Chassis dynos exposed

[Jason]

Daniel wrote:

<<Sounds to me like you're marketing these units.  I'm not saying
they're
bad, but don't knock down the other dynos.  They're very useful tuning
tools, at least for me and some other fellow racers.>>

I'm not marketing anything. Did I mention I was a Mustang Dyno sales rep
or something? I don't think so. I use an old water-brake Clayton load
type dyno, FYI. I'm not knocking down other dynos, in terms of name
brands. I simply offered some general information about chassis
dnynamometer types, and a little insight for the avergage enthusiast to
gain some knowledge from. I'd bet 75% of this list has never even seen a
chassis dyno in person, let alone tune a car on one. I'd even go so far
to say that the same percentage of list members did not know the types
of chassis dynos or how they actually work. My post was an informational
soap box post, you know...archive type info. I was hoping to clarify
that there is a distinction when somebody uses the general term "chassis
dyno". Now, some of the list members that learned a little from my post
can ask some fundamental questions when confronted with tuner claims of
"Bolt-on 100hp...dyno proven!". Hope this clears up any misconceptions
about my posting intentions. 

Then remarks:

<< All dynos are good, whether chassis, engine, or, as in the case of my
former vertible stang, "car mounted".>>

I agree 100%. They are an essential tool for developing new technology,
or re-engineering existing technology. Without them, life would be
pretty slow. Now, back to my old Clayton dyno...

Jason
'93 SLC