Re: Accepting your "exceptions" - conclusion?

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

In a message dated 97-10-31 18:36:52 EST, you write:

<< I am all for moving forward, even if I "...am going for the exception".
 
 >The baseline numbers you have calculated are based, correct me if I am
wrong, on >stock CI and stock valve, no?  >Now, if you [Scott?] want to lump
me with Eric and >Randall in my questions [ie., if CR is sooo high, and
density so >poor, how do you >get 1325 egt's yet not run rich?], so be it, as
a guy could do much worse, IMHO.

>As Scott so aptly repeats, fast is a relative term.  But, Scott, this poster
is not some 16 yr old w/ wood because he >got grandma's car to spin the tires
in the rain.  Frankly, the argument could be made, based on other toys and
cars I >have owned that no, in fact, Eric's car was not fast, neither is
Carl's or Ross' or yours for that matter---that is unless >one of them breaks
out at a 10.25 quarter.  What I should have said is:  Whatever Eric has done
to his car has been >done very well because it consistently ran hard and was
quite quick,  throughout the gears, for an Audi, IN MY >OPINION.    

Ok, Bruce, but only my motorcycle can break that speed, (Claim:  I have the
time slip).  You make speed assumption based on your butt.  I can PROVE,
without driving the car, that DR can be higher at a lower PR.  Regardless of
egt, IC, CI, and your "calibration", just based on the one number claimed.
 Get Maximum Boost or any Turbocharger book, and let's have a baseline
discussion on YOUR understanding of a turbo MAP.  Cuz what you have posted so
far, indicates you really don't.  I don't judge that, only find it
frustrating trying to get you to understand a concept that seems to have
eluded Randall and you to date.

Add mystery, with baseline CI?  Hey I'm game for that as well.  Again you are
defending the "exception."  I'm not going to do that math, cuz you HAVE to
tell me it's not 136.  It's still irrelevent don't you see.  ASSUME 2.5 big
block audi Bruce.  Do THAT math.  Remember the claim is 2.79PR.  So, let's
say S.O.c. put that in.  Guess what?  Wrong turbo (original post conclusion
stays the same).  WHY?  Cuz math shows that I can easily pick a turbo that
will output the same CFM (pick it, don't even math it), at a lower PR and
higher DR> higher CE.  I will give you ANY CI, ANY IC, any CR, and any mod.
 The conclusion by math stays the same:  IF IT TAKES 2.79PR TO MAKE (insert
x) FLOW, YOU HAVE THE WRONG TURBO DOING THE WRONG JOB ON THE WRONG MOTOR.
 And what the Trans Am post tells me, is:  2110 block (not bigger, smaller,
audi claim, not mine) Racing fuel, lower CR, and different EM.  Have you seen
the engine bay pix of the Trans Am cars?  That post sure makes me scratch my
chin when we put those assumptions back to S.O.c.'s claims.  And "they" were
having problems with 2.8bar on racing fuel?  hmmm...

You are looking for "exceptions" without thinking it thru, nor are you doing
the math.  MATH any of your "exceptions" to prove me wrong, don't just toss
them onto the fire.  Did you or Randall actually see Eric's boost guage GO to
85Hg, the maximum of it's read?  That is what he is claiming, you and Randall
are defending.  Who saw it other than the claimant?  A lot of us here are
saying NO ONE, based on the claim vs math.  Nor is it explained how a stock
WG spring 2.5PT computer (claim) is controlling that 2.79PR either.  

Scott Justusson, RS2 wannabe