[Osborne Reynolds]

Thanks Bluesport.

This is a ROUGH measure.. a 'start point'... or 'back of the envelope calculation'

The restrictor on these new v8s is very short (so it acts like a smaller restrictor). So, in this case, with 2.5 ratio, it's probably acting more like a 2.6-2.7 ratio.

You could also see the evidence of poorly sized throttle in a fuel map.. you'll see a characteristic jump at low load (small throttle angle), because there is a jump in mass flow rate of air being taken in.... which makes a jump in torque / power output.

If you persist with a large throttle, and try and 'iron out the problem' and 'create more feel' by using 'pedal mapping'.. you will reach a point where the control system wont function well. Every aspect of the digital control system uses interpolation, combined with a high rate of update. And for this to work, you can't have large jumps across the tables from which you are attempting to interpolate.... that's a reason... again the root cause is poorly sized hardware

You could also try to improve the situation by adding more load points... or by using MAP for load point... but there is a limit to how effective this will be.

Another complication is regarding plenum volume... as the plenum volume increases, there is a 'lag' in mass flow rate response when you 'blip' the throttle. My limited (and ancient) experience with Motec was that there exists correction factors for rate of acceleration, but nothing for the 'lag' produced by small restrictor / large plenum. (god help anyone trying to make this work without using a MAP sensor)... The best way to avoid a whole lot of complication is to keep plenum volumes as small as possible without introducing head loss from tight bends