Byron Short wrote:
> Ron Katona wrote:
> > Thanks for the note. Actually, .15 was on the conservative side if
> > anything. Many of my runs this year showed .20 or greater differences
> > and always left greater than right.
> I'm a bit confused by this though. I thought you had
> indicated before that adjusting the map always required you
> to put in "more right" on the adjustments screen. But the
> maximum adjustment available there is 0.10. It seems this
> should never be enough then. Does that match your
Yes, I have some maps that never look quite right even with the maximum
adjustment applied. I can tweak them using the Ranges to make them look
OK, but I always thought that having the map "look" exactly correct
wasn't that important and frankly it doesn't bother me that much if they
don't. Being out East, there aren't too many large courses with
straights where I can really nail down the L/R setting perfectly though.
> This part isn't that crucial, btw, I'm just trying to
> understand the best way that I can.
OK, I think we're on the same page there then.
> > Making a fake run on my desktop with the G-Cube just tilted up on each
> > side for a few seconds yeilds almost perfect 1.0 g readings on each
> > axis! However, I also went out to a parking lot and did skidpad circles
> > in each direction with the G-Cube in the correct direction for one run
> > and turned 180 degrees for another and got less ideal results.
> When you say turned 180 degrees, do you mean that the G-Cube
> was upside down, or pointing backwards?
Pointing backwards - top up, cord coming out towards the front of the
> With the
> > cube mounted in the normal direction, the readings were within a few
> > 10ths of a G left to right for the first time this year!
> Help me to understand here...when you typed 10ths of a G you
> meant 100ths, right?
Oops! Right... 100ths.
> Were these readings at/near your normal maximums? Were you
> in racing conditions as much as possible...passengers,
> tires, swaybar/shock settings?
Yes, this was on street tires with everything else in race setup. It
showed .96 sustained left and 1.01 right... I'd say that seems
reasonable given my car's mods.
There was something odd about that data that never happened before
though. It's hard to describe, but the map has smallish 90 degree angles
everywhere instead of a smooth line. Sort of like if you looked too
close at an angled line on a computer monitor and noticed the jagged
pixels rather than a smooth line if that makes sense. I think there was
some unrelated problem here that was just a fluke. The summary data gave
me a 99% smoothness and overall rating though! I also think that my test
was unreliable, however, because the map shows some physically
impossible movements. I'd say that data got corrupted somehow and is not
Thanks for the tips on a more accurate test (I've snipped it here). Yes,
it will be difficult to find the time and place to do it (the parking
lot I used is a commuter lot and I was probably pushing my luck doing
skidpad testing there even though it was empty at the time), but I'd
like to try.
> Hey, call me, Ron, and let's talk about whether all of this
> testing is a good idea or not. I need to weigh the
> possibility of just replacing the cube for you with creating
> a precedent that wouldn't be reasonable. I don't mind
> replacing the Cube for free if it's bad. Yeah, I know you
> bought it over a year ago, but that doesn't really matter.
> But I don't want to start a trend of replacing Cubes that
> aren't bad. You see my concern I'm sure. But most
> importantly, I want you to be happy.
I'll give you a shout sometime soon. I appreciate the advice and also
your backing of the product. I really hadn't even considered getting a
replacement cube figuring I was doing something to hose this up. No, you
shouldn't replace the cube if we can do something to test if it's
working correctly or not first. Thanks,