CEN GST 55-series wheels/tires anyone?

[dStruct714]

Ok,

So I've asked both Pro-line and Axial and neither one seem to make anything in a 55-series 23mm hub for the GST nor do they plan to make anything. Not to mention tires..

Does anyone know of anyone who makes 55-series wheels and/or tires, I really can't downgrade to 40-series as this truck already has so much torque, it rips these 7.5" wheels off the ground, and if I'm not careful it'll flip clean over.

I guess the "brutally fast" Jato 3.3's can't handle 55-series wheels yet :D

Anyone have any ideas, thoughts maybe, I smell a demand...

[ericem]

Well you can try a different spur or clutch bell I think with the GST to gear it higher. So either lesss teeth spur or more teeth clutch bell. or both!

[dStruct714]

I run stock gearing on my GST which is as follow,

1st (pinion/spur): 17t/43t or 8.6187:1
2nd (pinion/spur): 21t/39t or 6.3280:1
3rd (pinion/spur): 27t/46t or 4.9042:1

Hopefully my math is right on those.. :D

5hp is a force to be reckoned with in the RC world :eek:

[ericem]

I run stock gearing on my GST which is as follow,

1st (pinion/spur): 17t/43t or 8.6187:1
2nd (pinion/spur): 21t/39t or 6.3280:1
3rd (pinion/spur): 27t/46t or 4.9042:1

Hopefully my math is right on those.. :D

5hp is a force to be reckoned with in the RC world :eek:

Hmm, that 5hp is actually only 1.58

CEN 0.460 X-76 .46 1.58 @ 21,250 rpm 74.88 oz-in @ 16,500 rpm 36,000 rpm Byron 30%

LOL I still can't believe it though :eek:

Still has alot of oz of torque though.

[josh222]

It makes less power and torque than an axial .32 on the same dyno :eek:

[The Real Dogman]

Eric I Can't believe people are still quoting those boggus X-dyno numbers. I did some extensive research to find out the validation of those results. So I ask you the same thing, Show Me The Data!!! Show Me How You Got That Info!!! Show Me Something To Believe That You Are Not Quoting Bogus Data. Show Me CEN And Other Manufacturers Are Not Embelishing Their Power Claims!!! Can You Do That????

[DerekB]

Eric I Can't believe people are still quoting those boggus X-dyno numbers. I did some extensive research to find out the validation of those results. So I ask you the same thing, Show Me The Data!!! Show Me How You Got That Info!!! Show Me Something To Believe That You Are Not Quoting Bogus Data. Show Me CEN And Other Manufacturers Are Not Embelishing Their Power Claims!!! Can You Do That????

Anytime you want to see how the X-Dyno gets information feel free to ask the people who know, not the wall or a plant on the street.

[CEN Racing]

The best solution to any question regarding the power of our .46 Rear exhaust engine can be done on your own.

In fact we are willing to challenge any other engine that has been "Dyno" tested by the "X-Dyno" that has had similar torque ratings.

Put any X brand motor that has been rated within the same torque range by the X Dyno into our GST, GENESIS, or NEMESIS monster truck and see for yourself.

You will find that our .46 will out power any engine that has been similarliy rated by the X-dyno while installed in our monster Trucks.

The proof is in the pudding.

[ericem]

Hmm maybe its the exhaust pipe they use??

[The Real Dogman]

DerekB I sent several messeges to you thru RCZ and the X-dyno web page a few months ago, with no reply,, So can you show us all a video of the nx76 being dyno'd then whatever other engine you choose on the same dyno with the manufacturers recommended exhaust. We must see the exhaust gasses as well. I will ask that you substantiate the results of those posted results(pipe used or not used, fuel, Plug Ect.) There are alot of people quoting numbers that in my opinion are skewed(Engines tested under different conditions listed together) which is somewhat disengenuine. Lets clear the air ok??


now we'll see if it takes another 3 months to hear back from him:)

[xfusion]

The best solution to any question regarding the power of our .46 Rear exhaust engine can be done on your own.

In fact we are willing to challenge any other engine that has been "Dyno" tested by the "X-Dyno" that has had similar torque ratings.

Put any X brand motor that has been rated within the same torque range by the X Dyno into our GST, GENESIS, or NEMESIS monster truck and see for yourself.

You will find that our .46 will out power any engine that has been similarliy rated by the X-dyno while installed in our monster Trucks.

The proof is in the pudding.


I will take your challenge good Sir! But, the stakes will be high. I will bet you one of your CEN GSTs with the .46 engine that I can find an engine with similar torque and HP ratings that will beat the GSTs .46 in power AND performance that is less than or equal to .46CU.

[ericem]

xfusion i have a motor! mach 427 should be better LOL.

[xfusion]

He's not going to reply, and he's definitely not going to accept my challenge. Just shows how confident CEN is with their products.

[The Real Dogman]

Hey X, it always takes them awhile to respond. And they never respond on weekends. If you are serious about the challenge then shoot them an e-mail to state your terms, just to be sure they see this. Dont be scared do it!!!!jk

[xfusion]

Hey X, it always takes them awhile to respond. And they never respond on weekends. If you are serious about the challenge then shoot them an e-mail to state your terms, just to be sure they see this. Dont be scared do it!!!!jk

Actually these reps are on the forums all the time, week days, weekends, night & day because they don't adhere to normal working hours. Shooting them an e-mail won't have the same response (probably zero) as putting it directly in the forums because I'm impacting more people's opinions and ideas about their products. Take it from a marketing major, word of mouth can make or break you, especially for something like hobbies where people rely on on other people's experience and opinions over product specs etc.

Now that I think about it, I'm sure there is a pretty large group of reps from HPI, Traxxas, Losi, CEN etc. on this forum. It's free advertising when they post raves and reviews and pictures/videos on this forum, so why not.

[CEN Racing]

Hey guys,

Yes we do monitor online forums as best we can as a customer service to everyone. We feel that we offer more online assistance and presence throughout forums than any other manufacturer. We do our best to respond in timely manners but as Real Dog man stated we have lives as well and were either racing or spending time with our families during the weekend.

Now…. Back to the subject. We’ve seen .12-.26 engines rated by the Xdyno that were close to the rating as our .46. Does this mean you can take these engines? Install it into our 17lb Monster and pull wheelies? We don’t think so. Although the X dyno is used by some media personal, and few engine manufacturers to offer testing results, we don’t think that the inertia based dyno give justice to our .46 7.7cc rear exhaust engine.

With that in mind we still don’t think that a .12-.21 that has remotely close ratings will be able to power our monster truck. Our GENESIS Monster Truck was designed solely around the power of the .46 7.7cc rear exhaust engine “in question”. If the engine wasn’t so powerful we would not have to use such thick drive shafts, all steel gears throughout the entire vehicle, along with CNC Steel spur and pinion gears, not to mention a 4 shoe clutch system.

Our challenge is not meant to have high stakes, but if you would like to take it, be our guest. You can find the GST Monster truck in most hobby shops nation wide as Horizon and now Great Planes will be distributing them. We wouldn’t state any challenge if we didn’t stand behind our product. Good luck and have fun.

[The Real Dogman]

Now That's a first class response!!!! Good Job CEN!!! Very diplomatic,, Xfusion, DereckB unless you can give a logical reason why a truck(or it's engine) with those specs can be quoted as having similar power as the .12-.26 and still pull wheelies on command, please stop promoting those bogus "X-dyno" results,there is enough misinformation out there..Please be responsible, do your part for honest reporting,, Please??? For the kids???:)

[ericem]

You know what I am thinking. They do not use the correct pipe with those motors on the dyno. Thats my diagnosis. lawl.

[The Real Dogman]

Among other things Eric..from the research I could find is that some motors did not even have pipes on them and some did. Conditions were not even equal when these engine were tested. I say if they are going to do a comparo on that many engines they need to include the Manufacturer Recommended Pipe, Plug, And Fuel. That way the engine can be tested as intended by the manufacturer which is what the manufacturer bases their results on. As well as, allowing the engines to perform as intended, you will see the true numbers come out. Anything else, that perports to be a true comparo of any kind is a total falsehood and described as such. If the engines were tested other than how the manufacturers inteneded then the results are manipulated for certain designed results. I say The X-dyno results in question should be utterly renounced by the owners and testers as a pure manipultation of the truth. The Owners and testers of these results know who they are!! Dont ya?? My passion comes from being feed crap(bogus data) and expected to swallow it.

[xfusion]

Now That's a first class response!!!! Good Job CEN!!! Very diplomatic,, Xfusion, DereckB unless you can give a logical reason why a truck(or it's engine) with those specs can be quoted as having similar power as the .12-.26 and still pull wheelies on command, please stop promoting those bogus "X-dyno" results,there is enough misinformation out there..Please be responsible, do your part for honest reporting,, Please??? For the kids???:)

Do you work for CEN too? I never said anything about using a .21 or .26 engine, I'm not sure where that assumption comes from. There are other .46 engines around, if you didn't know. Also .32 engines could theoretically beat a .46 engine. Compare crappy ford engines to sexy German or Italian ones. An 8 liter Ford engine will produce less power (HP, Torque etc.) than a 4-5 liter German or Italian one... same will apply to model engines (especially when you compare Novarossi to Hot Bodies)

[ericem]

Exactly^^

[Smib]

So no one knows about getting this guy some wheel/tire options?

[The Real Dogman]

Original By Smib:
So no one knows about getting this guy some wheel/tire options?


Not for 55's not yet

[DerekB]

The best solution to any question regarding the power of our .46 Rear exhaust engine can be done on your own.

In fact we are willing to challenge any other engine that has been "Dyno" tested by the "X-Dyno" that has had similar torque ratings.

Put any X brand motor that has been rated within the same torque range by the X Dyno into our GST, GENESIS, or NEMESIS monster truck and see for yourself.

You will find that our .46 will out power any engine that has been similarliy rated by the X-dyno while installed in our monster Trucks.

The proof is in the pudding.


Feel free to come on down to the office and put another .46 on the dyno. I'm not saying that we may have had a bad engine, but understanding power and gearing are way different than understanding how HP is calculated. You realize that the formula is scientific and not some imaginary thing we made up right? The principal and software is used in the real world.

The .46 creates a lot of torque and down low, where it has to be geared to use. Putting a high revving smaller engine will simply yield poor results because the truck is built around the .46.

I like my pudding chocolate.

[DerekB]

You know what I am thinking. They do not use the correct pipe with those motors on the dyno. Thats my diagnosis. lawl.

The engine is tested how it comes in the kit... So unless they included the wrong pipe, look for another answer.

The people behind the X-Dyno and the users are all very capable, and have more nitro experience than half the people here. It would be very strange for us to directly contradict our advertisers claims, since we all seem to be "paid" by them right.

So when asking who should you really lean towards...I'd go with the place that has sold 12 dynos to manufacturers and engine companies that shows the more realistic power output of all engines.

[DerekB]

Among other things Eric..from the research I could find is that some motors did not even have pipes on them and some did. Conditions were not even equal when these engine were tested. I say if they are going to do a comparo on that many engines they need to include the Manufacturer Recommended Pipe, Plug, And Fuel. That way the engine can be tested as intended by the manufacturer which is what the manufacturer bases their results on. As well as, allowing the engines to perform as intended, you will see the true numbers come out. Anything else, that perports to be a true comparo of any kind is a total falsehood and described as such. If the engines were tested other than how the manufacturers inteneded then the results are manipulated for certain designed results. I say The X-dyno results in question should be utterly renounced by the owners and testers as a pure manipultation of the truth. The Owners and testers of these results know who they are!! Dont ya?? My passion comes from being feed crap(bogus data) and expected to swallow it.

Good god man, nothing like getting your information messed up.

To "clear" up the lack of research here, and I have posted this before. There are TWO different dyno procedures done in our magazine.

1. X-Dyno Testing. This is where all engines of the same size are tested in comparison to each other. Same pipe (different for .12 and .21) and fuel are used. The software corrects to SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) weather so it doesn't matter what temp it's outside, the internal weather station collects that at the beginning of each run.

2. Review of RTRs and kits - We also decided to do dyno testing of every RTR and kit we test and the gear we picked. So reviews of RTRs are dynoed with the stuff in the box, the fuel we decided to use that day and whatever other gear we picked. While it's not as standardize it shows you "typical" results for RTRs and what you can expect. It also shows flaws in gear. Example we tested an OFNA Hyper 8 Pro kit with the stock pipe and it was 1.1hp, with the better pipe it jumped up to 1.4hp (picco engine).

We can't test every pipe and header and this standard allows direct comparison of engine power.


No offense to CEN or anybody who doesn't understand, but until we came out with X-Dyno there was no real testing or standard of measurement. EVEN if our dyno was reading low EVERY engine would have that same result, and it would still offer direct comparison. So fortunately or unfortunately for CEN and the people who simply don't comprehend the X-Dyno information is real, and trust worth. I don't think we would have sold all the dynos to major RC companies, Orion would have developed their engine on it, along with Axial, Tamiya, HPI, Kyosho, GRP...the list goes on.

So if you want to argue with "what you feel" or by what other people think...I offer only that our dyno has no bias, doesn't lie, and the software company who makes products for 1:1 racing, and the guy who designed the X-Dyno with 20+ years of engine experience and dyno experience has a little credibility that kids on the internet and bubba with a .21.


Derek Buono
Executive Editor XRC Magazine

Oh I almost forgot, EVERY other magazine has at one point wanted to purchase an X-Dyno too...;)

[DerekB]

Now That's a first class response!!!! Good Job CEN!!! Very diplomatic,, Xfusion, DereckB unless you can give a logical reason why a truck(or it's engine) with those specs can be quoted as having similar power as the .12-.26 and still pull wheelies on command, please stop promoting those bogus "X-dyno" results,there is enough misinformation out there..Please be responsible, do your part for honest reporting,, Please??? For the kids???:)


Pick up a book on horsepower, gearing and maybe some 8th grade physics. If you don't understand any part of power, work, gearing, gear reduction. I can't help you.

Why can't a train with 10,000hp do a wheelie?

[The Real Dogman]

Dereck,

the Dyno itself is not suspect. The tests and how they were conducted is purely and soley suspect. I saw the Spreadsheet version of the results YOU posted awhile back, and on that sheet there were several engines tested that had no pipe listed, and some that did. That is not a true comparison as should not be reported as such.

Dont try to divert the the argument to the validity of the dyno itself. Keep the attention of the arguement where it was intended, and that is "how the engines were tested and should those test results be endorsed as fact of truthful and unbiased test results?" If those tests were conducted on a casual basis, then that should be spelled out clearly to the public so they/we can be properly informed.

The intention is not to discredit the X-Dyno or its makers, The dyno itself is a good product, how it was used and the validity of those results is what is suspect.

I repeated this intentionally, to be sure everyone understands the argument. All I'm trying to say is the info posted needs to be quality info, and keep a healthy sceptisism(sp) about everything you read or see.

And Dereck, I dont need a book to understand HP torque and gearing. I do want to show your logic to test RTR's with whatever fuel you decided to that day, is truely flawed, if you intend these results to be accepted as representative of the RTR's typical expectations. These manufacturers have recommended fuels for a reason, use the fuel they recommend if you want to test RTR's as intended. Otherwise you are not offering the manufacturers truth on their RTR products.


I am truly beginning to understand the logic behind that testing, and do hope in the future when this kind of data is posted in public a brief explanation to keep the info in context would accompany the results. That way the info can't misconstrued into something that was not intended.

[CEN Racing]

No offense to CEN or anybody who doesn't understand, but until we came out with X-Dyno there was no real testing or standard of measurement. EVEN if our dyno was reading low EVERY engine would have that same result, and it would still offer direct comparison. So fortunately or unfortunately for CEN and the people who simply don't comprehend the X-Dyno information is real, and trust worth. I don't think we would have sold all the dynos to major RC companies, Orion would have developed their engine on it, along with Axial, Tamiya, HPI, Kyosho, GRP...the list goes on.

Derek Buono
Executive Editor XRC Magazine

Oh I almost forgot, EVERY other magazine has at one point wanted to purchase an X-Dyno too...;)

Since many of the major manufacture and magazine "bought" the X-Dyno. Can you clarify why their published dynos are so far off from XRC's X-dynos?

Example 1: Brand A claimed their .12 has 1.3hp ( backed by Xdyno since Brand A bought one). How about lets install that in a GST and see how it performe? Better yet, lets put that in a 1/8 buggy ( easier) and see how it does. Afterall, a .21 engine usually only puts out around 0.9-1.2hp according to XRC's Xdyno.

Example 2. Brand H's 4.6 engine claimed to have 2.9hp on their website ( also bought a X-dyno). XRC Xdyno said it only has 1.3hp ( which is the same as a brand A's .12 by the way). How come there is such a big difference in numbers between 2x X-Dyno or maybe under 2x different users ?

We have more questions, we will list them tomorrow morning :)

[DerekB]

Dereck,

the Dyno itself is not suspect. The tests and how they were conducted is purely and soley suspect. I saw the Spreadsheet version of the results YOU posted awhile back, and on that sheet there were several engines tested that had no pipe listed, and some that did. That is not a true comparison as should not be reported as such.

Dont try to divert the the argument to the validity of the dyno itself. Keep the attention of the arguement where it was intended, and that is "how the engines were tested and should those test results be endorsed as fact of truthful and unbiased test results?" If those tests were conducted on a casual basis, then that should be spelled out clearly to the public so they/we can be properly informed.

The intention is not to discredit the X-Dyno or its makers, The dyno itself is a good product, how it was used and the validity of those results is what is suspect.

I repeated this intentionally, to be sure everyone understands the argument. All I'm trying to say is the info posted needs to be quality info, and keep a healthy sceptisism(sp) about everything you read or see.

And Dereck, I dont need a book to understand HP torque and gearing. I do want to show your logic to test RTR's with whatever fuel you decided to that day, is truely flawed, if you intend these results to be accepted as representative of the RTR's typical expectations. These manufacturers have recommended fuels for a reason, use the fuel they recommend if you want to test RTR's as intended. Otherwise you are not offering the manufacturers truth on their RTR products.


I am truly beginning to understand the logic behind that testing, and do hope in the future when this kind of data is posted in public a brief explanation to keep the info in context would accompany the results. That way the info can't misconstrued into something that was not intended.

Ah the old "I don't trust the user" escape clause. Such a worthless argument. Again anytime you want to come down and see how I tuned an test...feel free. I have a scientific background, even had to go through ISO9000 audits. I feel pretty comfortable with my testing skills, and the people who have test for me. Is there room for error in anything, yes. Why you think yourself can do a better job I don't know. Come show me with your "skills" that you can tune better. I'll post the results again with a correction. I'd also know that technically I wasn't the person who tested the .46, but I have pretty good faith in Stephen Bess too.

Who said we don't use recommended fuel percentages anyway? We usually use one of the bigger names that we know performs better, and realistically most of the fuels are made by the same three companies (you knew that right ;)) And from testing the difference in brand fuel is much less than people want to understand (although it's my testing that must be that too)

The gain of salt BS is just that. Everybody on the internet is an expert who is just working another job because the need money when they should be an engineer. So the "truth" is we are offering information, just like when companies claim BS speeds and those aren't achieved either...


There's nothing casual about our testing. Unlike the cool screen names here, my reputation, job and the employees we have depend on me not misleading who our magazine is for...the readers. Advertisers like yourself seem to think that you have some influence because you advertise. In a way you would. I try to support the advertisers in the magazine, but I won't lie for them. The internet exposes flaws much faster than I can (I'd offer an example that applies here but I'll leave that in the past).

So anytime you want to try and "expose" me, remember I'm already naked and have much more to lose than some "internet engineer" who doesn't REALLY want to learn about the data the are arguing about.


And Again, I'm always open for CEN to come down and see if it was a bad day, or some other technical issue. Their engine isn't a direct bolt on to the dyno so there is an rigging up issue, but that would only be to get the engine to mesh with the gears.

[DerekB]

Since many of the major manufacture and magazine "bought" the X-Dyno. Can you clarify why their published dynos are so far off from XRC's X-dynos?

Example 1: Brand A claimed their .12 has 1.3hp ( backed by Xdyno since Brand A bought one). How about lets install that in a GST and see how it performe? Better yet, lets put that in a 1/8 buggy ( easier) and see how it does. Afterall, a .21 engine usually only puts out around 0.9-1.2hp according to XRC's Xdyno.

Example 2. Brand H's 4.6 engine claimed to have 2.9hp on their website ( also bought a X-dyno). XRC Xdyno said it only has 1.3hp ( which is the same as a brand A's .12 by the way). How come there is such a big difference in numbers between 2x X-Dyno or maybe under 2x different users ?

We have more questions, we will list them tomorrow morning :)


1. Because it's a hard pill to swallow that for over 7 years people have been putting out inaccurate information, I won't say wrong, but it's close. Also many of the companies listed, and tuners (EB MOds, AD MOds) have no real vested interest in printing. People that don't understand and demand these "high numbers" make companies not produce #s. Ever wonder why Traxxas doesn't publish? Yeah because they have similar #s to ours (don't use the X-dyno, but accurate information can be gotten from many devices).

2. I'll post a graph for you tomorrow so you can see and under stand what you're looking at. Clearly you have no idea how to read a dyno graph of actually understand how to read one, or a statement like the

'Brand A claimed their .12 has 1.3hp ( backed by Xdyno since Brand A bought one). How about lets install that in a GST and see how it performe? Better yet, lets put that in a 1/8 buggy ( easier) and see how it does. Afterall, a .21 engine usually only puts out around 0.9-1.2hp according to XRC's Xdyno.


Is a very misinformed statement. Torque is the only thing measure in any dyno graph. HP is a measurement of work over time. But again, I can't learn you here.


And to clear up some more misinformation. .21s put out between 1.1 and 1.6, with some factory driver's engines getting up to almost 2hp (onroad).

.12s go from .8-1.1hp

TORQUE is another story and .12s put out about 30 oz. in and .21-28 getting up to 55-70oz-in.


As I said, I'll even bring the dyno and software to you to show you what you don't understand.



The more important question is, I can show you how my calculations are correct, explain to you how the dyno works, give you equations, but how did you get 5hp for the engine? was this tested on a dyno? Or was it just that it can pop a wheelie?

I've been in this industry for 7 years, and I have had companies ask ME what to rate their engine, and others tell me when a new version comes out that they just "add a little" because it must be faster.


So please if you're going to try and talk up "technical" speak please come with more than "it wheelies" or "Try putting a .12 in a 17lb truck" Those are juvenile responses and realistically if somebody had .12 of brain wouldn't listen to.


So tomorrow I'll post a graph so you can understand "area under the curve' torque, rpm and HP. All in pretty colors and pictures.

Also I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the .46 or the GST they both have performed well and do their job, but like all the other claims...if you can show me proof of YOUR testing and work to get those calculations we can talk the talk all day.

Also I'm in the office 7 days a week, if you want to come and redyno that engine again, with your "engineers" feel free. But I'm sure after the result the sun would be out of alignment.

And I wonder why as an industry we just spin our wheels.:teacher:

[CEN Racing]

Derek..

HP or TQ is not part of the subject. Who has engienering backgorund, who knows how to read a dyno graph or who has more expeirnece are not either. All of the info about HP we posted are pulled directly from XRC (you) http://www.rc411.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2202&highlight=dyno compare to the manfuactures' that had purchased Xdyno ( according to you). These are NOT our data. We are simply comparing 2x numbers

Example from XRC:
Company Engine HP TQ Peak RPM Part # Price
K4.6HO 1.28 @ 19,500 rpm 64.76 oz-in @ 19,500 rpm 32,000 rpm w/ kit

Regardless how the torque and HP is measured by the Xdyno, how to read the graphs and how pretty the pictures are, difrerence in HP and TQ, they are not part of our concerns. Our main concern is that the info posted by XRC's Xdyno does not match with another Xdyno station owned by antoher facilitiy. Plain and simple. Same machine, different users, the margin of error is over 100% as we pointed out in our last post. Maybe its the user, maybe its the machine, we have no intention to dig any deeper. We know for a fact that our engine performans up to our standard and the standard use by other engine manfactures. Our #s are always on par with world popular engine such as SH, OS, Force, ..etc.

The Xdyno represents a new concept and we are excited about it. Of course, after it worked out the bugs and figure out a way to bolt larger engine on there properly. We already made our point clear. We dont think we need to post any further as it will just become a pointless flame war.

[The Real Dogman]

Dereck,

Where in the heck did you get that I was an advertiser?? I AM one of the readers you so covet. I am sick and tired of magazines that print info, they think is the holy grail when it(the info) is either incomplete or inaccurate. I DO NOT work for anyone in the industry. I AM a reader.

Somehow, you've made an assumption. Does that reflect your scientific background?? Maybe.

I do want to learn more about how these results were acheived, that is the whole point here. You telling me I dont know about hp, torque and gearing is another assumption. I'm not going to qualify my knowledge, as my knowledge is not relevant. The inconsistencies are that obvious, one does not have to hold a degree to see them.


All you have to do and all that was asked was how were the tests conducted, and what was the intended use of the results, in detail. Maybe its time to do that.

[DerekB]

You guys are funny. You can challenge my knowledge but when I challenge yours it becomes a problem.

Ken/Andy as I mentioned before anytime you want to come prove to me that the engine puts out more, bring some engine mounts and we'll do it.

Ask the "other" x-dyno " to send me the files so I can look at them on our laptop.

[ericem]

Ok CEN that was pretty dumb what you said. If you look at lets say a Nissan Titan 305HP V8 motor and compare it to a Subaru Impreza STi with a H4 motor and 300HP. Does that mean I can drop that H4 motor into the Nissan Titan which weighs a few thousand more pounds and it will be JUST as fast.

[The Real Dogman]

Dereck, you posted the info, that's what is truly challenged here. My knowledge being challenged is NOT a problem, not relavent to the question, but not a problem. I still find it curious you have not answered the question.

How were these engines tested(what were the conditions in detail, fuel, plug and pipe) and what is the intended use of the data??

[DerekB]

Dereck, you posted the info, that's what is truly challenged here. My knowledge being challenged is NOT a problem, not relavent to the question, but not a problem. I still find it curious you have not answered the question.

How were these engines tested(what were the conditions in detail, fuel, plug and pipe) and what is the intended use of the data??

What are you talking about? I explained how things are tested.

X-Dyno are all tested with the same fuel and pipe. Plugs are what come with the engine.

"conditions" are tested and corrected for...SAE 60-degrees, 0% humidity, 30mm of HG. Correction factor is always listed.

Reviews are tested as the kit comes, or what gear we test.

Data is to be used how the reader chooses. The information is comparable, if you don't know how to use it, I can't write articles on understand how graphs work.

You just don't want to listen to the answer or understand that all this information is explained at one point in the magazine. And some may want to take data out of context and not look at everything else.

I'll switch our testing to 'it pulls a wheelie' seems like that is a better way to rate engines. Nowhere does it say the CEN engine isn't adequate or pull wheelies.

I'll say this to counter the above comment,

If the CEN really has twice the HP of other engines, then why is it not twice as fast? The truck doesn't weigh that much more than other big trucks like the Losi...yet it's not twice as fast.

HP is a calculation of work. TQ is a measured force. Saying HP has anything to do with a wheelie shows a lack of understanding of force. The reason I posted here isn't because of you, it was because of OUR testing and magazine coming into question and misleading information being posted.

I'm not out here to mislead, it's actually the opposite. Those who get mad at the results usually are mad for a reason. The numbers published are directly comparable and correlate to the track. I've tested and driven countless engines and from both dyno and driving I can say the # are good. Dyno queens are nothing new to the auto world, track testing shows differences in powerband and other flaws of engines.

From my experience with the Gen .46 it's about average in speed in power in the category, which shows with the engine as it sits there too. That's not a bad thing, people just want to see it that way.

[ericem]

How can you disagree with Derek.................???????? He has explained VERYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY thoroughly.

[DerekB]

I've attached a graph comparing 3 engines. The CEN .46, TRX3.3 (.20), and a HPI 4.6 HO.


This is to illustrate what "area under the curve means. You can see by the grpahs and using the key to the side that the .46 has lots more power, and huge power at lower RPM, since this was a heli based engine, RPM isn't the key design it was tons of torque at low RPM since heli headspeed is constant.

I also used a function that shows average HP/Tq which realistically shows what engine is overall more powerful since it's not looking at peak

Averages
The CEN
1.15hp
48.14 oz-in of torque

HPI
.82
43.12 oz-in

TRX
.74hp
31.26 oz-in

I can explain things if they are too difficult to understand. I may even post a .12/.21 to show how much more power a .21 has with 1.1hp than a .12 with the same

[AKASHA]

X-Dyno are all tested with the same fuel and pipe. Plugs are what come with the engine.


That is my biggest problem with the results. I know that with 1:1 engines on a engine dyno that the pipes can make the difference. You don't see a 1-7/8 primaries on a I6-I4 for a reason. With my minimal amount of knowledge of these 2 strokes I do know that a pipe WILL make or break an engine. Fuel can be controversially however it inst going to skew the results near as much as the pipe will. I do think that the future tests should include at least the manufactures stock pipe and if you so desire to use another pipe then go for it.

[DerekB]

Here is a .12 versus a .21. Both have about the same peak HP (what people who don't know look at)

Notice how much overall power the .21 (picco .21) has over the .12 throught the rev band. Also note that when a good pipe was put on the .21 the power jumped to 1.47hp almost a 50% gain in power.

Average HP/TQ for each (remember this is a better showing of what an engine puts out)

LRP .12

.64hp
23.15 oz in

OFNA PICCO .21
.82hp
35.88 oz in

That's 30% more HP and 36% more TQ from an engine that's 46% more displacment AND with a pipe making about 45% less power than it should. Rmemeber this was just to show you how two of the same #s mean nothing if you don't understand...or want to.

[DerekB]

That is my biggest problem with the results. I know that with 1:1 engines on a engine dyno that the pipes can make the difference. You don't see a 1-7/8 primaries on a I6-I4 for a reason. With my minimal amount of knowledge of these 2 strokes I do know that a pipe WILL make or break an engine. Fuel can be controversially however it inst going to skew the results near as much as the pipe will. I do think that the future tests should include at least the manufactures stock pipe and if you so desire to use another pipe then go for it.

When I get an engine it doesn't include a pipe, and as I said RTRs are tested with stock pipes in the review.

Lots of things make different power, and our testing with pipes showed us that one pipe made more power almost all the time, and since we use the same one on everything it works. It is NOT the perfect pipe for every engine, but it's a comparision. I can change 1,000 different things with the pipe, deck height, headlength stinger, materials...and the power will change. Thats part of tuning. But from all the testing that's been done on this I know what fuels put out the most power, what pipes do and other things. To create a standard some things had to be done.

Just like in 1:1 I can make more power over stock with changing things, yet the manufacturer rates it a set point. :)


For future reference if you're going to argue please don't start a point with "I don't know much" kind of makes your point moot.

I have lots of 1:1 experience too...want to see my twin turbo 350Z which I just sold? Or my new 335 ;)

[The Real Dogman]

Dereck,

Your arrogance does not surprise me, your lack of widom towards your readership does,, telling a possible reader that because he is not experienced as you and was honest enough to tell you, you treat him like that.. tsktsk. If you are going to post controversial info, you will get Q's and complaints. Be alittle nicer and your circulation might rise abit..

Now the graphs and explanation is exactly what I was looking for in the first place. Was that so hard?? Did we really need all the back biting and stuff?? Your attempts to goat me with the excess comments really was not neccessary, but ok that's how you work. And you will prolly argue and deny that, but thats cool you finally showed me what I was looking for. Now I can reference it for future interances of this data and its usefulness. Thank you!!

You do seem to know the X-dyno and it use, too bad your demeanor is horrible..

I asked for this info months ago on your site and the X-dyno site but got no response, so I felt, when the oppurtunity arose, that I would come on strong to get your attention. And I did. I still think your testing methods are flawed because as you stated every engine has it own characteristics and will make power differently and to use the same pipe and fuel on every engine, is not allowing that engine to operate to its full potential. Thus publishing those results as a comparison to other engines is really short changing the manufacturers efforts. In reality, I believe the "use the same pipe on every engine, for standardization" theory is really 2 things, either your too cheap to buy the pipe the manufacturers recommend or your too lazy to research what the manufacturer has recommended for that engine. Either way that testing method is not scientific nor valid!!

I know there a great many others that feel this way, and they may or may not chime in here because is very hard to find buried in this hijacked thread. That does not matter anyway, you provided what I needed.

Now is there a chance in h__ you will be updating this info to include other engines??

I will be looking for this info posted elsewere..

Eric, pull your head out from Derecks you know what... Do you really think he needs help? I will disagree if what is saying is flawed. Now, be quiet and let the big people talk... jk lol:p

[ericem]

I was going to say some nasty things. Luckily I read where you said "jk lol" before hitting "Post Quick Reply" :D

[AKASHA]

The Real Dogman THX, seem like a stand up kinda guy.

DB: So much to say, and none of it worth it as it wouldn't sink in anyways. I'll just keep in mind the methods used on YOUR dyno. laterz!!

[DerekB]

Dereck,

Your arrogance does not surprise me, your lack of widom towards your readership does,, telling a possible reader that because he is not experienced as you and was honest enough to tell you, you treat him like that.. tsktsk. If you are going to post controversial info, you will get Q's and complaints. Be alittle nicer and your circulation might rise abit..

Now the graphs and explanation is exactly what I was looking for in the first place. Was that so hard?? Did we really need all the back biting and stuff?? Your attempts to goat me with the excess comments really was not neccessary, but ok that's how you work. And you will prolly argue and deny that, but thats cool you finally showed me what I was looking for. Now I can reference it for future interances of this data and its usefulness. Thank you!!

You do seem to know the X-dyno and it use, too bad your demeanor is horrible..

I asked for this info months ago on your site and the X-dyno site but got no response, so I felt, when the oppurtunity arose, that I would come on strong to get your attention. And I did. I still think your testing methods are flawed because as you stated every engine has it own characteristics and will make power differently and to use the same pipe and fuel on every engine, is not allowing that engine to operate to its full potential. Thus publishing those results as a comparison to other engines is really short changing the manufacturers efforts. In reality, I believe the "use the same pipe on every engine, for standardization" theory is really 2 things, either your too cheap to buy the pipe the manufacturers recommend or your too lazy to research what the manufacturer has recommended for that engine. Either way that testing method is not scientific nor valid!!

I know there a great many others that feel this way, and they may or may not chime in here because is very hard to find buried in this hijacked thread. That does not matter anyway, you provided what I needed.

Now is there a chance in h__ you will be updating this info to include other engines??

I will be looking for this info posted elsewere..

Eric, pull your head out from Derecks you know what... Do you really think he needs help? I will disagree if what is saying is flawed. Now, be quiet and let the big people talk... jk lol:p

It's because people with no real information or testing come on the internet and do nothing but confuse people. All the information posted here has been in our magazine, so if you're a reader you wouldn't be confused. Also manufactures DO NOT recommend pipes, headers or anything. They also understand that the tuning can make changes to power.

Another example is RB sent us an engine with a pipe combo...it made less power than our standard pipe set. So did I short change them by making more power with their engine? You're just showing your lack of knowledge. If you want to take full size engines into account they aren't tested with a stock set of pipes, they follow guidelines for testing. There were no guidelines, we had to set them. I am not claiming that our method is perfect, but it is as good as we can get them with the time we have to do things. Engines are broken in, and tuned correctly. I'll say this every time, if any manufacturer wants to come in and try out the dyno understand the software...doors open.


Unfortunately, I'm not a sugar coater or really cater to those who want to say that I don't know what I'm doing when in reality they have no experience in what they are talking about. Aside from a few people in the WORLD, I probably have more dyno experience and testing than 99% of those in the nitro engine field. Would me not being confident in our magazine, dyno or myself make people trust me more....sorry bud just dont' work that way. And honestly if tomorrow somebody found an error in what we did...I'd print that we messed up. I don't hide mistakes, they happen. But there is no mistake in the X-dyno nor really in my ability to tune, or understand how an engine works.

So I don't apologize to those that really don't get it, or even pretend to get what we did with the Xdyno, why the information is accurate, and so forth.

This isn't an issue of what we can afford to buy, I'm not childish to try and explain to you how this works, nor really care to explain to you what we can afford. It's really sad to see that when a magazine attempts to make an industry better, that manufactures and people have to cause such problems. What do you know about our circulation, would lying to you and being nice benefit me? No. That's not how I work, in person on the internet or at home. The thread brought me here, with people trying to question, first the dyno, then specifically me. And I'm am always ready to talk technical features, and show people how things go. I am fully aware there are lots of informed talented people that know about engines and dynos, those people usually can debate things with more technical knowledge, than "it wheelies" and other nothings. And the sure has heck are posting it on a website of a competing magazine...that I use to work at.

You know you don't have to always doubt everything...and this is coming from a professional skeptic.

I am partly glad that you can look at the graph and understand what we've talked about for 5 years at this point. And if anything any "potential" readers will understand that we're not afraid to directly contradict advertising claims...that means we don't lie ;)

I can fully understand why companies would be upset initially upset by the results. Even in the early stages the designer asked me if we wanted to "fix" the settings to match that claimed HP and my answer after looking into things was hell no.

Show me the post on our website where you asked about the X-dyno and got no reply.

[BKinSoCal]

You guys give waaaayyyyyy to much credit to the designers/manufacturers of these engines!

I know it seems logical to assume that they know whats best for the engines they produce, but I find it rarely the case in real world testing.

It always amazes me to hear from manufacturers that question how a .12 can have the same dyno hp as a .21, or .28-.32 as a .46. Shame on them for not knowing simple power generation. Those guys are designing these engines arent they? They should absolutely know this. The simple fact that they dont makes me question all other info they may claim, or their engine design fundamentals in general.

Let me break it down for the layman...

First, take all HP figures you have ever read or heard and throw them out the window.

Next, look at the TQ curve or figure, as this is the only value that holds any merit (hp is just tq over time anyways).

The tq curve shows the amount of rotational force the engine can produce. And in this you can understand that a .12 engine can in no way match a .21 (unless it is a phenominal .12 and a crappy .21)

Probably the best way to out right compare an engine to another is to compare the TQ average over a common rpm range (say in our case 10,000-35,000 as most engines can operate in this realm)

Yes it is possible to get better or worse results with different variables (pipes, fuel, etc.) but in order to get that data, we would need someone with EVERY pipe, fuel, plug on hand and thats willing to do all the testing to test every possible combination to get the ultimate power test result. This idea is rediculous and simply not possible. There are recommendations from each manufacturer (usually) but it is very common that these products arent whats actually best for the engine in question. And there are other products that run better.

This is where the XRC standards come to play. They have tested 20-30 pipes on 50-70 different engines and come up with one or two that always performs better than all the rest. These pipes become the standard for testing. Is it possible that in one instance there could be a better pipe combination for a given engine?...sure, but this is usually easily identified while testing such an engine by noting how it sounds or reacts on the dyno. Then this particular engine can be isolated and retested using a pipe more suited for its unique design.

In a perfect world the manufacturers would know the ultimate magical combination of pipe, fuel, plug, head clearance, etc. for each of their products, and would give the info freely. But in the real world, there is no practical way to run every engine, with every pipe available, and with every fuel...etc. You get the point.

And just to clear the air a bit...The .12's use a standardized .12 pipe, the .21's use a standardized .21 pipe, and the .28-.32's use a standardized .28 pipe. Unlike what was assumed in an earlier post. It would be rediculous to use a .12 pipe on a .21!

One last thing...Plenty of manufacturers that use X-Dynos for development still embellish their HP figures in advertisements. I think it's like advertising crack or something. Too strong a habit for them to kick! Actually, I think the issue is how would they change their figures all of a sudden, and still save face?

BK
NitroDyne Systems
Designer and Manufacturer of the X-Dyno system

p.s. CEN- 5 hp? Shame on you!!

[The Sherpa]

I am a reader of Xtreme, RCCA and RC car.

It is so obvious that Extreme or DerekB is directly connected to the x-dyno by way of sales... and somehow feels compelled to justify their numbers on a rim size thread. Under nitro tuner last month they tried to explain themselves- because their data is just as jumbled up as any others. Either the XDYNO article was a shameless plug for a product they are trying to sell and make an industry standard since they seem to be pitching the device. The whole article seemed like a sales pitch slash disclaimer to fend off all those countless email about false data coming from think publications.

How come hot bodies / HPI measured 4.8 HP and owns one of those Xdynos? How come HPI, Losi (Mach) , AE/TTR, OFNA/Jamming, Sirio, OS, SH/LRP/Sportswerks claims 3.0-3.8 HP on their .21-.28 engine ( less than 1-1.3 hp on Xdyno) , 1.0 to 1.5 on the .12 engine ( 0.6-0.9 on Xdyno) ? Are you saying that every R/C manufacture / Engine maker lie on their product advertising simply because their numbers doesnt come close to what your Xdyno measured? Have it ever occur to you that maybe there is a internal error with the software since Xdyno is getting different numbers compare to the rest of the world? Such as scale horse power software as opposed to 1:1 software- plus those 10 sec runs sound fishy 4.6s take up to five minutes to warm up are your techs aware of these factors?

Lets remember, RCCA also dyno the TRX2.5 with 1.3hp. Thats 1/2 of what Xdyno measured. On top of that, R/C Car Action dynos usually come pretty close to what engine manufacture's claim too. I could care less who is right or wrong obviously it sounds like the torque rating is most important to us consumers.

In the article it clearly states that the editor did not know what a dyno even was so he googles it to start his learning curve (LOL)
Extreme claims they have an idustry standard for consistancy then they go on to write how advertising can exaserbate the HP numbers?

Have you guys ever tested a roller system dyno which would tell it all---- what is the power to the ground on some of these models.... surely yet again it won't match the other numbers

[DerekB]

I am a reader of Xtreme, RCCA and RC Driver. It is so obvious that Extreme or DerekB is directly connected to the x-dyno by way of sales... and somehow feels compelled to justify their numbers on a rim size thread. Under nitro tuner last month they tried to explain themselves- because their data is just as jumbled up as any others. Either the XDYNO article was a shameless plug for a product they are trying to sell and make an industry standard since they seem to be pitching the device. The whole article seemed like a sales pitch slash disclaimer to fend off all those countless email about false data coming from think publications.

How come hot bodies / HPI measured 4.8 HP and owns one of those Xdynos? How come HPI, Losi (Mach) , AE/TTR, OFNA/Jamming, Sirio, OS, SH/LRP/Sportswerks claims 3.0-3.8 HP on their .21-.28 engine , 1.0 to 1.5 on the .12 engine ? Are you saying that every R/C manufacture / Engine maker lie on their product advertising simply because their numbers doesnt come close to what your Xdyno measured? Have it ever occur to you that maybe there is a internal error with the software since Xdyno is getting a different number compare to the rest of the world?

Lets remember, RCCA also dyno the TRX2.5 with 1.3hp. Thats 1/2 of what Xdyno measured. On top of that, R/C Car Action dyno usually comes pretty close to what engine manufacture's claim too. I could careless who is right or wrong. I know different machines are used but this is a very good example of an inconsistance of a dyno.

Its all about the user:
In the article it clearly states that the editor did not know what a dyno even was so he googles it to start his learning curve (LOL)
Extreme claims they have an idustry standard for consistancy then they go on to write how advertising can exaserbate the HP numbers

Arizona again.

I printed what's going on because over time people don't know what's going on...it's called a refresher.

The companies using it are rating things to what their MANUFACTURER is printing. You know who makes HPI engines? I do.


I'll inform you again, RCCA never had a dyno that worked. I worked there, I know. You have never seen it in action other than a picture.


As far as consistency, I can say from the people using and the numbers they've gotten it's as accurate as it gets. And honestly EVEN if it wasn't it's consistent on the one used for the magazine...OURS. I came to this thread because it came up.


Again if you're going to argue at least throw a spell check in. I've never gotten penny from X-Dyno sales, but thanks. Please let the entire state of Arizona know I'm here...tell Sean I said hi.


You guys tire me sometimes with this BS. Trust who you want...silly.

[DerekB]

Again, ask the manufacturer how they got their numbers and show you...I can. I'm not sure too many others will take on that challenge.

HP is a simple calculation. You've done more advanced calculations when you got your first TI86 and learned how to graph SIN and COS.

[ericem]

Why is this silly??? A .12 motor can have as much HP as a .28 or .30 just depends on the vehicle it is being used in. Its so simple. Derek has explained in VERYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY long DESCRIPTIVE paragraphs. Why is there still a argument. HP and oz of torque is different.

[xfusion]

I like how that CEN guy shut up, he was getting pretty annoying with his bull****. I already knew what Derek has been preaching, but a lot of people don't. The CEN .46 engine is rubbish. The HPI engine, which is only a .28 (I believe) creates almost as much torque and HP as an engine with a displacement of .18CU more, and the HPI engine is not even close to being top of the line engine. I'm sure Picco .28 P3 would give the CEN .46 a run for its money. If Picco had a .30 or .32 of the same caliber as the .28, I believe it'd surpass the CEN .46 in both torque and HP.

[CEN Racing]

ericem - it is possible that a .12 engine has the same or similar perforamnce as a .21 but that is not the subject. That has nothing to do with our posts and concerns about the accuracy of Xdyno data.

xfusion - we decide to make no futher post because there were some very bold statement accusing engine makers around the world and air age publication. We dont want to get involved. Again, We already made our point and thats enough.

Like we said, feel free to install your savage engine into GST or vice versa. New Era Models also done seveal similar projects. Feel free to contac them for results. We seen it, we done it. Enjoy

Last post...

[DerekB]

Again gearing for the powerband of 2 very different engines will make it poor for both ways.

Put a .46 in a Savage and the result will be similar.

The challenge is for people who claim HP to show their methods...if you "believe" our method or not, at least I can show you everything to how we got that....

[xfusion]

I'm just waiting for The Real Dog man to come and kiss some more butt.

[ericem]

I'm just waiting for The Real Dog man to come and kiss some more butt.

popcorn

[The Real Dogman]

LOL good one!!! you come up with that one all by yourself??:)