Subject	so 340RWHP * 1.18 = 410.2 FWHP (n/m)
Posted by	Tennyson (ATL) on February 26, 2003 at 4:02 PM
	This message has been viewed 35 times.
In Reply To	assume ~18% DT loss (n/m) posted by Spee on February 26, 2003 at 04:00 PM
Message
Follow Ups	I apologize, I was wrong. - AshsZ (FABio) 15:23:57 02/26/03 yep. - Dallas DamonZ 15:34:35 02/26/03 Still damn good #'s. (n/m) - Milo (San Antonio, TX.) 15:47:15 02/26/03 how much flywheel hp would 340rwhp be? any chart to follow? - shawnc 15:56:46 02/26/03 assume ~18% DT loss (n/m) - Spee 16:00:37 02/26/03 so 340RWHP * 1.18 = 410.2 FWHP (n/m) - Tennyson (ATL) 16:02:39 02/26/03 401.2 FWHP or 409.46 FWHP if you listen to ash's lies, LOL (n/m) - dragonballz 16:05:44 02/26/03 Hehehe. They're approximations. (n/m) - AshsZ (FABio) 16:13:48 02/26/03 actually, it's 340/0.82 = 414.63fwhp (n/m) - Spee 16:13:19 02/26/03 i dont get it...* 1.18 OR /0.82? big difference. Who's right (n/m) - shawnc 16:22:26 02/26/03 18% loss would be :devide by 1-.18, so 340/.82 - George(boostsolutionsinc.net) 16:29:03 02/26/03 yeah, but how sure are you that it's truely 18% loss - dragonballz 16:34:49 02/26/03 Its really not that important. An approximation is - AshsZ (FABio) 16:50:47 02/26/03 all new cars should be listed with RWHP... - hypo 17:10:38 02/26/03 Then most cars would have 0 HP (n/m) - Tennyson (ATL) 17:14:16 02/26/03 You must define the "before" value - Chip(GinnMotorsports) 16:31:15 02/26/03 Re: i dont get it...* 1.18 OR /0.82? big difference. Who's right - SactoTodd 16:48:35 02/26/03 Re: Re: i dont get it...* 1.18 OR /0.82? big difference. Who's right - Spee 17:10:00 02/26/03 you can't do math that way. you have to back calculate the - Scotts94z32 17:02:21 02/26/03 Someone mark the calendar. This is a first. (n/m) - FNFAZTT 19:55:48 02/26/03 kickass, i get to use my new highlighter (n/m) - HalfnHalf702[HJC] 21:59:09 02/26/03
Post a Followup	You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.