Actually the *should* be pretty accurate. Folks that have access to a
g.Analyst have found very consistent readings between G-Cube and
G.Analyst. And you can verify readings of your cube on your desktop by
rolling the G-Cube around to each side. This gives you a chance to
verify that your G-Cube is showing 1 G in each direction when you tilt
it on each side. If you do this, be sure to set your Roll and Pitch to
zero, otherwise you'll record a bit lower.
All of this is, of course, subject to proper calibration, and roll and
pitch angles. Roll and pitch generally make pretty small incremental
changes to G readings. For instance, if a car rolls 3 degrees, and the
user has this set to zero, then one g of actual lateral will be
reflected as about 1.05g. That's not a huge difference.
Now with that all said, Mark had a unique situation at Nationals...his
readings were exceptionally low, all around. I still haven't completely
been able to figure out why, but his readings were clearly whacked. I
do have an idea though...
Mark as it turns out was using the very latest G-Cube with some of the
earlier Palm software. The newer G-Cube requires a low level calibrate
command to be sent to it at the start of each run. The older G-Cube
didn't need this. So Mark was using older software with a newer cube
and I think this contributed to his lower readings. And if that's not
it, I'll trade cubes with him to research this all a bit more.
--Byron
Mark Sirota wrote:
>
> Todd Green wrote:
> > My stats from GEEZ were 1.26 G's lateral, 1.14 for braking and .83 for
> > acceleration. Those numbers don't sound too bad for a "soft stocker"
> > CSP E36 M3 ;) I would be interested in hearing what the mod cars
> > pull.
>
> You can't accurately compare different cars, or even believe these
> numbers. They are completely dependent on accurate settings of the
> roll and pitch angles (in degrees per g), and proper calibration of the
> cube.
>
> Mark
|