Sportback Audi RS3 FL 500HP+ project

Kristijan Sabljar

Registered User
I am sorry didnt post this at same time as vbox. Please no more dragyvbox topic. If anyone doubts i can send dnb file, there ia no reason to lie, we are here to share experience.

I have lots of runs 30+ these are what i have on my mobile

0-100kmh 3.37 sec
100-200kmh 7.89 sec (best was 7.84 nees to find file )


I hope we keep this interesting Rs3 topic

Downpie Milltek, Revo iC and Intercooler next upgrade
Screenshot_20180521-215517~3.png
Screenshot_20180521-215456~3.png
 

JamesCrs3

Registered User
I agree with Kristijan, it's obvious slope plays a big part and from -1% to +1% there can definitely be up to 0.5 sec difference to say 100mph. Here are 3 runs I did yesterday and they perfectly fall into a pattern of downhill = quicker time.

~ -1% = 0.26 sec quicker than ~ 0.0% | 0.0% = 0.26 sec quicker than ~ +1%.

Screenshot_20180521-223556_dragy.jpg
Screenshot_20180521-223539_dragy.jpg
Screenshot_20180521-223546_dragy.jpg
 

Leo-RS

Registered User
I agree with Kristijan, it's obvious slope plays a big part and from -1% to +1% there can definitely be up to 0.5 sec difference to say 100mph. Here are 3 runs I did yesterday and they perfectly fall into a pattern of downhill = quicker time.

~ -1% = 0.26 sec quicker than ~ 0.0% | 0.0% = 0.26 sec quicker than ~ +1%.

View attachment 156019
View attachment 156017
View attachment 156018

James, just a quick one on that, you are comparing a more than 2% swing there from -0.89 to 1.16 this represents a gradient swing of 2.05 which is clearly downhill. It’s the same as you finding a 0% and then running down a -2.05% which would be a fail. You would disregard a 1.16 run surely? Dragy says its uphill but would still obviously verify it. Anything positive would be verified.

In your pics, even the -0.89 to a +0.14 is larger than a 1% swing (1.03) and equates for a time differential of 0.26 maximum (8.73 to 8.47) but yet if you run 0% and then a -1.03% to achieve a 0.26sec benefit, on Dragy it would be a fail. So your conclusion of a 0.5sec benefit between 0 and -1% is wrong, it’s not even half of that.

And who is to say the DBN tool is accurate as it’s a 3rd party application and pretty much guesswork. It’s a prediction, not a recorded time?

Then you look at my examples on the 1/4m where my runs were quicker on the “uphill”. Yours may have been slower on the “uphill” due to a factor of things from traction, wind direction, heatsoak, timing pull etc etc. So nothing is obvious.

Kristijan, agree, you’re using the same metric each time which are keeping your results in line. Keep the updates coming in with Stage 2. Will Revo be mapping the TCU to allow more torque to the clutches? I notice with the Stage 1 they haven’t done it?
 

Kristijan Sabljar

Registered User
James, just a quick one on that, you are comparing a more than 2% swing there from -0.89 to 1.16 this represents a gradient swing of 2.05 which is clearly downhill. It’s the same as you finding a 0% and then running down a -2.05% which would be a fail. You would disregard a 1.16 run surely? Dragy says its uphill but would still obviously verify it. Anything positive would be verified.

In your pics, even the -0.89 to a +0.14 is larger than a 1% swing (1.03) and equates for a time differential of 0.26 maximum (8.73 to 8.47) but yet if you run 0% and then a -1.03% to achieve a 0.26sec benefit, on Dragy it would be a fail. So your conclusion of a 0.5sec benefit between 0 and -1% is wrong, it’s not even half of that.

And who is to say the DBN tool is accurate as it’s a 3rd party application and pretty much guesswork. It’s a prediction, not a recorded time?

Then you look at my examples on the 1/4m where my runs were quicker on the “uphill”. Yours may have been slower on the “uphill” due to a factor of things from traction, wind direction, heatsoak, timing pull etc etc. So nothing is obvious.

Kristijan, agree, you’re using the same metric each time which are keeping your results in line. Keep the updates coming in with Stage 2. Will Revo be mapping the TCU to allow more torque to the clutches? I notice with the Stage 1 they haven’t done it?
Yes stage 2 with TCU to get torque and full power. It will be quick one
 

JamesCrs3

Registered User
James, just a quick one on that, you are comparing a more than 2% swing there from -0.89 to 1.16 this represents a gradient swing of 2.05 which is clearly downhill. It’s the same as you finding a 0% and then running down a -2.05% which would be a fail. You would disregard a 1.16 run surely? Dragy says its uphill but would still obviously verify it. Anything positive would be verified.

In your pics, even the -0.89 to a +0.14 is larger than a 1% swing (1.03) and equates for a time differential of 0.26 maximum (8.73 to 8.47) but yet if you run 0% and then a -1.03% to achieve a 0.26sec benefit, on Dragy it would be a fail. So your conclusion of a 0.5sec benefit between 0 and -1% is wrong, it’s not even half of that.

And who is to say the DBN tool is accurate as it’s a 3rd party application and pretty much guesswork. It’s a prediction, not a recorded time?

Then you look at my examples on the 1/4m where my runs were quicker on the “uphill”. Yours may have been slower on the “uphill” due to a factor of things from traction, wind direction, heatsoak, timing pull etc etc. So nothing is obvious.

Kristijan, agree, you’re using the same metric each time which are keeping your results in line. Keep the updates coming in with Stage 2. Will Revo be mapping the TCU to allow more torque to the clutches? I notice with the Stage 1 they haven’t done it?

If you read my post properly you would see I said between -1 and +1. It's funny how you argue that gradient barely plays a part then you are going to be that picky about 0.03. Either way take away 0.01 - 0.02 seconds because of that discrepency, still leaves a proven 0.24 sec difference between every 1%. Also, your runs, if you look at the graphs, were downhill for a bit then uphill, there is most likely greater benefit to a downhill start because of inertia etc, mine were either fully downhill, flat or fully uphill. Stop clutching at straws, gravity is gravity!
 
Last edited:

Leo-RS

Registered User
If you read my post properly you would see I said between -1 and +1. It's funny how you argue that gradient barely plays a part then you are going to be that picky about 0.03. Either way take away 0.01 - 0.02 seconds because of that discrepency, still leaves a proven 0.24 sec difference between every 1%. Also, your runs, if you look at the graphs, were downhill for a bit then uphill, there is most likely greater benefit to a downhill start because of inertia etc, mine were either fully downhill, flat or fully uphill. Stop clutching at straws, gravity is gravity!

Well I'm not clutching at anything. You initially highlighted a 2% range which showed a 0.5 improvement but that would of course be a fail on Dragy. You are correct in saying that in your case on a 0-100mph if you managed to find a full -1% gradient then you would at maximum find an extra 0.24secs. However, In my example the -1% only shows a 0.03 sec benefit. I have a test where I run a quicker 1/4m "uphill" than I did "downhill" though which skews the argument further.

On the vbox, you can launch it down a 15% gradient and take a pic of your display, you can plot it in performance tools and no one would be any the wiser, you can run with 1ft rollout on and cheat it even more.

Dragy is much stricter, you can't cheat it at all, there's no 1ft rollout full stop and if you launch it down a hill its an immediate fail. The only benefit you have on the Dragy is finding a road with a 0 to -1% gradient. With the live leaderboard you can see what everyone is doing whether that run is at 0% or -1% or 0+%. If I see 2 cars on the Dragy leaderboard with the same time, i'll then compare their gradients, if one is at -0.5% and the other is at 0.5% then the car at 0.5% obviously gets placed higher than the car that run with a -0.5%.

My runs downhill for a bit and then uphill which gives me an advantage? Are you serious? Even using the words downhill and uphill as you are doing with a -1% gradient is crazy, the road I use is as flat as pancake to the naked eye, there is no downhill or uphill sections. My 1/4m runs were +0.12% in one direction and -0.12% in the other direction. Are you seriously trying to tell me that +0.12% and -0.12% offers any advantage or disadvantage? The 11.58 1/4 should have been quicker then as I done that with a 0.12%+ gradient? That's just getting ridiculous, I couldn't give a monkeys if my time decreased to 11.57 to correct for the 0.12% uphill.

And the golden question, who is to say that the 3rd party applications such as DBN scanner and vbox verify are accurate? Neither are endorsed by racelogic, they are based on theoretics and not actual recorded times. Like I said, I have both units, the vbox still has its place but I much now rather prefer the Dragy, welcome to 2018 I suppose rather than 1998.

I guess the best thing to do is always run with a positive gradient in Dragy, I know the direction for the +0.12% "uphill" section on my private runway so any times I do on Dragy should be slower than the real corrected 0% figure. Perhaps Dragy will incorporate a correction function in the future for those that do manage to run between 0 and -1% but based on what I have seen as the -1% is so narrow in the first place, you are talking hundredths of a second, perhaps a tenth or even 2/10 at the higher full -1% range and that would be off a 0-100mph+ run, not a 60 which is done in such a short space.
 
Last edited:

Leo-RS

Registered User
Kristijan, apologies, I was responding to James, I wont post any further about Dragy vs Vbox.

Looking forward to your S2 updates. I should be there myself in the next few weeks, problems here in the UK are the tuners, both MRC and APR in limbo at the moment. Not even sure Revo is an option for us in the UK yet? Are you aware of anything or are you just R&D testing at the moment?
 

JamesCrs3

Registered User
Well I'm not clutching at anything. You initially highlighted a 2% range which showed a 0.5 improvement but that would of course be a fail on Dragy. You are correct in saying that in your case on a 0-100mph if you managed to find a full -1% gradient then you would at maximum find an extra 0.24secs. However, In my example the -1% only shows a 0.03 sec benefit. I have a test where I run a quicker 1/4m "uphill" than I did "downhill" though which skews the argument further.

On the vbox, you can launch it down a 15% gradient and take a pic of your display, you can plot it in performance tools and no one would be any the wiser, you can run with 1ft rollout on and cheat it even more.

Dragy is much stricter, you can't cheat it at all, there's no 1ft rollout full stop and if you launch it down a hill its an immediate fail. The only benefit you have on the Dragy is finding a road with a 0 to -1% gradient. With the live leaderboard you can see what everyone is doing whether that run is at 0% or -1% or 0+%. If I see 2 cars on the Dragy leaderboard with the same time, i'll then compare their gradients, if one is at -0.5% and the other is at 0.5% then the car at 0.5% obviously gets placed higher than the car that run with a -0.5%.

My runs downhill for a bit and then uphill which gives me an advantage? Are you serious? Even using the words downhill and uphill as you are doing with a -1% gradient is crazy, the road I use is as flat as pancake to the naked eye, there is no downhill or uphill sections. My 1/4m runs were +0.12% in one direction and -0.12% in the other direction. Are you seriously trying to tell me that +0.12% and -0.12% offers any advantage or disadvantage? The 11.58 1/4 should have been quicker then as I done that with a 0.12%+ gradient? That's just getting ridiculous, I couldn't give a monkeys if my time decreased to 11.57 to correct for the 0.12% uphill.

And the golden question, who is to say that the 3rd party applications such as DBN scanner and vbox verify are accurate? Neither are endorsed by racelogic, they are based on theoretics and not actual recorded times. Like I said, I have both units, the vbox still has its place but I much now rather prefer the Dragy, welcome to 2018 I suppose rather than 1998.

I guess the best thing to do is always run with a positive gradient in Dragy, I know the direction for the +0.12% "uphill" section on my private runway so any times I do on Dragy should be slower than the real corrected 0% figure. Perhaps Dragy will incorporate a correction function in the future for those that do manage to run between 0 and -1% but based on what I have seen as the -1% is so narrow in the first place, you are talking hundredths of a second, perhaps a tenth or even 2/10 at the higher full -1% range and that would be off a 0-100mph+ run, not a 60 which is done in such a short space.
You have too many points you are trying to talk about. All I am saying is if you go downhill you will go faster and I have proven it by supplying clear evidence that in my runs it can be around 0.24 of a second difference to 100mph based on the slope. That is all.
 

JamesCrs3

Registered User
Kristijan, apologies, I was responding to James, I wont post any further about Dragy vs Vbox.

Looking forward to your S2 updates. I should be there myself in the next few weeks, problems here in the UK are the tuners, both MRC and APR in limbo at the moment. Not even sure Revo is an option for us in the UK yet? Are you aware of anything or are you just R&D testing at the moment?
MRC in limbo?
 

Leo-RS

Registered User
Hopefully that's next week then!
Summer in the U.K. is about a month off yet. I believe they mean around mid July tho.

I’m sure you can just get a normal S1/S2 tune but why would you want too when they have this feature incoming. They’ve already released one car with it so must just be finalising it before release.
 

Kristijan Sabljar

Registered User
Kristijan, apologies, I was responding to James, I wont post any further about Dragy vs Vbox.

Looking forward to your S2 updates. I should be there myself in the next few weeks, problems here in the UK are the tuners, both MRC and APR in limbo at the moment. Not even sure Revo is an option for us in the UK yet? Are you aware of anything or are you just R&D testing at the moment?

Revo has switchable options from 2006
I have on my car 4 maps , stock without speed limiter, 97,98,100 ron . STG1 available in UK at this moment so feel free to contact them
 

Kristijan Sabljar

Registered User
Kristijan, apologies, I was responding to James, I wont post any further about Dragy vs Vbox.

Looking forward to your S2 updates. I should be there myself in the next few weeks, problems here in the UK are the tuners, both MRC and APR in limbo at the moment. Not even sure Revo is an option for us in the UK yet? Are you aware of anything or are you just R&D testing at the moment?

And Revos TTRS development is faster than RS3
they got 0-60mph 3.1 sec
0-100mph 7.1 sec
100-200kmh 7.55 sec

So i would go for stg1 map asap :D
 

Leo-RS

Registered User
Kristijan, what has your 1/4m time improved by with a Stage 1? How many tenths have you managed to chop off with just software?
 

MarkLand

Registered User
On the 8v FL, at which torque do we need forged internals?
600hp is easy with the FL bolt-ons, but is it reliable?

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk
 

D0C

Registered User
Knocking on the door of 10's for the 1/4 mile with just software is hugely impressive.

Remember Aoon's near 700bhp car ran a 10.99s best. Even accounting for poor traction/conditions etc, it's still mighty impressive that the FL is nearly matching it with a flash of the ECU.
 

PanamaS3

Registered User

H4RDYRS3

Registered User
What Ron fuel are you running to get the 11.06 ?
And is the car still full weight ?
Also what mph terminal ?
 

NevMan

Well known member

Kristijan Sabljar

Registered User
Race weeknd over, it was hot and humid 30 celzius and tarmac was bad at start so 60ft was horrible for AWD with Michelin Cup 2 tires 1.9-2.0

I was on full interior , 98 fuel , BEST 11.4 with ****** 60ft (0-100kmh 3.6 best)
33380527_1808757195811401_6661523215585640448_o (1).jpg
but still manage to beat GTRs and won 2nd place in class 11 :D

Next track in 3 weeks, it is good so 60 ft should be 1.7 and i hope 11.1-11.2 time
IMAG3769.jpg
 

Slowracer

Registered User
That’s a great result.....but looking at the way you scrunched upmthe time slip, you weren’t happy :yes:

With some colder weather you should be able to shave 2/10ths of that time and a good launch a high 10 is possible.
 

D0C

Registered User
Good numbers although I expected more torque? I was getting 630nm from my stage 1 PFL and have seen 680nm from FL cars.
 

Kristijan Sabljar

Registered User
Good numbers although I expected more torque? I was getting 630nm from my stage 1 PFL and have seen 680nm from FL cars.

Lots of torque = lots of heat. On stage 1 to get consistent car u have to keep till 600nm . U can see graphs with 650nm stg1 but its just peek torque and gets less than mine on 6000. like this car is consistent after 5 100-200kmh runs its same time . This 98 fuel tuning. 100 fuel tuning is 600nm+
 

betaone68

Registered User
Did you find any corrections from the ECU using a 98 octane map? On my RS3 8V using gasoline Q8 100 (the best available on the Italian market) where to use 97 octane map. With the 98+ map, I found too high aberrations, even - 6%
 

Kristijan Sabljar

Registered User
Did you find any corrections from the ECU using a 98 octane map? On my RS3 8V using gasoline Q8 100 (the best available on the Italian market) where to use 97 octane map. With the 98+ map, I found too high aberrations, even - 6%
Fuel is bad or timing map is too agresive. U shouldnt drive that much correction. -3 max . On mine is 0 retrad

Depends alot of tuning . Few new RS3 died in Italy and maped. Bad fuel + lots of timing could be issuee
 

betaone68

Registered User
I had REVO map. On the 8 V there were 3 selectable maps = equivalent map stock - map 97 - map 98+. That's why I was wondering how to work REVO 98 map. On my old 8V I was forced to use map 97.
 
Top