Traction control (long and sorta related to Software Dyno)

[CSH-HQ]

Gee, dismiss ideas before even thinking about, them, why post?.
Did you see the logic in the cyl sel?.
Never mind you made your mind up.
IF all you want to do is waste someones time, why not be up front and say that.
Sorta long, and of no value.
Grumpy, and getting more so



>Someone poked at it a few days ago here on the list, but in a different
>way than I am thinking.  Since I grew up with very fast cars and street
>racing, traction control has always been an idea that has intrigued me. 
>I fully plan to make such a beast someday, but unfortunately don't
>currently have either the time or the knowledge to even begin right
>now.  That is why I am in full lurk mode on this list.  Popping out of
>lurk mode to get a quick question answered and throw out my personal
>idea.  These are just my ideas of fun projects and I am not throwing
>them out to disagree with someone else's ideas of what defines a fast or
>fun car.
>
>There have been a few ideas thrown out about how to reduce power enough
>to be an effective traction control, but I don't really care for the
>implications of any of them for my own use.  FWIW, my own use means an
>absurdly powered car on street tires...something that could spin them
>above 100 mph.  It's one thing to have more power than you can use until
>about 30 mph and have to cut back some, but entirely another matter to
>be beyond the limit of traction well into a 1/4 mile run.
>
>Let me preface this by stating that I am not a big fan of cutting
>spark.  Experience tells me that it is tough on cam drives and main
>bearings at the very least.  I also suspect in a conventional V8, the
>distributor, oil pump drives and gears take unnecessary abuse.
>
>Two applications come to mind when I am daydreaming: a street racer with
>nitrous that is just meant to go fast for the joy of going fast (and
>winning a little money to boot).  The other is a driver that would be
>capable of running at Bonneville or the Silver State classic and doesn't
>rely on nitrous for it's boogie (though there would probably be some on
>board for special occasions).  Either way, both vehicles should be
>capable of providing enough power to keep the tires spinning until they
>are going very fast.
>
>The street racer:
>
>It would have quite a bit of natural power that needs to be attenuated,
>but then once the tires catch up, needs to start feeding in the nitrous
>without blowing off the tires (and not relying on timers like a
>predictable racecar on a predictable track surface).  The reason for not
>turbocharging is so that one could actually obtain competition.  Nobody
>will race a car they don't know anything about.  Most street racers
>think they know all about normally aspirated cars and always suspect the
>other guy has nitrous anyway.  Bringing a turbo is just asking to be
>ignored.  My thought here is a controllable throttlestop and an
>infinitely progressive nitrous system.
>
>The driven car:
>
>It is a different beast and I suspect would almost assuredly be
>turbocharged since I don't see a normally aspirated engine having the
>manners and range required.  It has to be powerful enough to easily get
>over 200 mph, but still have manners that my wife could live with. 
>Whether or not it is possible, I still feel turbocharging is the best
>bet.  This seems like a simpler one to control since all the power comes
>from boost.  Without knowing that much about available wastegates, I can
>only assume that there are controllable ones that will do whatever you
>want as far as boost is concerned.
>
>Am I all wet, or does it seem possible to do both of these projects with
>the same effort?  The first one has at least 2 devices to control with a
>little logic, where the second likely has one fewer and is strictly
>feedback driven.  Are these even possibilities, or have I been wasting
>so many free brainwaves on this?
>-- 
>Scott Knight  mailto:sknight at mich.com
>http://www.mich.com/~sknight IRC:SS396man
>'95 Black Impala SS
>'94 Ducati 900SS CR
>