BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read




 

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-12-2010, 02:56 AM   #23
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

I also can answer the second question about an additional gear. Using the gearing from the 135i DCT and it's FD does not appear to add as much to the performance as just the shift time reduction. Of course this assumes that these gear ratios were fully optimized. Since the 135i and 1M have the same redline, and probably will have similar shaped torque curves, it is fairly safe to assume that a gear set optimized for one would also be very close to optimal for the other. Basic reasoning and experience also informs us that higher redline vehicles will typically benefit more from the extra gear compared to lower redline ones (i.e. M3 "needs" 7 gears more than the 1M).

#1 is 6MT
#2 is with 7 DCT and FD from 135i
#3 is with hypothetical 6 speed DCT

Keeping the turbos spooled is indeed an important effect. I'm not entirely sure if CarTest fully captures this effect fully. My guess is that is probably does. The "switch" in the software GUI for NA vs. turbo unfortunately appears to do nothing whatsoever. That being said CarTest does use a fully transient simulation and does obviously drop the rpm at shifts and then uses the new engine operating point for calculations just after the shift. Since the input dyno curves are always gathered under WOT and under load (i.e. no matter what boost is doing you'll never get more torque than the dyno curve) the torque available after a shift should be calculated assuming a best case scenario. With that understanding it might be the case that the negative effects of long MT shifts would not be captured in the simulation. However, for the short DCT shifts I think the sim should be matching the engine both before and after shifts pretty accurately.

Also you can clearly watch the virtual tach in the sim dropping to a higher post shift rpm in the 7 speed DCT compared to the 6MT, so that effect is again absolutely included.

Whether the sim captures the effect we know that in the real world, in the twisties and while driving at 8-9 10ths, this benefit of the DCT would be easily felt, noticed and could be measured.

Maybe someone else can comment about the ability of a single gear dyno curve to capture the transient nature of a turbo engines output (power or torque) just before vs. just after a shift.

On a very loosely related side note these sims provide my estimate for the top speed of a delimited 1M, it will be between 165-170. DCT or not the car is definitely drag limited in top gear.
Attached Images
  
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |

Last edited by swamp2; 12-12-2010 at 03:06 AM..
Appreciate 0
      12-12-2010, 03:10 AM   #24
Pete_vB
Captain
Pete_vB's Avatar
United_States
118
Rep
898
Posts

Drives: '69 GT3, GT4, 1M, 912
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SF Bay Area, Shenzhen, Oman

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
^ Your graphs are incorrect or at least minimally a misrepresentation. Heck you don't even have precise axis labels or units on them...ugh.
I agree I could label the graphs better. They are more accurately "thrust to weight". This would be the "Force at Wheels, lbs" number your simulator is predicting in the first graphs divided by (curb weight + driver). It would also be G force of acceleration if not for the inertial effects, aero losses, etc that I mentioned.

Now about your simulations. Garbage in, garbage out.
What gearing are you using for the 1M that has you at 215 mph in 6th? Your gearing looks off across the board.
The power curves for the 1M and M3 also don't look accurate... What power and weight are you using for the cars? I listed the power and weights I used in my initial post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
What graphs vs. rpm can fail to fully represent is that except for the very brief pull to the shift point in 1st gear the M3 spends the vast majority of its times at a much higher rpm than the 1M, as such is is making more power for more of the time and hence accelerating more.
Actually the the graphs above take exactly that into account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Here you can look at the accelerative force vs. speed (1st two graphs), noting that at each shift you simply drop down one curve right to the next. For instance in 2nd gear the M3 is almost always producing more than 2000 lbs of accelerative force whereas the 1M typically producing less than 1750 lbs (again during WOT runs).
So re-gear the 1M to the correct numbers and run this again. Then take the weights of the car into account- the accelerative force means nothing without also accounting for the weight.

Clearly a full simulation is the way to go running these numbers. If it's not set up right, however, it's pretty worthless. You've also given the M3 a lot more area under the power curve than the dynos show. What peak torque was that run at? Way too high.

You come off as defending the M3's honor. I'm simply trying to run some valid comparisons between the two. As I said, based on the dyno data to date the 35is motors look 15hp under-rated, so I used 350 hp, a fairly accurate torque curve based on the 1M and M3 and the published weights we have. Maybe try plugging that into the sim with the corrected gearing, both cars running manuals, get the torque right and let's see what it looks like. I have no doubt that the M3 is faster up top, but I think you'll be surprised how close it is.
__________________
1M, GT4, 1969 Porsche 911 w/ 997 GT3 Cup Motor (435hp & 2,100 lbs)

Last edited by Pete_vB; 12-12-2010 at 03:16 AM..
Appreciate 0
      12-12-2010, 03:20 AM   #25
HERR FSTIR
Captain
HERR FSTIR's Avatar
United_States
119
Rep
771
Posts

Drives: LBB M2C, VO 1M, GSA 1200
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Frozen Tundra

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Swamp, thanks for your efforts. I am surprised that the differences between MT and DCT are not a little more pronounced.

I was fairly disappointed a few months ago to hear the DCT option had been nixed for the 1M. Although your calculations suggest marginal improvement with DCT, I still wonder if one's subjective impression of N54 power delivery would not be substantially better with a dual clutch setup given the seamless shifts affording fairly constant boost levels.

The N54 with the 6MT sometimes produces very noticeable 3rd-4th bog as you wait for boost to spool. Perhaps I am missing the optimal shift point, but it would be nice to avoid it altogether.

I haven't had the opportunity to drive a 335is with DCT, and that would probably provide the closest approximation of what a DCT 1M would have been like.
Appreciate 0
      12-12-2010, 03:59 AM   #26
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete_vB View Post
Now about your simulations. Garbage in, garbage out. What gearing are you using for the 1M that has you at 215 mph in 6th? Your gearing looks off across the board.
The power curves for the 1M and M3 also don't look accurate... What power and weight are you using for the cars? I listed the power and weights I used in my initial post.
Easy there champ. Go easier and slow down and take the time to look and think a bit more before opening up the insults. The graphs axes, drag and loss curves are automatically calculated to speeds far beyond the max speed a vehicle will actually reach. You can see the actual sim traces ending but you obviously did not look close enough.

My power and weight figures are accurate, guaranteed. I used quoted figures for the 1M and I already covered the case of possible underrating which very well might be the case. If you really want a list of inputs I can provide that. Although power and weight are keys, there are literally dozens of inputs to these sims including some pretty small and subtle effects. Anyway I did not post "power curves". These are thrust curves and take into account much more than just the torque curves and gearing. Losses are the key thing you are missing. CarTest includes rpm and speed dependent losses for: transmission, axles, diff, tires and aero losses. Tire losses are very significant above about 75 mph. I agree a per weight way of looking at calculations is important. If you want a thrust per weight just look at the acceleration curves, that is essentially what those are and I posted them (the very last set of results).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete_vB View Post
Clearly a full simulation is the way to go running these numbers. If it's not set up right, however, it's pretty worthless. You've also given the M3 a lot more area under the power curve than the dynos show. What peak torque was that run at? Way too high.
Yes, a full simulation is the way to go. Yes it is also true that all such sims are garbage in garbage out. Can you give me some actual real world performance results from your "simulations"? No, you can't because they lack enough physics. I reported the results I got for the 1M and they are right in line with real world reported numbers. My M3 numbers are too as well (since I worked on those years ago before the M3 was even launched). I hate to say "trust me" but I've spent countless hours using this simulator, tweaking and tuning it and comparing to real world results. My M3 engine power and torque values at the crank are exactly the values from the available dyno curves from BMW. Although I have found that using the simulator to curve fit based only on peak torque and rpm of peak along with peak hp vs. using an rpm by rpm input of the torque curve typically produces changes in results that are basically at the noise level. I have not "given" anything to the results, the simulator has calculated them given the correct inputs I have provided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete_vB View Post
You come off as defending the M3's honor. I'm simply trying to run some valid comparisons between the two. As I said, based on the dyno data to date the 35is motors look 15hp under-rated, so I used 350 hp, a fairly accurate torque curve based on the 1M and M3 and the published weights we have. Maybe try plugging that into the sim with the corrected gearing, both cars running manuals, get the torque right and let's see what it looks like. I have no doubt that the M3 is faster up top, but I think you'll be surprised how close it is.
There is no need and no point of defending anything. I'm much more concerned about your ability to calculate useful metrics and interpret them rather than "defending my car's honor" or some such silly concept. Your "analysis" and commentary was painting a false picture of the cars being pretty close or advantages going to the 1M at certain speeds. This simply is not the case. I was and am thus critical of your clarity, your results and your interpretation of the results. Power to weight is the figure that matters. That is seen in the simulations and in the real world results the cars have achieved.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      12-12-2010, 04:06 AM   #27
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by HERR FSTIR View Post
Swamp, thanks for your efforts. I am surprised that the differences between MT and DCT are not a little more pronounced.
IIRC they are only a bit better for the M3 MT vs M-DCT

Quote:
Originally Posted by HERR FSTIR View Post
I was fairly disappointed a few months ago to hear the DCT option had been nixed for the 1M.
Me too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HERR FSTIR View Post
Although your calculations suggest marginal improvement with DCT, I still wonder if one's subjective impression of N54 power delivery would not be substantially better with a dual clutch setup given the seamless shifts affording fairly constant boost levels.

The N54 with the 6MT sometimes produces very noticeable 3rd-4th bog as you wait for boost to spool. Perhaps I am missing the optimal shift point, but it would be nice to avoid it altogether.
I've not driven a turbo DCT but I'm absolutely sure the subjectives and objectives of the 1M would be improved. I think you'd get more of a difference when braking for a corner, cornering and corner exit rather than simply a drag style WOT acceleration run. You simply never have to let the rpms drop pre corner with a DCT. Bang away on the downshift paddle while braking and get into your ideal gear for corner and corner exit and exit the corner at a high rpm with maximized power (or fully spooled up with a turbo).


Quote:
Originally Posted by HERR FSTIR View Post
I haven't had the opportunity to drive a 335is with DCT, and that would probably provide the closest approximation of what a DCT 1M would have been like.
Would be pretty similar. You haven't driven mine yet either. You definitely need to!
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      12-12-2010, 04:32 AM   #28
HERR FSTIR
Captain
HERR FSTIR's Avatar
United_States
119
Rep
771
Posts

Drives: LBB M2C, VO 1M, GSA 1200
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Frozen Tundra

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
You haven't driven mine yet either.
Driving the e93 M3 with DCT was really phenomenal. I was only disappointed by the additional mass of the cabrio. I'm hoping to take delivery of a 1M this summer - perhaps we can do a little real world comparo at that point.
Appreciate 0
      12-12-2010, 04:50 AM   #29
Pete_vB
Captain
Pete_vB's Avatar
United_States
118
Rep
898
Posts

Drives: '69 GT3, GT4, 1M, 912
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SF Bay Area, Shenzhen, Oman

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
The graphs axes, drag and loss curves are automatically calculated to speeds far beyond the max speed a vehicle will actually reach. You can see the actual sim traces ending but you obviously did not look close enough.
You misunderstand. Your graphs seem to show 7000 RPM in 6th as 215. The correct number is about 199, meaning something in your setup is ~8% off. Every gear looks off. Tire diameter, redline?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
My power and weight figures are accurate, guaranteed.
The issue I'm having beyond the speed in gears is that your "force at wheels" graphs show the 1M making 3500 lbs of force in 1st, while the M3 is 3800. From this and speed you can back out relative torque assuming similar losses- if the M3 is putting out the published 295 at the crank the 1M is putting out ~330. Meanwhile the 1M is rated at 370, and is dynos show that as quite under-rated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
If you really want a list of inputs I can provide that.
Yes, I think posting the numbers you're using would be a good idea to clear up the confusion.
__________________
1M, GT4, 1969 Porsche 911 w/ 997 GT3 Cup Motor (435hp & 2,100 lbs)
Appreciate 0
      12-12-2010, 05:16 AM   #30
Pete_vB
Captain
Pete_vB's Avatar
United_States
118
Rep
898
Posts

Drives: '69 GT3, GT4, 1M, 912
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SF Bay Area, Shenzhen, Oman

iTrader: (0)

Let me explain how force at the wheels is calculated, so you understand where I'm coming from.

Engine Torque (ft lbs) x Gear Ratio x Final Drive Ratio / Tire Radius (ft) * Drivetrain Efficiency

For the 1M:
370 (ft lbs) x 4.11 (1st gear ratio) x 3.154 (Final Drive) / 1.06 ft x 85% = 3846 lbs

For the M3 DCT:
295 (ft lbs) x 4.78 (DCT 1st gear) x 3.154 (Final Drive) / 1.06 x 85% = 3566 lbs

So unless one of the numbers above is wrong or the losses for the two cars are much different, the 1M should have 8% more "Force At Wheels" in 1st gear. Your graphs show 9% less, or an 18% difference. Hence my questions.
__________________
1M, GT4, 1969 Porsche 911 w/ 997 GT3 Cup Motor (435hp & 2,100 lbs)
Appreciate 0
      12-12-2010, 04:38 PM   #31
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete_vB View Post
You misunderstand. Your graphs seem to show 7000 RPM in 6th as 215. The correct number is about 199, meaning something in your setup is ~8% off. Every gear looks off. Tire diameter, redline?
...
Yes, I think posting the numbers you're using would be a good idea to clear up the confusion.
Try adding in tire growth from centrifugal force. I used 0.02%/mph. 213-214 mph at 7000 rpm in 6th is correct (in a vaccum, of course). 205 is correct with no growth.

Note: My numbers do use a theoretical calculation of the tire diameter based on the nominal series values. You can get a slightly more accurate figure from the manufacturer based on rotations per mile figures. These are exact and always differ from the nominal calculated values just a bit.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      12-12-2010, 05:06 PM   #32
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete_vB View Post
Let me explain how force at the wheels is calculated, so you understand where I'm coming from.

Engine Torque (ft lbs) x Gear Ratio x Final Drive Ratio / Tire Radius (ft) * Drivetrain Efficiency

For the 1M:
370 (ft lbs) x 4.11 (1st gear ratio) x 3.154 (Final Drive) / 1.06 ft x 85% = 3846 lbs

For the M3 DCT:
295 (ft lbs) x 4.78 (DCT 1st gear) x 3.154 (Final Drive) / 1.06 x 85% = 3566 lbs

So unless one of the numbers above is wrong or the losses for the two cars are much different, the 1M should have 8% more "Force At Wheels" in 1st gear. Your graphs show 9% less, or an 18% difference. Hence my questions.
There is nothing wrong with this basic calculation (you should include wheel radius though as well). I'm not debating that the 1M can output more peak wheel torque than the M3. You can see evidence of the same thing in my acceleration graphs (bottom right most ones, from about 1-1.25 seconds). It is just that in the real world your calculation is fairly meaningless.

Why? Because one needs to examine power delivery over time, not at an instant. These are peak/instantaneous values matter much less than the observation that the average acceleration values at the same time and across time are higher in the M3. Also note that having so much torque to the wheels often simply overwhelms the available grip (in 1st gear) and thus you have wheelspin. The metric that with a single number best captures the dynamics of acceleration across a given time and through multiple gears is power, to be more specific indeed power to the grounds per weight. Assuming losses are pretty roughly constant across different models and that gear ratios are pretty well optimized by the factory we can simpy short cut that longer statement to:

Power to weight is the key metric in determining a cars performance.

Another way to help realize this is simply that F=Pxv. Given two cars each at the same velocity the one producing more power (at that velocity, i.e. using the best (lowest) gear and highest rpm) will produce the most accelerative force. When you look at it this way gearing and torque disappear from the equations!

Again another way to look at this is that the M3 on WOT operates typically from 7000-8400 rpm (not counting the very begining of a launch) and thus is producing a minimum of ~350 hp (7/8.4 x 414). The 1M never even produces that much! Well if under rated, its peak might be just about that much. Again the power of high redline and broad torque curve is infinitely more important than peak engine or wheel torque.

Hope this all helps.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |

Last edited by swamp2; 12-12-2010 at 05:11 PM..
Appreciate 0
      12-12-2010, 05:08 PM   #33
Pete_vB
Captain
Pete_vB's Avatar
United_States
118
Rep
898
Posts

Drives: '69 GT3, GT4, 1M, 912
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SF Bay Area, Shenzhen, Oman

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Try adding in tire growth from centrifugal force. I used 0.02%/mph. 213-214 mph at 7000 rpm in 6th is correct (in a vaccum, of course). 205 is correct with no growth.
No, it's not that either.

Speed at RPM can be calculated by using:

RPM x 60 / gear ratio / final drive / Tire revolutions per mile) = MPH

So for the 1M in 6th gear:
7000 rpm x 60 / .846 / 3.154 / 790 = 199.2 mph

For the M3 DCT in 7th:
8400 rpm x 60 / 1.00 / 3.154 / 790 = 202.3 mph

Tire revolutions per mile can be found on the tire rack for the specific tire used, but in this case they are the same, so we can agree they will grow by the same amount. Thus the 1M is geared 3 mph shorter than the M3, but your "guaranteed" numbers show it as about 6 MPH taller. Please explain why?
__________________
1M, GT4, 1969 Porsche 911 w/ 997 GT3 Cup Motor (435hp & 2,100 lbs)
Appreciate 0
      12-12-2010, 05:26 PM   #34
Pete_vB
Captain
Pete_vB's Avatar
United_States
118
Rep
898
Posts

Drives: '69 GT3, GT4, 1M, 912
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SF Bay Area, Shenzhen, Oman

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
There is nothing wrong with this basic calculation (you should include wheel radius though as well). I'm not debating that the 1M can output more peak wheel torque than the M3. You can see evidence of the same thing in my acceleration graphs (bottom right most ones, from about 1-1.25 seconds).

Why? Because one needs to examine power delivery over time, not at an instant.
Obviously acceleration is over time. I'm pointing out that the inputs you've used to calculate that, however, look wrong. Using the formula above that you agreed with we calculated that peak wheel force was 300 lbs higher in the 1M than the M3. However all of your simulations are based on it being 300 lbs lower. I've highlighted that below.

Your graphs show 3500 for the 1M and 3800 for the M3, but we calculate 3846 for the 1M and 3566 for the M3.

This is why I've asked that you post the numbers you are using.
Attached Images
 
__________________
1M, GT4, 1969 Porsche 911 w/ 997 GT3 Cup Motor (435hp & 2,100 lbs)
Appreciate 0
      12-12-2010, 10:03 PM   #35
1M Fan
SMSgt
11
Rep
239
Posts

Drives: AW 1M Coupe
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA, TN

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
1012 F150  [0.00]
1971 Chevrolet Nova  [0.00]
2011 1M  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant View Post
Very interesting - thanks for doing that, Pete. That clearly shows that retrofitting larger turbos that would give the 1M better lungs at high revs would really give the little 1er an edge over the 3er (and is most likely the reason the factory did not do that, aside from cost).
And turbo lag. Big turbos will lag more than small ones.
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2010, 01:44 AM   #36
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete_vB View Post
No, it's not that either.

Speed at RPM can be calculated by using:

RPM x 60 / gear ratio / final drive / Tire revolutions per mile) = MPH

So for the 1M in 6th gear:
7000 rpm x 60 / .846 / 3.154 / 790 = 199.2 mph

For the M3 DCT in 7th:
8400 rpm x 60 / 1.00 / 3.154 / 790 = 202.3 mph

Tire revolutions per mile can be found on the tire rack for the specific tire used, but in this case they are the same, so we can agree they will grow by the same amount. Thus the 1M is geared 3 mph shorter than the M3, but your "guaranteed" numbers show it as about 6 MPH taller. Please explain why?
I have indeed mixed apples and oranges a bit. Howver, it is mostly inconsequential. My M3 simulations being very refined have used exact tire diameters (i.e. revs/mi AND a growth % per mph). My 1M numbers being ever so slightly more rough used an ideal tire diameter calculation based on a "perfect" 265-35 19 tire. Either way this does not change the trends nor the conclusions. I'm sure once we both used revs/mi and tire growth we can agree on a few simple multiplications.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2010, 02:07 AM   #37
Robert
Major General
414
Rep
6,968
Posts

Drives: 135i -> is350 -> Tesla M3 perf
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Socal

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Since the 135i and 1M have the same redline, and probably will have similar shaped torque curves, it is fairly safe to assume that a gear set optimized for one would also be very close to optimal for the other.
I don't think its a fair assumption to assume 1M will share same torque curve as 135i. 135i's torque drop post 5500rpm is a significant issue that one should expect it as priority one to M team when they started this project. Also not included in the sim is the overboost functionality.

If M team did not address the power drop off it's fair to assume something has gone awry at BMW and I'd sell sell sell and go straight to a P-car.
__________________
- There's nothing in my pocket other than knives and lint
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2010, 02:57 AM   #38
Madozu
Private First Class
Madozu's Avatar
Switzerland
1
Rep
188
Posts

Drives: 1M / M3 E36 3.2 6MT
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In the twisty roads of the Alps

iTrader: (0)

Great thread Thanks to everyone who provided information (especially Swamp and Pete).

Besides the "height-issue" in the "Drive Power in Gears" diagrams (as Pete mentioned in Post #36), the 1M's drive power seems to fall too fast ... To me it looks like the simulation doesn't take into account that the torque curve is almost flat at 450Nm between 1500 and 4500 rpm.
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2010, 03:28 AM   #39
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete_vB View Post
Let me explain how force at the wheels is calculated, so you understand where I'm coming from.

Engine Torque (ft lbs) x Gear Ratio x Final Drive Ratio / Tire Radius (ft) * Drivetrain Efficiency

For the 1M:
370 (ft lbs) x 4.11 (1st gear ratio) x 3.154 (Final Drive) / 1.06 ft x 85% = 3846 lbs

For the M3 DCT:
295 (ft lbs) x 4.78 (DCT 1st gear) x 3.154 (Final Drive) / 1.06 x 85% = 3566 lbs

So unless one of the numbers above is wrong or the losses for the two cars are much different, the 1M should have 8% more "Force At Wheels" in 1st gear. Your graphs show 9% less, or an 18% difference. Hence my questions.
OK also got to the bottom of this. This will be a bit long...

I was using the non overboosted torque figure whereas you used the overboosted. Neither is entirely correct since the car can't maintain this peak across a full acceleration run. However, if you do only want peak values your numbers were closer here. This does put the peak accelerative force of the 1M > than that of the M3 (and hence the force/weight at an even larger advantage). However, your numbers are not entirely correct either though as you can not calculate using the same loss figure for both most parasitic losses are a function of rpm. The M3 will take a bigger torque loss hit at its peak torque since it is at a higher % of redline. The torque loss in the M3 in absolute terms at their respective peak accelerations will be about double that of the 1M!

This alters the initial acceleration vs. time curves I showed simply by slightly amplifying the advantage already shown for the 1M in my initial graphs. It also makes me revise my statement about how long the 1M could get the jump on the M3. It could do so for a bit longer, but only up to about the 4-5 second range or at about the 60 mph point. To determine this you need the position vs. time graphs, you absolutely can't see this from the times from 0-speedx results, since the M3 is still winning those contests. Seems a bit contradictory but it isn't. Also it will only be truly pulling harder for about the first 1.5 seconds after launch. You need the true acceleration curves (a vs. t) to see this (which I have posted). You CANNOT read nor determine this from a wheel torque per weight vs rpm graph. After this 4-5 second range the story is exactly the same as I posted prior, the M3 will walk it. Again of course that conclusion is based on the car having a real power output consistent with the claimed output. Any under rating (which is likely IMO) will allow the 1M to keep up a bit longer. Due to the really strong torque of the car, if you can launch it well, it will do a very good job getting the jump on a lot of cars.

Despite some minor adjustments here and there my prior comments about the curves you posted misrepresenting the true real world advantage of the 1M still stand. Power to weight is all that really matters (again except a bit for low speed stop light races).

I've also posted another comparison of the M3 vs. 1M again assuming 370 ft lb all the time for the 1M.
  • First graph: Revised drive force curves for 1M assuming always on overboost.
  • Second and Third charts: 1M with no overboost vs. 1M with continual overboost. As you can see this does not really buy you more than about 0.1 seconds anywhere. Why? Again because power is what matters, not torque.
  • Fourth graph: 1M with (369 ft lb) vs. M3, all grahps vs. time.
Attached Images
    
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |

Last edited by swamp2; 12-13-2010 at 03:57 AM..
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2010, 03:56 AM   #40
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

@Robert and Madozu. Here is the torque curve I used assuming 369 ft lb (the graph kind of sucks and it would be visually easier to read in Excel but this is how CarTest belches stuff out...).

Ultimately the shape of the curve is not too vital to getting a good simulation. And obviously the sharpness of the peak here in my curve is entirely non physical. Also, if you assume 332 ft lb peak instead of 369 ft lb you do get a more flat torque plateau. The higher peak torque though will have to drop faster less the peak hp number could not be the same...

Either way Pete's curve probably is a more accurate guess. I did not waste any time at all bothering with making a really accurate prediction of this since it makes such littler difference. Get the peaks for torque and hp correct and get the rpms at which the peaks occur and you are pretty good to go.
Attached Images
 
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2010, 04:30 AM   #41
MrHarris
yodog
MrHarris's Avatar
United_States
196
Rep
5,026
Posts

Drives: '86 Corolla
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca

iTrader: (5)

Garage List
2009 BMW  [10.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
I used the final drive ratio above 3.154 for 1M

Corrected for 8400rpm

M3 6spd

Gear Max Speed
1 42.48
2 72.71
3 108.89
4 153.91
5 172.26
6 197.55


265/36/19 gave me 83.29" wheel+tire diameter
I knew the M3 hits almost 110 in 3rd. Pretty crazy.
__________________

2009 E92 M3 | Alpine White | Black Extended | Advan RS | Turner Test Pipes | Dinan Axle-Back | OETuning | Eibach Springs | UUC SSK | VRS Front Lip | VRS Type I Diffuser | Matte Black | RPi Scoops | MS Filter | Yokohama AD08 | F1 Pinnacle
Special Thanks: Gintani | OETuning | eAs
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2010, 04:48 AM   #42
Pete_vB
Captain
Pete_vB's Avatar
United_States
118
Rep
898
Posts

Drives: '69 GT3, GT4, 1M, 912
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SF Bay Area, Shenzhen, Oman

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I have indeed mixed apples and oranges a bit. Howver, it is mostly inconsequential.
Not inconsequential. As we said before, garbage in, garbage out...

I have gone ahead and picked up a copy of cartest, available here for those interested: http://www.cartestsoftware.com/index.php
I'm not a big fan so far, as I'm used to Bosch lapsim (free and very good). This is easier to use, however, and has many cars pre-loaded. Be careful using them, though- a number of them are wrong.

I set up an apples to apples comparison in the software using the specs I first published on this thread. I have copied the specs below so eveyone knows what I'm doing and can spot any mistakes. I've used the published specs for everything, expect as noted before I added +15 hp an TQ to the 1M to account for the WHP dynos of the 35is cars we have seen so far. All of the performance variables, shift times, etc are the same. The results are below.

Now I will quote my earlier post: "The 1M is clearly going to kick hard when the boost hits, pulling harder than the M3 until about 35 mph when the torque rolls off and the M3 keeps pulling. The 1M is again slightly ahead up until about 60 mph in 2nd. In the higher gears, however, the M3 spends more and more time in front, and it's always in front above about 115 mph due to the higher top end power."

I am more than happy to answer any questions about how I set this simulation up.
Attached Images
    
__________________
1M, GT4, 1969 Porsche 911 w/ 997 GT3 Cup Motor (435hp & 2,100 lbs)
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2010, 08:41 AM   #43
Madozu
Private First Class
Madozu's Avatar
Switzerland
1
Rep
188
Posts

Drives: 1M / M3 E36 3.2 6MT
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In the twisty roads of the Alps

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
@Robert and Madozu. Here is the torque curve I used assuming 369 ft lb (the graph kind of sucks and it would be visually easier to read in Excel but this is how CarTest belches stuff out...).

Ultimately the shape of the curve is not too vital to getting a good simulation. And obviously the sharpness of the peak here in my curve is entirely non physical. Also, if you assume 332 ft lb peak instead of 369 ft lb you do get a more flat torque plateau. The higher peak torque though will have to drop faster less the peak hp number could not be the same...
Just played around with my (quite old) version of CarTest 2000. As Swamp showed, the 50Nm overboost doesn't make a huge difference ... but setting max. torque at 1500 rpm or 4500 rpm makes quite a bit of a difference. I was using identical data of a 1M with one exception:
  • BMW 1M (LOW) has max. torque at 1500 rpm
  • BMW 1M (HIGH) has max. torque at 4500 rpm
Attached Images
     
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2010, 09:02 AM   #44
Pete_vB
Captain
Pete_vB's Avatar
United_States
118
Rep
898
Posts

Drives: '69 GT3, GT4, 1M, 912
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SF Bay Area, Shenzhen, Oman

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madozu View Post
Just played around with my (quite old) version of CarTest 2000. As Swamp showed, the 50Nm overboost doesn't make a huge difference ... but setting max. torque at 1500 rpm or 4500 rpm makes quite a bit of a difference. I was using identical data of a 1M with one exception:
  • BMW 1M (LOW) has max. torque at 1500 rpm
  • BMW 1M (HIGH) has max. torque at 4500 rpm
Good example of why the shape of the dyno curve is critical, as area under the HP curve, not peak hp to weight, is critical.

There are a number of dynos floating around to model from, such as these for the 320 hp 35is. Obviously the 1M is going to breath better up top than this, so I may have been conservative killing power about 6000 as fast as I did in my estimated dyno.
http://www.bmwblog.com/2010/09/12/dy...vs-n55-engine/
BTW, I think your weight number above is off.
__________________
1M, GT4, 1969 Porsche 911 w/ 997 GT3 Cup Motor (435hp & 2,100 lbs)
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 AM.




1addicts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST