Two guys, two mods, and a tune... in the 11's
Jul 21, 2009, 06:35 PM
#376
Sometimes, I zoom in really tight on just the shift area. That allows me to get a closer time on the entire shift. You're right about the throttle up when the clutch is engaged at the top of the gear. The same holds true for 'lagging' on the throttle when going back to throttle up. It all adds up when you're trying to get back to full boost. I re-reviewed indy's shifts and again, the MAX time on the 1-2 shift is .22, since the tps at 100% at .18, then back to 100% at .40. That only allows a maximum time of .22, which more than likely was more like a .1x, since the ecu could have easily gone to .20 at 100% before the shift, or the ecu could have missed the 100% start time when back on throttle. Either way, .22 is pretty quick for lift shifting. I've seen several of his shifts in the .1x recently. His early runs were good, but not quite THAT good.
Jul 21, 2009, 06:42 PM
#377
Thanks Indy, the quicker shifts make for some interesting challenges sometimes in the tune. Seeing the loads JUMP up IMMEDIATELY after the shift and the ecu sees the SAME RPM as the shift RPM, yet you've gone to another gear at a higher load, same rpm or higher.
Jul 21, 2009, 06:48 PM
#378
Evolved Member
^^i don't hear of any subie tuners talking about this stuff, obviously a reason they are called "slowbarus"
I have heard only one tuner bring up shift knock even...something the STi's suffer from horribly
great driving there, 11's will come soon
I have heard only one tuner bring up shift knock even...something the STi's suffer from horribly
great driving there, 11's will come soon
Jul 21, 2009, 07:29 PM
#381
Probably not. Our old school up-bringings made us pursuit a different path. Now, the logs have shown clearly that there is no advantage for us to go to nlts. Also, the nlts will always drop the rpms on input from the clutch switch, yet there are advantages to having the rpms go up, instead of down. Small, but helpful benefit. A side benefit to not using nlts is that it's caused us to read the logs a little closer and not only improve the tune, but also make Indy a better driver. Notice the tps on each of the shifts. Some of the shifts actually show off throttle in the 93-98% range. Just a little relief on the transmission is all it takes to make a successful shift.
added: by the way, nlts is in the 'converted' tunes I've made, but we've decided not to go with the new tunes.
added: by the way, nlts is in the 'converted' tunes I've made, but we've decided not to go with the new tunes.
Jul 21, 2009, 07:40 PM
#382
I recently tuned a friends car at the track and forgot about the valet mode being turned on. That was a head scratcher for a moment, so I changed to my base tune and all was well. I've got to stay away from those complicated mods.
Then after spending a 16 hour day of really tuning his car, he went back to the track and set a personal best et and mph. His et dropped .4 and his mph went up 4mph. 91 octane still sucks though, but I was surprised at how well the car performs, even with crappy gas. I feel for the cali crowd.
Then after spending a 16 hour day of really tuning his car, he went back to the track and set a personal best et and mph. His et dropped .4 and his mph went up 4mph. 91 octane still sucks though, but I was surprised at how well the car performs, even with crappy gas. I feel for the cali crowd.
Jul 21, 2009, 07:51 PM
#383
Thanks for the quick reply Tom...Quick question regarding clutch switch...I unplugged what I thought was the "clutch switch" and now I don't need to push my clutch in when starting my car...Is this the same clutch switch you are talking about? If this is the same thing and you unplugged this would the car still drop rpms during nlts shifting? Sorry for the noobish questions and going a little off topic...haha...
Jul 21, 2009, 08:10 PM
#384
Indy is definitely flying through the gears! My 1-2 shift log shows at least 0.5 second off-WOT, and 0.8-0.9 second between the boost starting to fall and hitting steady boost on the way back up. Makes me wonder just how much faster I could be going by just learning to shift quickly. I could easily imagine a MPH or two for faster shifts.
One thing I've wondered of late is if there was some way to figure the penalty associated with slow shifting - you know, 0.1 second faster shifting gets you how much faster ET's? You get faster in general with faster shifts since you're coasting and not accelerating, but it's probably not 0.1 sec faster ET for 0.1 sec faster shift. That's probably figure-out-able, though - if you looked at your distance/sec after the shift, and multiplied that by the amount of time saved on a faster shift, that would be how much extra distance you'd accumulate for the faster shift. Leave the rest of the run as-is, and see how long it takes for a 1/4 mile of distance to accumulate.
The other big up-side of a faster shift is that the boost doesn't fall off as far and the revs stay up in the meaty range. In fact, if you shift slow, you probably have to rev higher (past the optimum point) to keep the RPMs from dropping back down too far. With Indy's lightning-shift (tm) technique, he can keep the car in the optimum range around the peak HP point, whereas I'd have to rev way past peak HP or alternately drop way below the peak HP.
It's very interesting how this thread is showing that constantly tweaking the tune and crazy driving can yield big benefits. I think a lot of people head out to the track and are disappointed with their times, when in fact practicing their driving skills and a nip and a tuck here and there on the tune can yield a lot more than bolting on more hardware.
Tom
One thing I've wondered of late is if there was some way to figure the penalty associated with slow shifting - you know, 0.1 second faster shifting gets you how much faster ET's? You get faster in general with faster shifts since you're coasting and not accelerating, but it's probably not 0.1 sec faster ET for 0.1 sec faster shift. That's probably figure-out-able, though - if you looked at your distance/sec after the shift, and multiplied that by the amount of time saved on a faster shift, that would be how much extra distance you'd accumulate for the faster shift. Leave the rest of the run as-is, and see how long it takes for a 1/4 mile of distance to accumulate.
The other big up-side of a faster shift is that the boost doesn't fall off as far and the revs stay up in the meaty range. In fact, if you shift slow, you probably have to rev higher (past the optimum point) to keep the RPMs from dropping back down too far. With Indy's lightning-shift (tm) technique, he can keep the car in the optimum range around the peak HP point, whereas I'd have to rev way past peak HP or alternately drop way below the peak HP.
It's very interesting how this thread is showing that constantly tweaking the tune and crazy driving can yield big benefits. I think a lot of people head out to the track and are disappointed with their times, when in fact practicing their driving skills and a nip and a tuck here and there on the tune can yield a lot more than bolting on more hardware.
Tom
Jul 22, 2009, 05:32 PM
#386
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Nitro Alley, IN
Posts: 2,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indy is definitely flying through the gears! My 1-2 shift log shows at least 0.5 second off-WOT, and 0.8-0.9 second between the boost starting to fall and hitting steady boost on the way back up. Makes me wonder just how much faster I could be going by just learning to shift quickly. I could easily imagine a MPH or two for faster shifts.
One thing I've wondered of late is if there was some way to figure the penalty associated with slow shifting - you know, 0.1 second faster shifting gets you how much faster ET's? You get faster in general with faster shifts since you're coasting and not accelerating, but it's probably not 0.1 sec faster ET for 0.1 sec faster shift. That's probably figure-out-able, though - if you looked at your distance/sec after the shift, and multiplied that by the amount of time saved on a faster shift, that would be how much extra distance you'd accumulate for the faster shift. Leave the rest of the run as-is, and see how long it takes for a 1/4 mile of distance to accumulate.
The other big up-side of a faster shift is that the boost doesn't fall off as far and the revs stay up in the meaty range. In fact, if you shift slow, you probably have to rev higher (past the optimum point) to keep the RPMs from dropping back down too far. With Indy's lightning-shift (tm) technique, he can keep the car in the optimum range around the peak HP point, whereas I'd have to rev way past peak HP or alternately drop way below the peak HP.
It's very interesting how this thread is showing that constantly tweaking the tune and crazy driving can yield big benefits. I think a lot of people head out to the track and are disappointed with their times, when in fact practicing their driving skills and a nip and a tuck here and there on the tune can yield a lot more than bolting on more hardware.
Tom
One thing I've wondered of late is if there was some way to figure the penalty associated with slow shifting - you know, 0.1 second faster shifting gets you how much faster ET's? You get faster in general with faster shifts since you're coasting and not accelerating, but it's probably not 0.1 sec faster ET for 0.1 sec faster shift. That's probably figure-out-able, though - if you looked at your distance/sec after the shift, and multiplied that by the amount of time saved on a faster shift, that would be how much extra distance you'd accumulate for the faster shift. Leave the rest of the run as-is, and see how long it takes for a 1/4 mile of distance to accumulate.
The other big up-side of a faster shift is that the boost doesn't fall off as far and the revs stay up in the meaty range. In fact, if you shift slow, you probably have to rev higher (past the optimum point) to keep the RPMs from dropping back down too far. With Indy's lightning-shift (tm) technique, he can keep the car in the optimum range around the peak HP point, whereas I'd have to rev way past peak HP or alternately drop way below the peak HP.
It's very interesting how this thread is showing that constantly tweaking the tune and crazy driving can yield big benefits. I think a lot of people head out to the track and are disappointed with their times, when in fact practicing their driving skills and a nip and a tuck here and there on the tune can yield a lot more than bolting on more hardware.
Tom
Thanks Tom, Actually when I ran the 12.015 I drove the car as hard as possible. After looking at the logs, the shift times were not nearly as good as when I ran the 12.064. The car seemed easier to drive down track with the clutch and tune, even with only five passes on the clutch. I don't feel like there is any one thing I changed in my driving, but 9sec9 said to work on the throttle and after reading the logs it all came together. Once we get back to the track next week and work on my 60' times I'm sure we will meet our goal of breaking into the 11's. Indy
Last edited by Indy Evo; Jul 22, 2009 at 06:20 PM.
Jul 23, 2009, 02:04 AM
#387
I need to get back to the track, but working the graveyard shift isn't really condusive to that... I am also waiting on a new helmet also...
For the NLTS patch, I personally won't run it anymore as I had a glitch with mine the last time I went to the track, and i wasted 4 runs that night... I wasn't logging at the track, so I couldn't tell exactly what was going on with the car... basically after reviewing logs the next day when i went ripping on it, the throttle plate was closing on its own at 7000 rpm, with no pressure on the clutch pedal what so ever... I changed a 1 to a 0 and have had no more problems...
For the NLTS patch, I personally won't run it anymore as I had a glitch with mine the last time I went to the track, and i wasted 4 runs that night... I wasn't logging at the track, so I couldn't tell exactly what was going on with the car... basically after reviewing logs the next day when i went ripping on it, the throttle plate was closing on its own at 7000 rpm, with no pressure on the clutch pedal what so ever... I changed a 1 to a 0 and have had no more problems...
Jul 23, 2009, 09:38 AM
#388
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Nitro Alley, IN
Posts: 2,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. It takes some getting used to as it is very grippy, but not impossible to drive on the street. I drive every day around town and the only thing you have to think about is matching revs on the downshifts. The pedal feel is lighter than the OEM clutch and requires a little more work to leave from a stop. As for the installation, it went in without a hitch. The one thing I replaced were the cover bolts since they were a little short in my opinion. 03whitegsr found his were long. I will have the upgraded NAS bolts and clutch pedal stop kits available later this week. I contacted QM on the hardware issue and they are addressing it.
For my application of daily driving and on track testing of components I needed a bulletproof clutch and this one was a perfect fit. This clutch is not for everyone, you have to look at what your individual needs are and make your choice accordingly.
Last edited by Indy Evo; Jul 23, 2009 at 09:55 AM.
Jul 23, 2009, 10:23 AM
#389
Very, very useful info for all you guys out there thanks to Tom and Jim for sharing all of this stuff w/ the community!
As you can see by the detailed break-down of the info these guys take in all sorts of info and transform it into useful tweeks to the tune and driver to optimize the combo of parts and track.
Fwiw - i run the nlts but through my aem and i was always under the assumption that the rev-drop would somehow ease the tranny components so that's what we have been running and so far the trans is holding up pretty good. I didn't check the last logs for et of shifts but before i calculated them in the .22-.25 range.
I'm sure if we tweeked a few more things in between shifts that we could eek out a 9.99 but i ask my tuner to only make 1 adjustment at a time at the track and so far the only problem is me hitting the correct shift points for each gear consistantly (which is hard w/o a light).
Keep up the great work fellas and glad you're happy w/ the QM it is one BAD-AZZ clutch holds up to repeated beat-downs and just asks for more lol!
As you can see by the detailed break-down of the info these guys take in all sorts of info and transform it into useful tweeks to the tune and driver to optimize the combo of parts and track.
Fwiw - i run the nlts but through my aem and i was always under the assumption that the rev-drop would somehow ease the tranny components so that's what we have been running and so far the trans is holding up pretty good. I didn't check the last logs for et of shifts but before i calculated them in the .22-.25 range.
I'm sure if we tweeked a few more things in between shifts that we could eek out a 9.99 but i ask my tuner to only make 1 adjustment at a time at the track and so far the only problem is me hitting the correct shift points for each gear consistantly (which is hard w/o a light).
Keep up the great work fellas and glad you're happy w/ the QM it is one BAD-AZZ clutch holds up to repeated beat-downs and just asks for more lol!
Jul 23, 2009, 12:17 PM
#390
Thanks for the add'l information Patrick B. Since we've mentioned the shifts and tuning in that area, it's time to share a little more of our information.
Recently, while reviewing the logs, an idea hit me to change a few things around in the tune to 'match' and 'foresee' where we were going next as far as in the timing tables, mivec table and fuel tables. Timing: When you're running 7500 rpms and shift, the logs usually indicate an immediate drop in loads, but the RPM's stay up for a bit, even after the loads drop. This causes a low load/high rpm situation. Right where many 'tunes' still have around 33-38 degrees of timing. Notice when this occurs, the 'shift knock' occurs. Then, when the load begins to catch back up to the dropping rpms, the shift knock is probably gone. To 'anticipate' this, I place the timing at a very close number to what the next gears timing WILL be when the shift has just completed. For us, that's been between 8 - 10 degrees of timing in the 7500-8000 rpms and loads of 0 - 100. After a 100 load, I blend the timng back into the maximum timing I'll be seeing at 7500-8000 in the 220 load column, about 15 or 16 degrees. The result: No shift knock and loads INSTANTLY hit a higher load than in previous tunes. I've also used this technique on the recent street 91 and 91 w/meth tunes with equal results.
Mivec: Since the Mivec table isn't quite as exact as the timing tables, I've always noticed that the Mivec target 'lagged' actual numbers. To counteract that, I again 'anticipate' where the Mivec timing should be and begin working the same rpms/loads to be at that number, when the shift has finished. My belief is that the oil pressure increase and decrease in such a short period of time is useless. By moving the mivec timing between the shifts 'towards the ultimate goal' of the next gears setting, we eliminate the delay/lag and I feel the Mivec performance will be more stable.
Fuel: Same thing here. As RPM's stay up, and loads drop during the shift, I take this opportunity to increase the fuel at low load/high rpm's to both cool the incoming cylinder charge as well as to act as a poor-mans' anti-lag system. Together, less timing, more fuel and Mivec already on it's way to it's proper place has allowed us to increase the average loads through each gear.
Now, it's up for scrutiny, but it works for us.
Recently, while reviewing the logs, an idea hit me to change a few things around in the tune to 'match' and 'foresee' where we were going next as far as in the timing tables, mivec table and fuel tables. Timing: When you're running 7500 rpms and shift, the logs usually indicate an immediate drop in loads, but the RPM's stay up for a bit, even after the loads drop. This causes a low load/high rpm situation. Right where many 'tunes' still have around 33-38 degrees of timing. Notice when this occurs, the 'shift knock' occurs. Then, when the load begins to catch back up to the dropping rpms, the shift knock is probably gone. To 'anticipate' this, I place the timing at a very close number to what the next gears timing WILL be when the shift has just completed. For us, that's been between 8 - 10 degrees of timing in the 7500-8000 rpms and loads of 0 - 100. After a 100 load, I blend the timng back into the maximum timing I'll be seeing at 7500-8000 in the 220 load column, about 15 or 16 degrees. The result: No shift knock and loads INSTANTLY hit a higher load than in previous tunes. I've also used this technique on the recent street 91 and 91 w/meth tunes with equal results.
Mivec: Since the Mivec table isn't quite as exact as the timing tables, I've always noticed that the Mivec target 'lagged' actual numbers. To counteract that, I again 'anticipate' where the Mivec timing should be and begin working the same rpms/loads to be at that number, when the shift has finished. My belief is that the oil pressure increase and decrease in such a short period of time is useless. By moving the mivec timing between the shifts 'towards the ultimate goal' of the next gears setting, we eliminate the delay/lag and I feel the Mivec performance will be more stable.
Fuel: Same thing here. As RPM's stay up, and loads drop during the shift, I take this opportunity to increase the fuel at low load/high rpm's to both cool the incoming cylinder charge as well as to act as a poor-mans' anti-lag system. Together, less timing, more fuel and Mivec already on it's way to it's proper place has allowed us to increase the average loads through each gear.
Now, it's up for scrutiny, but it works for us.