NITROUS OXIDE ( nos / n2o ) advice forum

How true guys!

I think it's the fact that we made so much more torque that has upset the other "experts" because they know it's what really matters and there's no "real" argument they can put up against it - which is why they're spouting all the bullshit about the test being rigged.

Simon,
I get the wizard and Loopy's point it's quite simple, as the dyno measures torque those figures "must" be right, so if any figures are wrong it's the bhp figures not the torque figures. If any figures are wrong, it's the bhp figures that are too low and to tell you the truth I'd have expected better mid range numbers than the bhp graph shows for such huge torque figures. So rather than questioning the torque figures being too high I suggest you reword your question and ask why aren't the power figures higher? If you look at the roll on performance figures, the results are mind blowingly better using the WON kit, which backs up the dyno torque results.

One thing more that I've learned from the wizard is that theory doesn't always work out in practice, so I keep an open mind about most things now.

So Simon what's your explanation for what "you" see as a discrepancy in the torque and power figures?

Get back

OK, now I understand, lol. Was being a bit thick i guess.

So why arn't the power figures higher to match the higher torque figures? Someone been fudging the results??

BTW I haven't read or even seen the article in question just seen the figures posted at the start of this thread.

Right guys, well I've never been interested in bhp or torque figures (especially "peak" figures) as they don't represent anything in the real world that matters. Even when I had my own dyno I converted it to read time and speed to give acceleration graphs, rather than torque and power, as acceleration tests are far more relevant for the purpose a customer uses his vehicle for (unless you're a dyno Queen - as they get called in the States).
It's that long ago since I did Physics at school that I can't remember the relationship between torque and power or any related formulas so I've no idea if the graphs are showing the correct information. What I do know is that the test was carried out by a guy who had a vested interest to see BOTH kits perform well (because he sells BOTH) and I also know that if either kit was given an advantage it was the Nytrex kit because the systems were effectively purged prior to testing. Furthermore I know that if there are any discrepancies they will be accidental, as all the people involved (the supplier, the fitter, the dyno company and the journalist) are honest people who GENUINELY wanted to see if there was any difference between the 2 kits. Bearing in mind how much I upset people by telling the world how much better my systems are, I suspect that secretly one or more of this group of people wouldn't have been unhappy if the results had turned out to show my system was slightly worse than the Nytrex kit.
The ONLY person who would have been 100% happy with this outcome was me. However I wasn't there and had NOTHING to do with how, when or where the tests were carried out and NO INFLUENCE on the outcome so the conspiracy theorists are just jealous of the outcome and jealous of the exposure it's given my systems.

Although I've never been interested in dyno results before, I have been involved in some customers using them to set up their system and had other customers post me theirs, so what I'm going to do is have a dig through the print outs that I have and see if I can post any of them for the "experts" to analyse so that they can determine if the Performance Ford results fall in line with the previous tests carried out by other people on other dyno's using my systems.

Do you really want to know the funniest thing ?
first run off gas they intercect at roughly 5100 (really poor resolution on these graphs)
2nd run on Nytrex they intercect at 4950 ish
3rd run on Wizards they intercect at as near 5252 as you can possibly make out with such poor resolution !
Our graph was actually the most accurate !

And do you know what a dyno print out tells you ? Sweet FA.
So what does the 1/4 mile tell you ? How good the drivers run was (and we won that too)
Well what about the roll on ?
4th gear, 2000rpm start speed 30mph, averaged both ways.
THAT tells you all you need to know, it even PROVES the torque figures.
No gas = 24.26 average seconds
Nytrex = 12.64 Average seconds
Wizards = 11.62 Average seconds

Dyno's mean jack shit compared to 1.02 seconds faster
And we won both :nanapurp:

If theory was all it's cracked up to be then experiments wouldn't be nessesary would they ?
I take practice over theory any and every day.
But then thats EXPERIENCE for you

All VERY TRUE as always Loopy.

Just had another read of my previous post and thought I'd better point out that when I said I didn't know the relationship between torque and power, I didn't mean that I didn't know that power was calculated by multiplying torque by rpm.

I'd also like to point out that I wasn't 100% happy with the test results because I'm confident that although Julian and his team at Active Nitrous did their VERY BEST under the conditions (time restrictions etc.) the "full extent" of the advantages of my system over ALL other kits was not fully displayed in these tests. #

It's also been suggested that all these results prove is that my systems are better for small engines on a small dose of nitrous, well that would be fine (if that was the only truth of the situation), as that's my target market anyway, I mean how many 7 Litre V8s do you see in the UK?
However it's rubbish because, what it proves is that my systems are MORE EFFICIENT something that the other nitrous companies are not concerned about. If a system is more efficient then the upper limits can be pushed further than with an inefficient system.

Torque is what makes a car accelerate, so if a given solenoid or injector can flow 50% more torque through a given orifice than the rest, then that system will achieve better results when both systems are maxed out.
Sure most systems will achieve the same peak bhp numbers BUT that's just a SMALL part of what a GOOD nitrous system can deliver. It's just like the engine comparison I mentioned previously, just because 2 cars produce the same peak bhp it doesn't mean they'll both cover the 1/4 in the same time.

Well there were only two points you can pick on in the entire article;
* The intercection points on the power graphs being slightly out.
and
* The braided Nytrex pipe being run under the car.

The first i've just partly explained, and the second is due to the test car being a Fiesta. There just isn't any way you can properly run a braided pipe down a Fiesta without drilling the structural crossmember accross the floor or causing a big ruck in the carpet, it simply won't fit in the wiring channels.
Personally i'd drill the sills but thats going to add hours to the install charges and since the test included pre purging before each test the whole subject is mute, it wouldn't have affected the result in any great way. Of course in the real world it would make a big difference day to day, but since the owner chose the fastest and friendliest kit with the most torque it doesn't matter to him.

Oh and just out of note;
Same issue, different rolling road, CVH turbo test.
standard = 5100 ish
modified head + cam = 5150 ish
Modified head + cam + Inlet = 5252 ish

Don't tell me, faked as well.

Sorry, but i can't help it;
One point zero two seconds FASTER than the opposition !

In my opinion part of the problem of using braided hose is that it is difficult to route inside the car and most people do route it under the car. In fact I believe that the suppliers recomend it be routed outside the drivers compartment (doesn't leave too many options does it - over the roof anyone?).
It's just one of the MANY ADVANTAGES of my nylon pipe that it can be routed inside the car to avoid the under car heat.
By the way IHRA rules state that the pipe MUST be run under the car and as other companies aim to comply with such STUPID rules they can hardly complain about the pipe route.
The pipe issue is just one example of how the rest of the world has got it ALL WRONG and my systems are the ONLY ones to have them ALL RIGHT!!!

The biggest problem was the article was embarrasingly good. It was barely a step away from having "advertisement special" at the top of the page.
We all know why its so good, some of us know more about the why's than others and we're not in the least supprised at the results.
It's just "shocking" to see "all kits are the same" being proved so untrue, average Joe just won't believe it, I did suspect PF would fudge the results slightly to avoid grief. Like the other Mags tend to so they avoid losing advertising.

They could hardly upset you could they ? What's the Wizards Ad budget again ? £2.50 ?
Thats the thing, Nytrex advertising at stake yet they posted the truth and are presumably taking the associated shit that the truth so often brings.

(I've seen them being called liars and cheats on another board, one staffed by a liar and a cheat so i suppose he should know one when he see's one )

It's not so much that a liar can spot a liar in this case, it's more a matter of a liar judging others by his own low standards.

I don't know I leave you guys to it for a weekend (no internet at home at the moment) and I miss all the fun

Strange what Trev says about dyno charts not meaning much in the grand scheme of things. The guy who I will probably getting bits for my Keihins' off of feels the same way and believes that the best way to set carbs if by driving (riding?) what they are attached to and make changes based on the real life reactions of the engine to those settings. He also tends not to trust DynoJet equipment ... whereas I don't like DynoJet as they refused to help me (at least their UK agents did).

And Loopy what's wrong with tweenagers

One thing I will say about the questions that have been asked on this thread, the responses that they've brought about should help remove any doubt from anyone elses minds that this test was anything but fair and an honest representation of the differences between my system and any other (or at least a Nytrex kit anyway) - and remember Ny-Trex came on this board and claimed they were THE BEST from the USA, in which case we should beat the rest even more convincingly - roll on the Which magazine contest.

Just to add some fuel to fire, a good point was made on acceleration being the critical factor. If you take a log of rpm versus time, the slope gives you the key to power. The parameters can be set up to suit the car. In my case I keep the road tests consistent. The run is started in third gear and the car goes WOT at 2500 rpms and the run is logged thru 5000/5500. I then take the rpms/sec as a gauge to engine output. I always usel the data from 3000 to 5000. You can use a stop watch, but, a logger is more accurate.

I have used nitrous for several years, but, the wizards system is a little different and I am proceeding slowly to build up a little confidance. The car as tested (two people aboard) is 3850 lbs. The 3000 to 5000 rpms equates to 52-87 mph (3rd gear). When running NA the time from 52 to 87 mph is 3.58 seconds. I am now running at 66% of my nitrous goal. The same time from 52 to 87 mph is now 2.63 seconds. I think it will come down to aqpproximately 2.25 seconds when I do my final changes this week. I also just put in a Gtech accelerometer and it will be interesting to see the hp numbers versus those from a dyno.

Jack,

It very helpful to have an INDEPENDENT AMERICAN who has EXPERIENCED home brewed kits and WON systems state, that the WON systems are "different" - would you please post your comments about the difference in "feel" between your experiences with US kits and my system?

You're certainly using a more appropriate method than most people doing it that way.

Do you have those numbers from when you were using US made kits?

If so I'd be interested in the power rating and the times.

Hi Everyone just thought I'd clear a few points up that might let a few people, especially those reading this from afar and not actually posting, sleep better at night.

First of all the graphs are accurate, the slight discrepency could be caused when the original graphs (that I have in my draw here) were traced by our designers as they are at a much smaller resolution than the originals. Despite this the differences between the two kits are accurate as was the large difference in torque experienced.

The other point is the belief that magazines print articles based on who has given them what for free. I can't speak for the likes of Max Power and a few others that I have seen mentioned on a few other posts here, however, we DO NOT work like this ever, period!
We speak as we find whether it upsets people or not, a recent example of this was a staff RST that was put on the RR'd after a modified head, cam, and a few other bits and made a very, very, healthy 258bhp. My colleague in question asked for it to be run up again, and again, and again, and it still came up the same. We printed the results in a recent tech feature and got some argumentative feedback. Our reply was simple would you rather we did alter the results to make it more beleiveable or print what we find every time even if ruffles some feathers. At least that way we keep our integrity and our regular readership trust what we say is fact!

This is a perfect example of what's happened with the nitrous feature we ran. Let me tell you that it was one of the most difficult ones to sort out. Despite this, the result was a thorough and well rounded feature that we agree seemed favourable to the WON. However, when concluding looking at the huge difference in torque, the huge difference in sprint times and the huge difference in roll on times, it actually left us with no other option than to conclude how we did. The results speak for themselves, as do the original graphs, and the GPS timing gear data files that I have kept, oh, and the owner choosing that particular kit to keep and use himself (he did £250 worth of gas in the first two weeks).

Oh and one final point, Trev I've still not received the money that you allegedly paid me off with, chop chop! I fancy a new Telly! LOL

Dave Moore
Deputy Editor
Performance Ford

Thanks for taking the time to visit my forum and post your INDEPENDENT comments.

Hopefully they will shut up the lying, jealous low life's who started claims that the test was fixed, although it's my opinion that such people are far too stupid to recognise the truth when they see it, so they'll probably carry on peddling their lies.
They even claimed that Ny-Trex were going to sue PF for rigging the test against them!!! - FOOLS.

Please go to the main site to view the 'full' article of the INDEPENDENT comparison test now.

http://www.noswizard.com/OLD/pdf/nitrou ... ut_web.pdf

Well I thought that was tackled rather objectively and makes me feel the writers and editors had no initial preference when they started out on the article, though when they were examining the components you got the idea they prefered the Nytrex at that stage due to the braided hoses

I have a friend who used to write for then edit a car magazine and I have to say I have great respect for any editor who can remain objective despite any personal opinions.

A shame it's let down down by the shit graphs. For example with the WON kit it produces 100hp at 3000rpm, this equates to 175 ft-Lbs but goes on to produce 160hp at 4500rpm, this equtes to 186 ft-Lbs. Clearly not the case according to the graphs. Mind you, if that's as bad as it gets then you can't really complain.

We had to use the graphs as temporary's. The full page explaining the dyno numbers was corrupt and we are waiting on a new file.

Just a short post to say that we haven't had time to arrange the next contest against the BEST of the rest nitrous kits, with Which Magazine but we hope to make time later this year.

We'll be taking on kits from NOS, NX and Zex because although all generic kits are basically the same, the poor component designs and quality used by those not listed above are so bad that it would be a waste of time including them in the test.

Anyone who thinks they have a superior kit to NOS, NX, and Zex will have to prove their claim in an INDEPENDENT test against one of these kits before we include them in our ultimate contest.

Ive just taken a part time job with Future Publishing, who publish PF's biggest rival magazine, Fast Ford.

And so much as i would like to , i honestly cant contradict one word of that, Dave is entirely correct Performance Ford is a very well respected mag that posts meaningful conclusions, and there is NO WAY it would risk the respect of its readership by rigging some test, what the hell would be in it for them if they did that?
If someone thinks a few grand bung is worth risking hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of advertisers a year when readers lose respect for the mag, then they have been smoking crack frankly!

If any Americans doubt the authenticity of this achievement they might like to read this thread from one of their fellow countrymen;

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=477

Whilst on another forum, I was invited to explain why the our WON system made more torque than the Ny-Trex kit did in this INDEPENDENT contest.

Now most of the reasons have been stated here but I decided they had been presented in a rather fragmented way as a consequence of my invitation to forum members to provide the answers, so rather than post a link to this thread on their forum, I gave a more concise explanation (or at least half od it) and I've decided to post that here as well for anyone who wants the answer in a single post;

I'm certain that most people will appreciate that optimum flow in to (and out of) an engine is achieved when the flow path has the least obstructions (even extremely minor ones in the inlet), the most direct route and when any bends in that route are smooth rather than abrupt.

In the simplest terms, a straight induction path with no internal protrusions will flow MUCH more than a induction system that has a number of abrupt 90 degree bends with a number of protrusions stuck in to it.
Now I'm aware there are certain instances where that may not be the case but they are the exception rather than the rule and for the purposes of this explanation can be ignored.

The same principle applies to the flow of ANY gas or liquid through ANY flow path.

In the case of a nitrous system this principle applies with the addition of a number of further complications, which mean its even more important that the flow path through a nitrous system is given serious priority at the design stage.

For now we'll go back to the analogy of the induction system, if a port is left rough cast with lumps and bumps in it, we all know they will cause an obstruction to air flow as well as cause unwanted turbulence and by removing them, we will increase air flow and smooth it out.

The same is the case for nitrous components and it's my guess that the guys in the US who 'modify' generic solenoids for their special kits, do a gas flowing job on them, just as a head man does on the ports of a cylinder head.

Now that's all well and good but just as modern engines are now produced with smoother and better designed induction systems which either need little or no improvement to achieve optimum flow, its OBVIOUSLY better if you start with nitrous components that are DESIGNED to achieve optimum flow in the first place.

To fully appreciate the extent of the flow problem you need to consider the ENTIRE nitrous flow path from the contents in the bottle, entering in to the dip tube (notice Speedtechs dip tube is flared like an intake trumpet), passing through the bottle valve, entering the delivery hose, through to the solenoid, all the way to how it exits the system and enters the induction system.

Now obviously that's a hell of a complex route and the best way to appreciate how torturous it is for the nitrous is to use the following analogy;

Think of the nitrous route as an assault course and imagine YOU have to run down it at high speed and then ask yourself how knackered you'd be after doing it, compared to how easy you'd find running down a straight flat path.
Also consider that the less energy you use to run the course the more energy you would have left at the end of it and now apply that to nitrous flow.

In the simplest terms, the easier the flow path is for the nitrous, the better it is for the flow and the remaining energy at the point of injection.

I mentioned earlier that nitrous injection has added complications over basic flow principles and I'll be adding those details ASAP.