ed sed, and some examples would be if the SAE CF was 1.05, the actual (uncorrected) hp and tq at the time of the run has been multiplied by 1.05, which means your actual hp/tq was less than the SAE values. If the CF was .97, actual hp/tq was more than the SAE values.