Inertia dyno run duration?

knighty

Member
Hi Guys - I have been using a friends Inertia dyno for about 2 years and the dyno acceleration from the measured period of 3000 to 6200rpm is around 6.8 to 7.5 seconds for a healthy engine.......I am measuring 7hp GX160's, max revs are 6600rpm.

I have just commissioned my own Dyno in my garage, its a SportDevices item, using an SP1 DAQ using the older V3.4 software, the acceleration duration is a similar time, around 6-7 seconds, as a guide the steel flywheel is about 13 inches diameter and about 5 inches wide, the inertia is 1.4Kg.M^2......I have been watching some youtube dyno runs and you guys in the states appear to be using huge diameter flywheels, and the dyno run is taking about 15 seconds or so, about double the time duration of what I have been doing.

I wanted to ask, is there a perceived benefit of making the dyno run a longer duration, does it perhaps give a better data for the torque and power calculations?
 
IMO the best data would be to mimic as close to possible the time the motor will be accelerating in real use. Is it a 10 second drag racer or a 30 second road racer?
I don't think they would dyno a 4 second drag car for a 12 second run in order to gather info on how it's going to race.
 
yup, I agree, hence I'm inclined to stick to what I'm doing, but I though i might be missing a trick........we race on circuits with 12 corners or so, very stop-start ish......the revs range from 2800 to 6500rpm
 
a quick duration will show HP created by low rotational weight. Think low mass flywheels. A long duration pull will show true HP without the effects of a low mass flywheel.
 
The dyno we built used a 29-7/8" diameter wheel that was 1" wide and weighed 190 pounds. A JR1 flat head pulled it in about 16 seconds. It produced excellent data and graphs that made it extremely easy to see the effect of a jet change or any other small changes we made to tune the motors. I don't think we would have had as good of data with the much faster pull. I might be wrong because our experience was with only the one dyno. One of the jobs we did with this dyno was to tune our clutches. I believe the short pull would have made this tougher and less accurate.

DK
 
Many thanks guys, really interesting - I have also seen over here in Europe that for the 125cc 2-strokes with 25-35hp, they are using rubber tooth belt drive systems, as the chain drive system gives inconsistent dyno readings, quite a smart idea I thought.......I found these kits for your interest

https://www.roteg.nl/toothbeltpulleykitrotaxmaxkartfordynotestbench-p-1804.html

https://www.roteg.nl/tandriemwieliamex30kart20tandsmetlagers-p-1831.html?language=en

I believe I also see a lot of clutch slip in my current dyno readings, again causing quite inconsistent readings, for the dyno I just use a 2-shoe magnum clutch, which is the fashon over here.......but I race on a multi-shoe clutch to prevent clutch slip, so I think its high time I applied the same logic to the dyno clutch, as its causing confusion around the key 3000rpm region, which we use on literally every corner of the track.
 
My limited experience is mainly with a chassis dyno. It uses 1000 pound wheel that the kart or Bike tire turns to collect the data from. The size of tire, motor driver and sprocket driver along with the rpm pulse of the wheel and the motor is all factored together in the Performance Trends Software.
Wheel slip and clutch slip is just part of the equation figured in the software.
I am pretty sure my torque/HP final outcome from a pull is not effected by how much or how little the tire or clutch slips during a pull. The software is recording the rotation of booth the motor and the dyno wheel and figures acceleration from when it is accelerating and not from when it it slipping.

An on board data logger can also show you a clutch slippage graph from the inputs of wheel rotation and motor rpm.
I like how clean a belt drive system is, many of our Junior drivers use them on the Briggs karts and have heard of a few Tag road racers that use them also. I haven't used them yet as I don't like the expense and fear I would be giving up some acceleration speed from the heavier rotational mass on the crank and axle. All of my past on track testing of no clutch and just a direct drive gear always resulted in faster lap times.
 
Thought I'd toss in a bit of my very early experience on inertia dynos (keep in mind that was 1978, but I believe a lot still holds true):

The first dyno I was involved in was designed and built by Doug Henline (yes: Proline / Douglas Wheel /etc). Brilliant design, IMO. The flywheel was around 550 pounds.... maybe 2' in diameter and 4" or 5" wide. It was belt driven by an intermediate shaft that was the same size as the kart axle size of those days (1"). There was a "typical" motor mount on the dyno, which allowed running pretty much any type of engine from that era (McCulloch, Italian engine, whatever). The beauty of the system was that you could also install the clutch (and test it) whether it was engine or axle clutch. Oh... Doug also mounted a big caliper to the dyno frame and added a disc brake rotor to the flywheel. As I recall, these were both off a Cadillac Eldorado from the wrecking yard. This allowed slowing the flywheel down pretty quickly so you could do another run!

sidenote: (If you put a big brake on your flywheel to slow it down quickly, don't forget to bolt the dyno to the floor! Otherwise... a big handful of brake and you could flip your dyno over!).


Additionally, the intermediate shaft also drove a GMC 4-71 blower, and the *intake* side of that blower had an adjustable valve (more like a "shutter") so you could change how much air was going into the blower and consequently the load the blower was applying. The output of that blower blew onto the engine for cooling (proportional to the speed, which was ideal).

Initially, we were "mostly" using the dyno for enduro racing setups (aka: "road racing" now). The initial "setup" of the dyno was pretty simple -- a couple of people just hit the track and timed themselves through the rev range (e.g. standing start to clutch engagement, then time how long it took to get to each even thousand rpm, and note where peak revs were on the track). Armed with that data, the exact/entire package (clutch and all) was taken off the kart and installed on the dyno. With a few iterations of changing the gear ratio from the intermediate shaft to the flywheel, and messing with the intake on the blower, it was very close. The engine would accelerate at the same rate it did on the track, and the blower would increasingly apply more drag (just like aero drag on the track) until the engine "peaked out" just like on the track. It was fine-tuned slightly over the next couple of months as I recall, and we also added a strip-chart recorder (yes... old school, no PCs back then), and the strip chart read the pressure from a small hydraulic cylinder that was under the leading edge of the motor mount (which had a pivot on the opposite end, so the motor mount could just slightly move). Essentially, this provided a "torque" reading through the rev range. There was, of course, a bit of "tweaking" required if you wanted to simulate a heavier or lighter "kart/driver package", but that usually just required a small gear change intermediate shaft to flywheel.

We had a tach on the engine of course, so someone would just watch the tach and place a little "tick mark" with a pencil on the strip chart paper at each 1000 revs. The key "tools" when using the dyno was simply a tach and a stopwatch. Since the strip chart runs at a fixed speed... it already has "time" marks on it, so you could also go back to a saved strip chart, and see how long it took from 11,000-12,000, 12,000-13,000, or whatever you wanted.

The real genius behind the system was that once the gearing and load were tuned in to being very close to what happened on track, it was possible to pretty much swap engines (complete setups, really) onto the dyno and every setup pretty much "acted" (and sounded) just like it did on the track.

When Doug designed the dyno, I believe his primary concern was to make the flywheel "big enough" for the highest HP and slowest accelerating setup. In other words, if the flywheel has too little inertia, then it would be necessary to "gear it up" to spin faster, which at some point becomes dangerous just due to limitations in the mechanical properties of the flywheel material. If the flywheel is "plenty" heavy, the only consequence is that it had to be "geared down" from the intermediate shaft to the flywheel. Easy and safe. The same amount of stored energy is still in the flywheel, but a heavier one (one with more moment) will be spinning slower.

Clutch development on this dyno was incredibly easy and productive. The entire drivetrain simply "acted" like it did on the track.

This dyno design was so successful that it was copied by many people around the country. If I was building a dyno today, I'd be inclined to build something very similar, (with a computer-driven data acquisition package on it). Of the many dynos I've been around in the last 40 years (ugh!), that original one that Doug designed is still the only one where the tuning, sound and feel of the engine was *exactly* like it was on the track. Yes... it can all be done with a computer-controlled pump or eddy-current load these days, but something about accelerating a "mass" that has been geared to have the same inertia as kart you're trying to accelerate is just.... well.... better (in my opinion). The blower for limiting peak revs and providing cooling air was great too, as it "acted" pretty much like the airflow the engine felt on-track. It pretty much sounds like a good number of you already have inertia dynos, which I think is great! I thought I'd just toss out the info on what I think was the first "serious effort" at a very well-designed and functioning inertia dyno.


Pete
 
Thanks Pete - I like your logic.......I will certainly give it a try.......on my dyno I'm using a ratio of 20:75, which is very similar to what we run in the kart, but going by what you say I think I will try a 65 and a 70, as I find the dyno acellerates through the lower rpm far too quickly, I could also get hold of a 22 driver to help..........in our class I find the low rpm region is where a good engine really does its work on the track, really pushing the kart hard out of a low speed corner, so spending a longer duration in the lower rpm region on the dyno is well worth a look by just simply changing the ratio......thanks B-)
 
All good info here.
13" x 5". 29 7/9 x 1 And 2' x 4 or 5" wheels.
One unknown weight , 190 and 550.
my understanding is that the momentnt of
inertia goes up faster with a diameter increase then with a weight change.
Subsequently the RPM need for the small dia wheel increases the potential for flywheel explosion.
 
inertia goes up faster with a diameter increase then with a weight change.
True. I=mr2 (r squared). m=mass and is constant, r2 examples: 10" wheel = 25, 12" = 36, 14" = 49", etc. You see the curve.

Subsequently the RPM need for the small dia wheel increases the potential for flywheel explosion.
I don't know about that but that 30" wheel we were spinning at max 1,400 rpm was scary. If it was to break off it would have traveled through everything in it's path till the next county. I tried my best to calculate the burst rpm and figured max around 2,800 rpm.

I have said it on Bob's before; the dyno became the best tool in the garage. It was directly responsible for us becoming the top dogs in the region. It forced us to become better chassis tuners.

DK
 
My inertia dyno has always had a clutch on the engine and a one way clutch to disconnect the wheel from the engine on decel.
I know some don't use a clutch on the engine.
Can someone explain how you shut the thing down when you are done with testing?
What about idling the engine without a clutch?
 
True. I=mr2 (r squared). m=mass and is constant, r2 examples: 10" wheel = 25, 12" = 36, 14" = 49", etc. You see the curve.


I don't know about that but that 30" wheel we were spinning at max 1,400 rpm was scary. If it was to break off it would have traveled through everything in it's path till the next county. I tried my best to calculate the burst rpm and figured max around 2,800 rpm.

I have said it on Bob's before; the dyno became the best tool in the garage. It was directly responsible for us becoming the top dogs in the region. It forced us to become better chassis tuners.

DK

you calculated wrong. http://homepages.engineering.auckla...asticityPolars_04_BodyForcesRotatingDiscs.pdf

see equation 4.4.8. for a solid disk with no through hole in the center your disk would have a burst speed around 7000 rpm if it was mild steel (40ksi yield strength). if it had a hole in the center for the axle then you are looking at around 5000 RPM burst speed (see figure 4.4.3 for the stress concentration factor of approx 2). We have a 32" disk at work we spin to 9000 rpm all the time. its precisely balanced and isn't too sketch. Its not to sketch until you start getting outer diamter speeds approaching or exceeding mach 1. the sound is terrifying.

Can confirm the damage done by an exploding disk at speed. we had a 16.5" disk at 20krpm let go and it blasted through 2.5" of kevlar wrap. Kevlar is 14 times stronger than mild steel. it lost.... barely.
 
Thought I would run this one past all you dyno experts.

when dynoing my engines I appear to get two power peaks, and I'm a bit suspicious why its happening, first power peak is at 3000rpm.......it dips down about 0.5hp....then next power peak is at 4500rpm.......I would normally expect just a distinct power peak at 4500rpm.........all GX160 engines do this, about 8 dynod so far.

The clutch is a 2-shoe magnum, I have several, and the symptoms are all the same for all of them, new and old.......do you think its possible the power peak at 3000rpm is simply clutch slip, which gives a high rpm reading and fools the software into thinking its actually more powerful, and its not???.....

I will try a maxtorque SS clutch, as I know they bite hard and will not slip.

but any theories are welcome in the meantime!
 
use your wheel speed x gear ratio to see if it matches engine rpm. If actual engine rpm is higher then calculation ya have slip thus giving ya false HP
Can ya get to your raw data
 
Right I had a look last night at 3 separate dyno plots right in the 3000rpm region.

1) FW speed x ratio = 2933
Engine rpm = 2999
Resultant slip = 0.2%

2) FW speed x ratio = 2989
Engine rpm = 2998
Resultant slip = 0.3%

3) FW speed x ratio = 2974
Engine rpm = 2996
Resultant slip = 0.7%

To me its slipping for sure, but will these small amounts be enough to bum-steer the power calculation?......I'm thinking it doesnt seem too bad, but what the hell do I know!.....any suggestions welcome.
 
Them # look good I would check some other ## threw out the rpm range and just make sure they are relatively close on slip or ya don't finding anything way out of whack.

you say .5 hp dip. How many HP at the dip and how many HP max ya showing. Also I assume when ya used your buds dyno ya did not see this. ? was he inertia as well ?


Another thang ya can do/try to test the software . Blip the throttle during a run and make sure your graph or data is showing the decrease in tq/hp at the rpm ya blip at.
 
Many thanks, I will give those a try

at the top of the peaks at 3000rpm about 8hp......then dips down to about 6.8hp, then at 4500rpm it picks up to about 7.3hp.......then at 6000rpm it tails off to about 6hp......these are just selected part builds, our series is heavily regulated, so I cannot modify anything, just need carefully selected genuine honda parts and a well optimized engine on the edge of legality.

Yes my friends dyno was an inertia dyno too, but it didnt show this power peak at 3000rpm, and we used the same 2-shoe magnum clutches, but its different for sure, his uses a 50Kg flywheel, 3000-6000 took about 7 seconds, and did not take an rpm trace from the HT led, so I suspect all software calculation was only done from the flywheel rotary position sensor.

Whereby my dyno has a lighter 25Kg flywheel, takes about 3.5 seconds from 3000-6000rpm....... and it takes an RPM trace from the HT lead and the flywheel rotary position sensor.......I'm guessing this might be why I am seeing this extra power peak at 3000rpm???......
 
Back
Top