Advantage of M-DCT over 6MT - 1/4 mi. - Stock and Supercharged

[swamp2]

There was some discussion as to the near magical effects of M-DCT (as compared to 6MT) for 1/4 mi performance in the thread about DLSJ5's low compression motor build. That thread here.

Around page 8 or 9 the disagreement began. The main disagreement centers on what M-DCT really buys you in performance on highly tuned supercharged M3s. Some claim in that thread that M-DCT alone will provide a +10 mph trap speed and 0.7s ET advantage over a similarly powered (or even slightly higher powered) 6MT car.

I absolutely reject that claim and here is my argument.

1. CarTest physics based acceleration simulation can accurately model the launch and entire drag racing event including shift time variations between M-DCT and 6MT cars.

2. CartTest must be configured properly or else you will end up with garbage in, garbage out. For this type of comparison some of the most important things to get correct are peak power, weight, (integration) time step, parasitic losses and shift times. In my modeling efforts, based on both text book values, trial and error and correlation with actual performance results I believe the following are the most realistic parameters to use

• Weight: 3626 - based on a corner weighing of my own M-DCT car. This acccounts for a full tank, full fluids, no "package" or "parcel" weights but does not include a 160 lb driver added elsewhere in the software
• Peak power: As has been discussed nearly ad infinitum peak power is far more important the the power curve, torque curve, etc. When doing a WOT acceleration one will spend the vast majority of the time within a couple thousand rpm of peak hp. You can refine results by putting in actual power curves but you get VERY little change in results (insignificant really).
• Time step: I have settled on 30 ms. 50 ms does not offer quite enough accuracy in my evaluation
• Losses: Standard CarTest values are not suitable for the M3. Again these losses come from text books, trial and error testing, rri.se tests and comparison with journalists performance results vs. CarTest. The losses I am using are auxiliaries: 1%, M-DCT and 6MT transmission: 3%, Diff: 3%, Axles/Shafts: 5%. Total loss 12%. It actually makes a lot of sense that M-DCT losses should be higher than the much more mechanically simpler 6MT but the difference there may be an additional 1-2%.
• Shift times: I have seen recordings of very fast MT shift time of 0.25s. I have also seen shift times as slow as 0.8s. M-DCT shift times are not known precisely but are probably in the 30-50 ms range. A reasonable value for MT shift times is 300 ms and this is what I have used (technically 250 ms for the shift and 50 ms for the engage time).

3. Putting all of this together for the stock M3 M-DCT in the 1/4 mi we find:

CarTest: 12.5 s at 113.5 mph
Best result in this "database" of test results: 12.6 @ 113.2 mph

Very nice correspondence. You can not begin simply adding power to a standard CarTest model without having this basic stock baseline work done. img - if you use your SC car models in CarTest but revert to stock power you WILL NOT find this type of correspondence vs. real world test results.

4. Stock 6MT vs stock M-DCT: In the past I have claimed that M-DCT is good for about 20 hp as an equivalent advantage. This highly depends on shift times (manual and M-DCT) as well as which type of contest is under consideration. Specifically for the 1/4 mi and with the shift times discussed above, I actually think the number is MUCH larger, perhaps close to 50 hp. This was a bit hard for me to believe. Also given the closeness of the 6MT vs. M-DCT results in actual real world testing it further reinforces the idea that the transmissions do have different losses. A 6MT with an additional 50 hp (again with identical losses and a similar % boost in torque) will have just about the right amount of power to make up for a 0.3-0.4 sec worse ET and 4 mph slower trap speed (see results below).

5. Modded M3 vs. Modded M-DCT. Comparing two cars brought up in the orginal thread by user img. DLSJ5's car with M-DCT, 586 whp, 379 wftlb vs. M33's car with 6MT, 594 whp, 361 wftlb. I did not bother using exact wheel power results. I simply used a 12% loss to convert these to 656 hp, 424 ftlb crank and 665 hp, 427 ftlb crank. In a completely "apples to apples" race of these two cars one would expect to see a 0.3s ET and 3 mph trap advantage. Again a 10 mph trap advantage just does not make any sense whatsoever and this observed advantage certainly can not be ascribed solely to the advantage of M-DCT. The advantages are similar to those seen in stock M3s. Have a SC and a lot more power and torque does not do anything magical here. There are a plethora of other more reasonable explanations for the observed differences including: dyno variation, dyno inaccuracy, environmental differences (dyno day and track day), tire/traction differences, road grade, driver skill and the list just goes on and on. In short the comparison made between M33 and DLJS5 cars is simply apples to oranges, pure and simple. You must ask yourself - what is a more reasonable explanation, M-DCT alone or a combination of these other factors which will vary, some substantially in the real world.

The results posted here below from CarTest are:

1: 6MT stock
2: 6MT with +50 crank hp (and a corresponding 331 ft lb)
3: M33 car, 6MT crank power and torque as above
4: M-DCT, stock
5. DLSJ5 car, M-DCT power and torque as above

Despite some uncertainties particularly with actual M-DCT shift times and M-DCT parasitic losses one can certainly conclude that M-DCT is very valuable in terms of performance, both track, strip and street. I've always advocated strongly of such an advantage. However, to believe that modded cars will magically show much more gains compared to a 6MT vs. M-DCT contest with stock cars is going against both actual tests and simulation. Also to believe that M-DCT alone can provide a 10 mph (or even 6 mph) trap advantage and/or a 0.7 ET advantage siply goes against the basic physics and other test results for stock vehicles.

6. Further "back of the envelope" predictions can also show this +10mph and +0.7s ET (again due to M-DCT alone) is rubbish. Have a look at this good site. Here the classic idea that both ET and trap scale like the 1/3rd power of power to weight is vetted and refined. The simple "LRT formula" for M33 car provides (using a weight of 3787 and power of 665 crank hp) of 11.5s @ 127.4 mph, remarkably close to my CarTest simulation. In order to have a 10 mph trap advantage a quick calculation using the calculator on this site shows that about 850 crank hp is required (again 6MT vs 6MT). A similar result can be found in CarTest as well. Of course the formulae here absolutely do not account for the fast shift times of M-DCT, standard shift times are their variations are naturally built into this modeling exercise and regression. There is simply no way M-DCT is providing any benefit close to this ~200 hp. If it did stock M-DCT cars would be absolutely obliterating 6MT cars at the 1/4 mi strip and they simply are not.

Member img: I have not dug through all of the details of your simulations posted in the other thread but something is very wrong with your conclusions and models. Losses are certainly one thing in need of refinement. Don't forget you can be right (sim vs. test agree) but for the wrong reason. This is not all that uncommon in simulation...

[E90///M3`]

subbed... i like reading this stuff.

[Bart@AUTOcouture]

Good stuff

[pumper206]

Bravo, for your time and effort put into this. Thx!

[IMG]

It's a bit disappointing that I posted all of my configurations to allow anybody to verify my results, but you posted none to allow anybody to verify your results. Therefore it's impossible to verify that you're using the same power method, same shift method, etc. There's so many parameters you didn't disclose, that it's impossible to verify your results. Please post your configurations so they can be verified that you did this correctly.

It's even more disappointing that you didn't use the actual dyno charts provided. It only takes 3 minutes to input the data (if that) -- especially when I posted it for you already and showed you exactly what values to use.

I never contested that a pro driver on a bone stock car couldn't keep up with a bone stock DCT. Since I never made this comparison or any claims about it, I'm intentionally ignoring that entire part of the discussion. So that whole part of the discussion doesn't interest me and could have been omitted.

Now, let's discuss your changes and your results. I took what you described and made the same changes to mine. Even though a 160 pound driver isn't very realistic, I went with it anyways.

Changing the time step from 50ms to 30ms changed the DCT results from 128.62 to 129.04 MPH, and 6MT results from 118.60 to 118.44 MPH (slower?).
Changing the car weight from the BMW published value of 3704 lbs to a much lighter 3626 lbs changed the DCT results from 129.04 to 129.63 MPH and 6MT results from 118.44 to 119.02 MPH.
Changing the driver weight from 185 lbs to 160 pounds changed the DCT to 129.87 MPH and the 6MT to 119.19 MPH.

Changing the drive train losses in CarTest.
Changing the AUX losses from the default 2% to 1% did not change the results for either vehicle.
Changing the TRANS losses to 3% did not change the results for either vehicle.
Changing the DIFF losses to 3% did not change the results for either vehicle.
Changing the AXLE losses to 5% did not change the results for either vehicle.

Using the actual dyno charts, I didn't expect any of these DT losses to affect the simulation; and it's good to verify that it didn't.

My DCT shift speed was already 50mS, so I didn't change that. Changing the shift speed from 600ms to 300ms on 6MT did not change the DCT results (since I was already at 50mS), and changed the 6MT results to 122.87 MPH. As I said in the other thread, I've looked at many vBox files and results, and the average 6MT driver shifts in about 700ms from clutch-in to clutch out and fully engaged. I was generous by using 600mS for these simulations even though the shifts in the actual vBox files used in the vBox Racer video weren't that fast.

Final results after using your parameters:
So using my published configuration and modifying my parameters as you said (including the unrealistic and somewhat ridiculous 300mS 6MT shift speed), the DCT traps at 129.87 MPH and 6MT traps at 122.87 MPH -- still a full 7 MPH difference.

As one final test, I disabled the actual dyno charts and input only peak power and peak torque to verify your claim that "putting in actual power curves you get VERY little change in results (insignificant really)." First I realized that you calculated the crank HP incorrectly. You took 586 and 594 and multiplied by 1.12 (wrong). To compensate for the 12% DT losses, you needed to take 586 and 594 and DIVIDE by 0.88. This gives you 666chp, and 675chp respectively. Do the same for torque as well. After making this change, the DCT traps 129.55 MPH and the 6MT traps 126.12 MPH. That's another 3.25 MPH incorrectly added to your simulation of the 6MT. I thought you said using the actual dyno charts wouldn't make this much of a difference!

After giving a speech about how much you like using real-life data collected from multiple sources, and the speech about using CarTest correctly, I have no idea why you ignored your own advice. You pulled 300mS shift speed out of thin air, failed to use the actual dyno charts provided, and calculated crank horsepower incorrectly. My method used real world shift speeds collected from actual vBox files, and used the real dyno results which already have the drive train losses factored in. Your method was completely unscientific, haphazard, used incorrect data, and relies on whatever values that you deemed appropriate. You claimed that using the dyno chart wouldn't make a difference, but as I showed it made a whopping 3.25 MPH difference itself. Your unrealistic shift speed gave you another 3.68 MPH that doesn't exist in most real life examples. All-in-all, the flaws in your data gave you an additional 6.93 MPH difference from using real world shift speeds and real world dyno charts. It's just like you predicted: garbage in equals garbage out.

[saeedg48]

good stuff. so what you're saying is that a 6mt has to have a 50hp+ over the dct to keep up - i do completely agree with this statement.

random information on this topic; the m3 i'm driving puts 411hp to the wheels and i've taken more m3 dcts than i can count.

ps; i always thought the dct had more drivetrain loss..

[swamp2]

Sorry buddy, even though you have found some minor points of correction for me, the proper use of this tool still somewhat evades you. Simulations such as these and simulations in general are so much better are RELATIVE predictions rather than absolutes. And the case of 6MT vs M-DCT is exactly a text book type of case to explore with simulation. Furthermore you have made no basic argument against the fundamental fact of how much power is required to make a +10 mph DIFFERENCE in trap speed. And about this, the primary point I have been arguing against, you are still wrong and have not shown anything to make anyone believe otherwise.

In the other thread you said something along the lines of "something strange happens here with M-DCT in supercharged cars". No, nothing strange happens and nothing really unexplainable. You have some serious apples to oranges comparisons with massive unknowns based on dyno uncertainty and other unaccounted for unknowns. That about sums it up.
__________________________________________________ ___

Details... (for the brave or bored...)

Originally Posted by img

It's a bit disappointing that I posted all of my configurations to allow anybody to verify my results, but you posted none to allow anybody to verify your results. Therefore it's impossible to verify that you're using the same power method, same shift method, etc. There's so many parameters you didn't disclose, that it's impossible to verify your results. Please post your configurations so they can be verified that you did this correctly.

I posted every change I made that differed from the "out of the box" defaults. Do you really want to see page after page of inputs for every configuration I made, all five cars/runs? If so I suppose I can post them. Even without them you should be able to easily recreate my results.

Originally Posted by img

I never contested that a pro driver on a bone stock car couldn't keep up with a bone stock DCT. Since I never made this comparison or any claims about it, I'm intentionally ignoring that entire part of the discussion. So that whole part of the discussion doesn't interest me and could have been omitted.

Not sure your point here at all. Actual magazine results with highly skilled, non professional drivers indicate that the combination of environmental effects match or overcome the actual performance difference/advantage of the M-DCT over the 6MT. I never said anything about pro drivers...

Originally Posted by img

Now, let's discuss your changes and your results. I took what you described and made the same changes to mine. Even though a 160 pound driver isn't very realistic, I went with it anyways.

Changing the car weight from the BMW published value of 3704 lbs to a much lighter 3626 lbs changed the DCT results from 129.04 to 129.63 MPH and 6MT results from 118.44 to 119.02 MPH.
Changing the driver weight from 185 lbs to 160 pounds changed the DCT to 129.87 MPH and the 6MT to 119.19 MPH.

Standard curb weight definitions use a 68 kg driver, which is 150 lb. CarTest car weights DO NOT include a driver weight whereas most vehicle specifications such as a curb weight DO include a driver. CarTest uses 160 lb as its standard. Either way the car weight input in the program does not include driver. Lastly and most importantly a 10-30 lb change either way if you choose another "standard" will make no appreciable difference in the details or overall conclusion I have come to. NONE.

My particular 3262 number came from corner weighing my actual car on a very nice race scale. I posted all about that years ago and you can still find that post and data. BMW figures INCLUDE a 68 kg driver!

Originally Posted by img

Changing the time step from 50ms to 30ms changed the DCT results from 128.62 to 129.04 MPH, and 6MT results from 118.60 to 118.44 MPH (slower?).

Time stepping is one of the most fundamental inputs for a numerical integration. .05 seconds is not sufficient for a M-DCT car that shifts in the same range of time. .03 seconds provides accuracy to a tenth of a second in ET and a tenth of a mph for trap speeds. Your prior results are off by about 0.5 mph simply from an inadequate time step. Fortunately this does not make a large enough error to sway the key points either way. You should not use .03 seconds arbitrarily though. Do a quick convergence study for a M-DCT car and MT car for the metrics you care about and decide for yourself if .03 seconds is sufficient. If you have not done this already it is another deficiency in your simulation work as a whole.

Originally Posted by img

My DCT shift speed was already 50mS, so I didn't change that. Changing the shift speed from 600ms to 300ms on 6MT did not change the DCT results (since I was already at 50mS), and changed the 6MT results to 122.87 MPH. As I said in the other thread, I've looked at many vBox files and results, and the average 6MT driver shifts in about 700ms from clutch-in to clutch out and fully engaged. I was generous by using 600mS for these simulations even though the shifts in the actual vBox files used in the vBox Racer video weren't that fast.

I have seen results (actual graphs) posted here on this forum for a guy shifting his Lotus in .25 seconds. Perhaps this is much faster than anyone can shift their M3s. Using .5 seconds for the shift and .1 seconds for the clutch engagement will produce an actual shift time of 0.6 seconds. This change compared to my prior results will provide an additional 2 mph of trap speed advantage to the M-DCT car. Either way we are still a very long way from a 10 mph difference at the same power. A long long way.

Originally Posted by img

Final results after using your parameters:
So using my published configuration and modifying my parameters as you said (including the unrealistic and somewhat ridiculous 300mS 6MT shift speed), the DCT traps at 129.87 MPH and 6MT traps at 122.87 MPH -- still a full 7 MPH difference.

If you think this is "apples to apples" with totally different cars, different days, different tires, different drivers, different dyno's and you want to ascribe it all to M-DCT, fine, but I you have not made a convincing argument for that. Neither the sims nor the real world are apples to apples.

Originally Posted by img

It's even more disappointing that you didn't use the actual dyno charts provided. It only takes 3 minutes to input the data (if that) -- especially when I posted it for you already and showed you exactly what values to use.

As one final test, I disabled the actual dyno charts and input only peak power and peak torque to verify your claim that "putting in actual power curves you get VERY little change in results (insignificant really)." First I realized that you calculated the crank HP incorrectly. You took 586 and 594 and multiplied by 1.12 (wrong). To compensate for the 12% DT losses, you needed to take 586 and 594 and DIVIDE by 0.88. This gives you 666chp, and 675chp respectively. Do the same for torque as well. After making this change, the DCT traps 129.55 MPH and the 6MT traps 126.12 MPH. That's another 3.25 MPH incorrectly added to your simulation of the 6MT. I thought you said using the actual dyno charts wouldn't make this much of a difference!

I stated exactly why I made the choice I did. The peak value is all that matters. In addition it is easier. Period. If you want to debate the whole peak value vs. entire power curve we will have to go back to a plethora of threads and lessons on that. Especially for the M3 with its very flat torque curve and linear power curve dyno vs. peak in a simulation is a very small factor. And again it is relative - when both cars are treated in an apples to apples fashion (same peak) you have more consistency (say as compared to your different dyno, different day, different shop, different set up, etc.). However, you are correct on my small brain fart on the multiply by 1.12 vs. divide by .88. But guess what, that does not really matter either. Sure it makes a 10 hp difference but we are talking about a comparison. Both the M33 car and DLJS5 car were treated by the same error so it affects the relative difference in a very small way.

Many of these things can and certainly do add up to changes absolute performance results but in essence we are not debating absolutes. This is about M-DCT VS. 6MT, not about absolutes for a given car or trans.

Originally Posted by img

After giving a speech about how much you like using real-life data collected from multiple sources, and the speech about using CarTest correctly, I have no idea why you ignored your own advice. You pulled 300mS shift speed out of thin air, failed to use the actual dyno charts provided, and calculated crank horsepower incorrectly. My method used real world shift speeds collected from actual vBox files, and used the real dyno results which already have the drive train losses factored in. Your method was completely unscientific, haphazard, used incorrect data, and relies on whatever values that you deemed appropriate. You claimed that using the dyno chart wouldn't make a difference, but as I showed it made a whopping 3.25 MPH difference itself. Your unrealistic shift speed gave you another 3.68 MPH that doesn't exist in most real life examples. All-in-all, the flaws in your data gave you an additional 6.93 MPH difference from using real world shift speeds and real world dyno charts. It's just like you predicted: garbage in equals garbage out.

Unscientific, ha, that is funny. I can point to exact references or calculations for most of my inputs and can show correlation to actual test results and that is unscientific? You are dealing with amatuer drivers, completely uncontrolled circumstances and who the heck knows whom for "controlled" dynos results and you call that scientific? Putting is more data to a simulation does not increase the quality of the simulation. You have failed to address the fact that roller nor inertial, Mustang nor Dynojet dynos simply are not accurate enough to put the values directly into a simulator! Anyone who uses dynos properly knows they are not very accurate, are highly subject to misuse and should only be used for careful RELATIVE comparisons.

Shift times: I posted very long ago on my detailed measurements of DCT shift times using a high end accelerometer and data acquisition system. At very fast data rates. Quite a bit more professional/scientific gear as opposed to a Vbox. Results were not entirely conclusive but indicated that a very fast M-DCT shift may be as fast at 30ms. Again 30 or 50 ms here will not make any substantial changes here to the essense of this debate.

Using a 0.6 second shift and the division by .88 correction (but still with the 6MT M33 car having a bit more power). I have found a 5 mph trap speed difference. This doesn't mean the 3 mph difference I posted earlier is a mistake it simply reflects an additional disadvantage of perhaps a more realistic and slower MT shift time. Sure 5 mph is quite significant. Again I never said M-DCT is not significant (except in the stock magazine test data...).

What I firmly stand by is the following, and I think this is where we still disagree.

1. Real world controlled testing of stock M3s (i.e. where we know EXACTLY how much power they are making - less any uncorrected temperature and density effects of course) do not show large advantages for the M-DCT over the 6MT. The key factors here are the much faster shift speeds which improve the M-DCT performance but additional parasitic losses must also be present (from a basic consideration of the M-DCT design, extra shafts, extra pumps, hardware, etc.).
   
2. Under an apples to apples simulation or real world test of highly modified 600-700 whp M3s. M-DCT alone can not account for a 10 mph trap speed advantage nor a 0.7 second ET advantage. Those results require about 100 hp advantage in addition to the advantage of M-DCT. A more realistic difference in 1/4 mi ETs is about 5 mph (equal power not trying to model particular folks cars).

Let's have it straight and keep it simple, agree or disagree with #1 and #2 above?

You can continue all you like with nitpicking or valid suggestions but these points are the basis for which I criticized your simulations and the conclusions you have drawn about what can be ascribed to M-DCT and what cannot. Ultimately you really have done nothing further to argue against these points.

I did also notice that you chose to completely ignore the great predictive power of the simple and validates formulae that can predict ET and trap speeds based on power to weight. Have you thought more about what those formulae tell us in this debate?

Let's get back on track, admit these points and admit the wealth of huge uncertainties that are the likely and common sense explanations for the 10 mph ET differences observed in the real world.

[pbonsalb]

What basis do you have for your 12% drivetrain loss on an 8400 rpm motor with a Vortech dragging on the crank? I think that a stock M3 has an 18% loss, given that a good dynojet result is around 350 rwhp and crank hp is rated at 414. I think the loss would be greater with the Vortech.

DCT have increased drag losses, but I don't know how much. It certainly is not enough to keep them from slightly outperforming manual transmissions.

[akh23456]

Yup no way 10 mph gain from dct unless some grandma is driving a 6-mt. From my own calculation and own simulations its max a 4.456 mph difference. Img your just trying to prove your point of 6-mt vs Dct anyone can Skew data but physics doesn't lie. When i ran M33 it was a 2-5 mph difference head to head how do you explain that? Real world results with same temp and same road conditions. I agree with swamp2 your results are comparing apples to oranges.

[m33]

Me in the car total weight is 3,755 lbs so your pretty close with your figures.
Now for effected trap I have to disagree with you ... Time equals momentum i don't care what analogy you use physics is physics and think for a moment here
::example:: 2 secs more on throttle is good for a solid 4 to 5 mph At the same token dct uses 1 additional gear in the 1/4mile which means the dct has one extra gear of 500+whp to push him closer to the finish line.
Now for drew case ( 1/4mile figures )
He has Meth = cold weather performance
Drag Radials= minimal wheel spin
Dct = lighting fast shift more time in power to the ground ( more momentum )

M33
Pump fuel 93oct no Meth
Bullshit tires = I had wheel spin 1-3rd
6mt slow shifting = afraid of missing 3rd
I trapped 121.5mph
Here is the key enemy .... Heat soak

I ordered a Meth and will be installing in the next 2weeks aswell as pilot super sport tires which stick really well so I plan on hitting the track soon after .
My speculated results in trap are 125 to 126 mph so let's see what happens .

FYI my 7.9 sec 60-130 was in 48-50f
In 70+f I clock 8.3 to 8.8 goes to show what effect heat has especially on a FI setup

[akh23456]

Originally Posted by m33

Me in the car total weight is 3,755 lbs so your pretty close with your figures.
Now for effected trap I have to disagree with you ... Time equals momentum i don't care what analogy you use physics is physics and think for a moment here
::example:: 2 secs more on throttle is good for a solid 4 to 5 mph At the same token dct uses 1 additional gear in the 1/4mile which means the dct has one extra gear of 500+whp to push him closer to the finish line.
Now for drew case ( 1/4mile figures )
He has Meth = cold weather performance
Drag Radials= minimal wheel spin
Dct = lighting fast shift more time in power to the ground ( more momentum )

M33
Pump fuel 93oct no Meth
Bullshit tires = I had wheel spin 1-3rd
6mt slow shifting = afraid of missing 3rd
I trapped 121.5mph
Here is the key enemy .... Heat soak

I ordered a Meth and will be installing in the next 2weeks aswell as pilot super sport tires which stick really well so I plan on hitting the track soon after .
My speculated results in trap are 125 to 126 mph so let's see what happens .

FYI my 7.9 sec 60-130 was in 48-50f
In 70+f I clock 8.3 to 8.8 goes to show what effect heat has especially on a FI setup

come to MIR rental in October its a bit of a ride for you.

[m33]

Originally Posted by akh23456

Yup no way 10 mph gain from dct unless some grandma is driving a 6-mt. From my own calculation and own simulations its max a 4.456 mph difference. Img your just trying to prove your point of 6-mt vs Dct anyone can Skew data but physics doesn't lie. When i ran M33 it was a 2-5 mph difference head to head how do you explain that? Real world results with same temp and same road conditions. I agree with swamp2 your results are comparing apples to oranges.

Dude I swear I respect you ! Don't take this the wrong way,
I'll answer your question on your 2-5 mph difference .. You ready ? ..... Wait here it comes ..... Methhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Take a moment and swallow/absorb that ...

I went from 118mph to 121.5 within a 10deg drop in temp whereas you were trapping 121 - 122 all day long consistantly and u saw a 1whp gain whereas I saw 2.5mph gain ...
Thats why I said in previous statements turn your meth off at the track to see what u trap so we can get a closer comparison but I know you would never do that cause your setups numbers will be much much lower so I went and ordered a Meth kit and believe you me I will prove my point .

Can someone with credentials please tell me how much on a drop in temp does Meth produce ???

Akash if and when we do some friendly runs I will turn the Meth on and off for comparisons sake .

[m33]

Originally Posted by akh23456

come to MIR rental in October its a bit of a ride for you.

where is MIR ?

[akh23456]

Originally Posted by m33

where is MIR ?

Maryland International Raceway Oct 9th 100 bucks gates open 8:30am

I went from 120 -122 or 123 i don't remember exactly.

You make meth sounds like it gives such a huge advantage. Its just for cooling so my car doesn't become heat soaked so is more efficient and wiser to run it for me at least.

My best trap speed is with meth off at 124 and your right now is 121 right? But if you compare the results with meth off its a 3 mph difference still not even close to the claimed 10 mph.

I can do some runs soon i just had family thing come up before maybe in a week or two. Just have a decent amount of work on my plate right now i will text you and img and figure out a good day. Hope the car is running well.

[akh23456]

Meth will only gain 10-15 whp max unless you tune your car for meth then you'll yield more.

[m33]

It was 122 but that's my exact point Meth cools and 7lbs of boost produces more power in cooler temps yet alone almost eliminating heat soak , , for the record I was always against Meth Drew will confirm but I'm willing to give it a try after seeing how clean drew's motor looked and the cooling factor of it :cheers:

Originally Posted by akh23456

Maryland International Raceway Oct 9th 100 bucks gates open 8:30am

I went from 120 -122 or 123 i don't remember exactly.

You make meth sounds like it gives such a huge advantage. Its just for cooling so my car doesn't become heat soaked so is more efficient and wiser to run it for me at least.

My best trap speed is with meth off at 124 and your right now is 121 right? But if you compare the results with meth off its a 3 mph difference still not even close to the claimed 10 mph.

I can do some runs soon i just had family thing come up before maybe in a week or two. Just have a decent amount of work on my plate right now i will text you and img and figure out a good day. Hope the car is running well.

[erm324]

my two cents.......for zims 6MT ESS kit to run similar traps to the AA DCT (which it did towards the end of the night when temps drops and he feathered it instead of spinning until the finish line lol) it has to have alot more power...this completely makes sense because zim put down at least 80whp more than the AA kit on the dyno....AK I bet if you took an AA 6MT and ran it against your car there would be much more than a 1-2mph difference in trap speed....just in the same way if you race a DCT 625 to a 6MT 625 kit....i think you and zim had close traps because you have less power/and have DCT while he has alot more power/has 6MT...how one cannot see the huge advantage of DCT in drag racing i dont understand..furthermore, if this still isnt enough evidence i might as well repost this video...im about 80-100whp down against a blown 6MT:

i think alot of our questions will be answered the next time we go to Atco together all with sticky tires and cooler temps...hopefully we can break some records for both N/A and Supercharged setups !

[DLSJ5]

I think this is a fantastic discussion, thank you for moving it to it's own thread! So you've found now that the DCT is good for 50+ whp over 6MT? I think that's a major change in your initial assertions that it was much lower and I commend you for admitting that. That's not far off from what I've experienced for the most part, as I said I've seen the 6MT need 60-80whp more in boosted cars, but 50 is still pretty significant IMHO. I know that you have no agenda, and that your feelings on the matter are mostly about physics, and what you deem to be realistic. I certainly can relate, before I saw all the vbox data, and the real world results myself, I felt the same way you did.

I'm curious though, where did you get your "real world" results from with regards to modded cars? Have you looked at the Vbox results, comparo runs, or 1/4 mile slips? I certainly believe a 6MT can close the gap on the faster DCT cars that have trapped 126+, but so far none of them have. One reason is because a boosted 6MT has yet to run with a proper drag setup, if one did, I think the trap speeds would go up. I do agree of course, and others simply dismiss this, that different conditions, traction, etc. play a major role in the outcome. So far the highest trap on a 6MT is 121, and a DCT is 131, and until that gap is closer, it's difficult to say with absolute certainty that there's only a 3MPH difference, because it hasn't happened yet in the real world, not even close.

There will probably be another private track even here in November / December I'll see what I can do to get some 6MT vs. DCT runs, with N/A and boosted cars, your not too far from Famoso, you should try and come as well.

[DLSJ5]

Originally Posted by erm324

my two cents.......for zims 6MT ESS kit to run similar traps to the AA DCT (which it did towards the end of the night when temps drops and he feathered it instead of spinning until the finish line lol) it has to have alot more power...this completely makes sense because zim put down at least 80whp more than the AA kit on the dyno....AK I bet if you took an AA 6MT and ran it against your car there would be much more than a 1-2mph difference in trap speed....just in the same way if you race a DCT 625 to a 6MT 625 kit....i think you and zim had close traps because you have less power/and have DCT while he has alot more power/has 6MT...how one cannot see the huge advantage of DCT in drag racing i dont understand..

Great points, their results are a prime example of how the DCT is vastly superior, why would there be a 10mph gap, the DCT is making what? 80 less WHP? If AK was making the same power as Zim, he'd trapped near 130 like I did. Their results at atco match my experiences as well and only demonstrate even more how superior the DCT is. I believe M33 and AK's results are being used by a FEW others, not swamp, to try and down play M33's dyno results or the ESS kit in general. It has nothing to do with reality, but rather tuner politics, some are just not aware yet of how good the DCT can be. I'm not sure why this is not registering with AK yet.

I wasn't there so I can't say for certain, but when I look at some of the vids, AK was spinning off the line and then appears to get traction the rest of the way down, this will not affect your trap speeds as much as spinning 200' down the track, as M33 was, which I saw in his Vbox data. I believe M33's trap speeds also improved because he found a way to control wheel spin a little better, as you stated. If you are spinning that far down the track, you can loose as much as 5MPH in your traps vs. if you had traction all the way down the track, even if he was just spinning of the line and then hooked the rest of the way down, he'd improved even more. I do think that M33's car is good for at least 126MPH+ with a proper drag setup, or even better if conditions are good, and atco is certainly a fast track, MIR will be even better.

[akh23456]

Originally Posted by DLSJ5

Great points, their results are a prime example of how the DCT is vastly superior, why would there be a 10mph gap, the DCT is making what? 80 less WHP? If AK was making the same power as Zim, he'd trapped near 130 like I did. Their results at atco match my experiences as well and only demonstrate even more how superior the DCT is. I believe M33 and AK's results are being used by a FEW others, not swamp, to try and down play M33's dyno results or the ESS kit in general. It has nothing to do with reality, but rather tuner politics, some are just not aware yet of how good the DCT can be. I'm not sure why this is not registering with AK yet.

I wasn't there so I can't say for certain, but when I look at some of the vids, AK was spinning off the line and then appears to get traction the rest of the way down, this will not affect your trap speeds as much as spinning 200' down the track, as M33 was, which I saw in his Vbox data. I believe M33's trap speeds also improved because he found a way to control wheel spin a little better, as you stated. If you are spinning that far down the track, you can loose as much as 5MPH in your traps vs. if you had traction all the way down the track, even if he was just spinning of the line and then hooked the rest of the way down, he'd improved even more. I do think that M33's car is good for at least 126MPH+ with a proper drag setup, or even better if conditions are good, and atco is certainly a fast track, MIR will be even better.

Lol your talking about tuner politics funny. Well I deff know the advantage of Dct in real life, simulation and physics. The thing a FEW of you guys don't get is that it isn't a 10 mph difference more like 3-5 mph range is all i am getting at. You compare your runs with meth to M33 with no meth on different tracks and temps apples to oranges. You have Dct software which makes your car shift faster than normal dcts another thing to point out.

I know what my car can run and don't worry I'll be right by your trap speed with less Hp and even meth off. Then "You Guys" can't say its Dct thats trapping near your numbers. Maybe its the 2 extra Doors then

[bigjae1976]

I think the biggest advantage of the DCT is consistency. DCT won't screw up a shift.

Besides being a tad bit faster.

[m33]

Originally Posted by akh23456

Lol your talking about tuner politics funny. Well I deff know the advantage of Dct in real life, simulation and physics. The thing a FEW of you guys don't get is that it isn't a 10 mph difference more like 3-5 mph range is all i am getting at. You compare your runs with meth to M33 with no meth on different tracks and temps apples to oranges. You have Dct software which makes your car shift faster than normal dcts another thing to point out.

I know what my car can run and don't worry I'll be right by your trap speed with less Hp and even meth off. Then "You Guys" can't say its Dct thats trapping near your numbers. Maybe its the 2 extra Doors then

Hmmmmmmmm lol sounds like your after drews times and traps on the ESS kit ( competetion is great IMO ) but with your whp and no DCT software I don't see that happening yet alone you turning off your Meth ( unless it's 50f at the track ) but would be great to see you try ...

For the record my goal is to crack 126mph ( on Meth ) while I'm still on the VT2625 setup...

Akash what wheel and tire setup were you tuning at Atco when we ran ?