Chassis dynos exposed

[Shannen Durphey]

Jason wrote:
> 
> 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.

Hey, it worked for me.  And in exactly the way you intended.  Thanks
to your post, I've burned about 4 hours today looking at dyno info and
claims.  BTW, I find the dynojet pages the LEAST technical of the ones
I've visited.  
Shannen