Another quick note, this one about Dennis' supposed lateral and braking
G readings. The indicated error which Dennis attributes to roll would
require a HUGE amount of roll to get a good usable number, something on
the order of 20 degrees. This is probably on the order of about 5 X the
factory roll/g on this vehicle. So either
1) Dennis is really, really bad at car setup, ;-) or
2) Something is still wacky. I would suggest slowing down your sampling
rate, Dennis. Maybe you are recording vibrations and mistaking them for
G's. If the vibrations match the sample rate ("aliasing") then the
results can even look consistent. But I can't believe that the
Edelbrock system would be this far off. You need to figure this one
out, at least to my way of thinking.
In another post you determine by using wheel speed sensors that the
accelerometers are off by about 1/3, 33%. That's a huge error! You say
that's okay because speed is king. I believe that you believe that, and
I believe that Edelbrock might believe that. But for autocrossers, I
don't believe that. Chalk it up to different philosophies again. We
attempt to help the user learn what led to speed.
--Byron
dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
>
> I had been aware of this, but wan't aware of the magnitude of the error until
>I
> worked out the math myself. Kinda suprising to see a .3G induced error in
> magnitude on a 1G "real" value.
|