James, an interesting set of comments. Especially the last sentence.
Paragraph 2R of the 2009 rule book says data logging may be used in any
class. Are you implying that use of that data log to tune away
detonation in a vintage car should not be allowed? If so, why? I
understand that active detonation control via some sort of in car emgine
management systen is a no-no, but data logging and then tuning to
eliminate that are fair game. True? Not true?
mayf
James Tone wrote:
>I realize you are "studying" anti knock but with that said if this is not on a
>non-vintage vehicle questions will come up concerning what if anything you are
>doing with the info whill the vehicle is underway. Too much, or any to me,
>electronics in a vintage car with a vintage engine raises questions to a
>knowlegeable inspector or impounds official. Anti-knock is normally a function
>of computer control as we all know in our modern vehicles and because of it we
>get the best the engine in our vehcle can give in performance and milage. Good
>Luck
>
>
>
>>Subject: [Land-speed] Knock sensor placement on flathead!
>>
>>Studying octane/advance/detonation:
>>Now I need to figure out where the quietest place on a Ford flathead would
>>be to place a knock sensor. Where is knock likely to be heard first? These
>>can be fooled by solid lifter noise. I want it to sample both sides. Are
>>intake valves quieter than exhaust valves? I'm thinking that maybe that if
>>I make a steel strap that straddles between one stud on each head, I would
>>be sampling both sides. The studs
>>would be into the head only, near the back of the motor, squarely between
>>the two back cylinders in each bank, just towards the cylinder from the
>>transition point between squish and valve lands (intakes).
>>Any thoughts?
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Land-speed mailing list
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/land-speed
|