[urq] Turbocharging & Elevations

John Koenig johnkoenig at greennet.net
Sat Nov 13 13:09:31 EST 2004


Couldn't agree more with most of your comments.  There is certainly a fluffy
side to SAE, but I'd argue there's also a pretty serious side.  For what
it's worth, ISO doesn't recognize "whp" either.  It's not such a big deal if
it's just smack in Body Kit Magazine, but, you know ...

My only complaint is that defined standards and recognized units of
measurement exist for sound reasons, and "whp" is neither.  It's all bhp,
even on a chassis dyno.  I don't even mind "wheel horsepower" 'cause, you
know, English works pretty well.  I just hate making up imaginary units.

Of course, we live in a world of ATM machines, VIN numbers and where
"flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing.  I even remember when
"tuning" meant optimizing performance and efficiency!  I guess I'd better
just get over it!!!


----- Original Message -----
From: <QSHIPQ at aol.com>
To: <johnkoenig at greennet.net>; <urq at audifans.com>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [urq] Turbocharging & Elevations

> The problem I have with SAE, is very few engine figrues are as installed,
> empirical tests as it were.  To truly test BHP we would need to take every
> engine out of the car, and put it on a engine dyno, and double ck that we
> accounted for things like a grill in front of an IC, lack of venting
behind it,
> driveline load, and torsen character (ever watch a torsen hunt on an AWD
> I have, it's spooky).  SAE 'papers' on the other hand, are a bit
> propagandish, and/or at the very least, special interest.  I have quite a
few by audi, and
> there is a lot of flag waving in them.
> John, Javad's point holds true, empirically test the best you can.  I'd
> that the same dyno with the same car is about as close as it's going to
> to some sort of 'sae' correction (pun intended).  I say a dyno result
> on what you want to do with it. It's a reference unto itself, not
necessarily a
> comparison or needs a resultant 'correction'.   Let's not forget, Javad
> shares his results, I applaud him for it, it costs me nothing to see what
he's done.
> I've been exposed to SAE all my life (my dad used to review and edit
> submissions), I find more humor in your proposition than gospel.   The
fact SAE
> doesn't have a whp figure, doesn't surprise me frankly.  Too many
variables affect
> that number to use it for more than reference.  But do remember, that all
> are just SAE/physics based calculations done by a machine to make pretty
> graphs and chest thumping brags.  "Serious engineering community"?  I've
got a few
> SAE papers in my possession that clearly shows optimism to SAE concept of
> humor and obsurdity.
> Best Regards
> Scott Justusson
> .
> In a message dated 11/12/2004 8:58:50 AM Central Standard Time,
> johnkoenig at greennet.net writes:
> Sorry guys, you missed my point.  I completely understand that horsepower
> the wheels is different than horsepower at the crank or flywheel.  My
> was that "whp" is a bogus unit of measurement.  A quick search of the SAE
> website turns up 558 references to "bhp" while a seach for "whp" turns up
> exactly zero hits.  To be meaningful it's important to be clear about what
> is being measured, and how, but in the serious engineering community "whp"
> doesn't mean anything.  Just clarifying ...
> And, yeah, I agree, most of the time it's torque that rules!!!
> John

More information about the urq mailing list