Date:         Thu, 11 May 2000 12:16:37 -0700
Reply-To:     Doktor Tim <doktortim@ROCKISLAND.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Doktor Tim <doktortim@ROCKISLAND.COM>
Subject:      Re: Instant Horse Power Update
In-Reply-To:  <28360-391AF035-18070@storefull-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:39 PM 05/11/2000 -0500, you wrote:
 a 49% increase
>in horsepower is possible, and claims the same for the 1.9.
>So, at that percentage of increase, I'm looking at about 122 horse. WOW

WOW, an opportunity for REAL data. Have the rear wheel horsepower and
torque measured on a dyno both before and after the wizbang. Then we all
have the benefit of judging the actual value where it counts, where tread
meets road. Without the inherent cost of certified data, grab a copy of
Road & Track. Find one of their comprehensive new model test reports.
Duplicate the acceleration tests they run both before and after wizbang.

It won't be certified data, but it is a whole lot better than NO data, just
sales claims and seat of pants testamonials. Horse power and torque figures
could be extrapolated from this data if you will only pay for an actual
scale weight before and after each set of runs before and after wizbang.
The accuracy of this calculation would be improved by recording temp and
humidity. If you will get me the data, and the procedures are prudently
rigourous, I will volunteer the calculations, for verification by another
listee.

And that goes for ANY wizbang. Test before wizbang, record data, test after
wizbang, record data, analyse data, establish truth, within a measurable
allowance of certainty. Can you say, "deCarte"?

Note. If you break something before you've finished the last set, fix it
and then re-run that whole set again. Any set must be run on the same day
under the same recorded conditions.

>!
>Just what the doctor ordered !

Indeed. Let us know when you get some data.

>When I asked him about the dependabilty factor, he answered me this
>way," Depends on how you drive it. You beat on anything and it's not
>going to last, I don't care what it is."
>I agreed,

Concur, cum laude, with the likely exception of a Porsche set up for Le
Mans. At the highest level of the DM, rules of thumb do not apply. Actual
data is required for actions. You do not commit till you have the test data
to justify it. Only then do you give it the final test to confirm the data
at an ultimate use level. Then you don't have to beat on it to win the
race. You just cruise smooth and avoid the slower traffic.

 and made darn well sure he added my name to the mailing list,
>so I get one when it's available.

I'll reserve my funds 'till I see some data, independant that is,
confirming or refuting claims made. I'll continue in reserve 'till I have
two sets of independant trials that show something like similar sets of
data from the same procedures. That's confirmation. Only now can I say to
anyone with a straight face founded in honesty, subject to proof of truth,
"This wizbang does this!!"

>Price?
>$369.00. Who cares ?

Some do, some don't.

>"Speed cost money, How fast do you want to go."

Concur. If you get a descent increase and will sacrifice a bit of raw
acceleration, you could use the data to caluculate some alturnative
gearing. You could end up with a little better acceleration than stock at
medium speeds and a higher sustainable top end both. Do keep your eye on
the temp guage. By all means, during the test running sets both before and
after wizbang, do keep data on the coolant temps. If it's not producing
more heat from the same capacity motor, it's not producing more horsepower,
unless this wizbang is claiming a new thermodynamic law. But the data will
certainly show reality. That's why unbiased data is so valuable.

Truth costs time/money. How true do you want to be?

>Chow, Chow For Now,

auf Wiedersehen,




T.P. Stephens
San Juan Island, WA