The new dyno thread
17-09-2008, 09:47 PM
#81
BANNED
BANNED
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: .
Posts: 11,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love it when you're assertive.
would have got an A for my other maths exam but did it in pencil 
17-09-2008, 11:55 PM
#101
The reason I got so irrate on the other thread is that all the comments that I am "alleged" to have said are being attributed as if they were recent (and still are by Tony in this thread 
).
The TUV thing was from years ago, and as far as I am aware, at the time it was mentioned, Harvey's dyno was still TUV approved, as he was still doing work for Ford.
I have no idea when the certification ran out and have just assumed that it did some while ago. However, I haven't mentioned TUV approval for a considerably long period of time regarding Mark's power figures - although every man and his dog has made digs since then about TUV approval, but I have always just ignored these comments. But according to some, that makes me a hypocrite, because the TUV approval has almost certainly now lapsed and I haven't mentioned it. Well guess what, I haven't mentioned TUV in years
The fact remains, Harvey continues to have the dyno calibrated and set-up in the same way that achieved the original approval.
In fact, when it has come to Mark and his achievements over the last few years, I have done NOTHING but sling praise on every single one of the dyno posts (go back and check if you don't believe me - I am always one of the first to congratulate Mark!). So it is somewhat galling that certain people (it is obvious to see who, as it is always the same ones), want to believe / create some vendetta going on between myself and Mark.
My only ever point has been (and still is) that Simon's dyno figures cannot be directly compared to Mountune's / Ford's / Harvey's, as the dyno cells / Superflows are not set up in the exact same way and Mark uses a different format for obtaining his figures. This can be seen by the excessive cell temps that Simon's dyno suffers from (leading to over-correction on the figures), which can be attributed to either incorrect temp probe location, or insufficient cell air exchange system, or maybe a combination of the two. This is without even seeing the software figures entered in the set-up screen. Therefore, it alludes me as to why Mark doesn't concur that the figures cannot be directly compared, when he knows this to be the case
.
In all the time I have been allegedly talking out of my arse about this disparity in comparing "apples with oranges", all that had to be done to shoot me down in flames is for Simon to post on here all the relevant information (including a screenshot of the set up figures) and a description in detail about the air exchange system / temp probe location. Even if it was incorrect (as when Harvey first had his dyno in the original workshop 12 years ago, he made some schoolboy errors in the installation etc), then it would show there was nothing to hide and maybe there could be a swapping of information to lead to the dyno being able to be directly compared to Mountune's / Ford's / Harvey's. In fact, this is EXACTLY what Joe Stevens of Bluesprint chose to do, as he was fed up with getting inaccurate "bullshit" figures, so bought his own Superflow dyno and contacted Harvey to help set it up, due to Harvey being able to provide the set-up process that would achieve comparable figures to Mountune etc.
As to Tony's remarks, he feels it is acceptible to belittle me and make snide remarks, but when I retaliate, I am a bad mod. It is plainly obvious that he has his own agenda regarding me, so anything he says can be discarded as the ramblings of a bitter and twisted person, who has nothing good to say about anyone. I'm sure anyone who has been on the phone to him will realise how much he slags EVERYONE off to.
Anyhow, if anything, it has been good to discover who your real friends are, compared to those that are just people you know. Peace out brothers.
). The TUV thing was from years ago, and as far as I am aware, at the time it was mentioned, Harvey's dyno was still TUV approved, as he was still doing work for Ford.
I have no idea when the certification ran out and have just assumed that it did some while ago. However, I haven't mentioned TUV approval for a considerably long period of time regarding Mark's power figures - although every man and his dog has made digs since then about TUV approval, but I have always just ignored these comments. But according to some, that makes me a hypocrite, because the TUV approval has almost certainly now lapsed and I haven't mentioned it. Well guess what, I haven't mentioned TUV in years
The fact remains, Harvey continues to have the dyno calibrated and set-up in the same way that achieved the original approval.
In fact, when it has come to Mark and his achievements over the last few years, I have done NOTHING but sling praise on every single one of the dyno posts (go back and check if you don't believe me - I am always one of the first to congratulate Mark!). So it is somewhat galling that certain people (it is obvious to see who, as it is always the same ones), want to believe / create some vendetta going on between myself and Mark.
My only ever point has been (and still is) that Simon's dyno figures cannot be directly compared to Mountune's / Ford's / Harvey's, as the dyno cells / Superflows are not set up in the exact same way and Mark uses a different format for obtaining his figures. This can be seen by the excessive cell temps that Simon's dyno suffers from (leading to over-correction on the figures), which can be attributed to either incorrect temp probe location, or insufficient cell air exchange system, or maybe a combination of the two. This is without even seeing the software figures entered in the set-up screen. Therefore, it alludes me as to why Mark doesn't concur that the figures cannot be directly compared, when he knows this to be the case
.In all the time I have been allegedly talking out of my arse about this disparity in comparing "apples with oranges", all that had to be done to shoot me down in flames is for Simon to post on here all the relevant information (including a screenshot of the set up figures) and a description in detail about the air exchange system / temp probe location. Even if it was incorrect (as when Harvey first had his dyno in the original workshop 12 years ago, he made some schoolboy errors in the installation etc), then it would show there was nothing to hide and maybe there could be a swapping of information to lead to the dyno being able to be directly compared to Mountune's / Ford's / Harvey's. In fact, this is EXACTLY what Joe Stevens of Bluesprint chose to do, as he was fed up with getting inaccurate "bullshit" figures, so bought his own Superflow dyno and contacted Harvey to help set it up, due to Harvey being able to provide the set-up process that would achieve comparable figures to Mountune etc.
As to Tony's remarks, he feels it is acceptible to belittle me and make snide remarks, but when I retaliate, I am a bad mod
. It is plainly obvious that he has his own agenda regarding me, so anything he says can be discarded as the ramblings of a bitter and twisted person, who has nothing good to say about anyone. I'm sure anyone who has been on the phone to him will realise how much he slags EVERYONE off to.Anyhow, if anything, it has been good to discover who your real friends are, compared to those that are just people you know. Peace out brothers
.
18-09-2008, 12:05 AM
#102
Fucking superstar........
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Argyll.... It's lonely...
Posts: 13,240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bet you it took you ages to type all that out
Am I the only one who just doesn't give a fuck about people dyno figures? It's all about enjoying the cars
Am I the only one who just doesn't give a fuck about people dyno figures? It's all about enjoying the cars
18-09-2008, 04:27 AM
#103
So its not so much about caring about figures just for figures sake, but because of what they imply about how the car will drive.
18-09-2008, 06:02 AM
#105
Testing the future
the rest of this thread and the other one are just politics, willy waving, bullshit and unnecessary bitchiness
18-09-2008, 06:44 AM
#106
PassionFord Post Troll
I have the answer to all your problems.
Unfortunatly the problem lies with the type of dyno you have all bought.
All braked/load cell dynos will require some type of calibration and over time/use there is the possibility for them to loose their calibration.
If you want repeatable accuracy what you should have bought is an inertia dyno.
As long as the bearings are maintaned the moment of inertia of your drum/flywheel will not change over time and therefore the results will always be correct.
The bike horsepower shoot outs that are taken quite seriously in the states will only use an inertia dyno because of its repeatable data.
I think its funny that Mike something or other, the uk DD dealer had the cheek to slate inertia dynos in a recent PF mag article and stated that they were less accurate than a load cell dyno. I wonder what type of dyno he sells?
Unfortunatly the problem lies with the type of dyno you have all bought.
All braked/load cell dynos will require some type of calibration and over time/use there is the possibility for them to loose their calibration.
If you want repeatable accuracy what you should have bought is an inertia dyno.
As long as the bearings are maintaned the moment of inertia of your drum/flywheel will not change over time and therefore the results will always be correct.
The bike horsepower shoot outs that are taken quite seriously in the states will only use an inertia dyno because of its repeatable data.
I think its funny that Mike something or other, the uk DD dealer had the cheek to slate inertia dynos in a recent PF mag article and stated that they were less accurate than a load cell dyno. I wonder what type of dyno he sells?
18-09-2008, 07:01 AM
#108
i've read up until this point in this thread
imagine the dyno is a normal car, and that it needs an mot certificate
this certificate is issued once a year to make sure everything is all well and good
if you don't have an mot certificate you can get into trouble simply due to the fact that you don't have one, even if your car is still ship and shape
now, does the dyno at mikes mates place have a current valid dyno certificate as provided by the bods an tuc?
and, if not, how long ago did the last one expire?
and, if it has not exprired as of yet, how long between the tests to make it valid for the above reasons?
if this thread is still here i will expect an answer to these above questions from someone, until then, i'm off to work
mind you, if they have already been answered then fine, i'll read the answer when i get back
18-09-2008, 07:24 AM
#109
Dojj,
The way I understand it, is that the dyno is still calibrated and certified for accuracy (MOT), but the inspection of this process has not been recently carried out for TUV approval.
I suppose the analogy to compare with your MOT would be that the MOT has been carried out, but the MOT station hasn't been recently checked for compliance?
However, the thing that gets me is the lack of transparency. I try to be completely factual and neutral in my comments, but because I am comment about the dyno Mark uses, it is deemed that I am attempting to negate Mark's hard work / figures.
Now Mark is a VERY clever person, and I KNOW that he knows how Harvey / Ahmed et al dyno their engines and the process that is used to publicise the figures. At no time has he chosen to replicate this and choses to dyno his engines and show the figures HIS way (completely different to how the three I mention do it).
Given the above and to ensure comparibility, why does he not do the dyno runs in the same way as SCS et al?
That way there could be fair and accurate comparisons made between the two.
So to end all this RUBBISH, why doesn't Mark do his future dyno runs in the same way for direct comparison, which would mean with both the cell temperature and barometric pressure listed, and the figures as the individual load sites captured on the mapping runs, rather than a full power pull at the end?
Then I would have nothing to harp on about regarding "apples and oranges" and then the only thing that could be queried is the calibration / set up of the dyno, instead of the two issues I believe are there at the moment.
It would be nice to have a logical and scientific discussion, but because of the people involved, it is always assumed that it is a slanging match.
I can remember when Danny form ABC Motorsport came on, and I said the EXACT same thing about HIS figures, and he admitted that he was fed up with the disparity in them as well, hence why he would be using Joe for future mapping, whose dyno was to be set up in the same way as the SCS one. SO to claim it is me just targetting MAD is rubbish.
The pure and simple facts are, that I HATE the fact that in the tuning world, tuners think it is okay to pull the wool over people's eyes and claim inaccurate figures to make the customer happy (this is NOT aimed at any specific person / company, but is an "in general" statement), rather than truelly accurate figures that can be compared like for like with other figures. So whenever I see a format that is being used that cannot be compared to the industry approved norm, I mention it.
Anyone intelligent will be able to see why, and I thank the Lord for the likes of ForeignRS et al, who can see what I have been trying to get accross all along, even if other people are too blinkered to see .
If Harvey started changing his dyno recording method to one that was different to the recognised industry standard, I would soon be saying the same thing about his figures.
The way I understand it, is that the dyno is still calibrated and certified for accuracy (MOT), but the inspection of this process has not been recently carried out for TUV approval.
I suppose the analogy to compare with your MOT would be that the MOT has been carried out, but the MOT station hasn't been recently checked for compliance?
However, the thing that gets me is the lack of transparency. I try to be completely factual and neutral in my comments, but because I am comment about the dyno Mark uses, it is deemed that I am attempting to negate Mark's hard work / figures.
Now Mark is a VERY clever person, and I KNOW that he knows how Harvey / Ahmed et al dyno their engines and the process that is used to publicise the figures. At no time has he chosen to replicate this and choses to dyno his engines and show the figures HIS way (completely different to how the three I mention do it).
Given the above and to ensure comparibility, why does he not do the dyno runs in the same way as SCS et al?
That way there could be fair and accurate comparisons made between the two.So to end all this RUBBISH, why doesn't Mark do his future dyno runs in the same way for direct comparison, which would mean with both the cell temperature and barometric pressure listed, and the figures as the individual load sites captured on the mapping runs, rather than a full power pull at the end?
Then I would have nothing to harp on about regarding "apples and oranges" and then the only thing that could be queried is the calibration / set up of the dyno, instead of the two issues I believe are there at the moment.
It would be nice to have a logical and scientific discussion, but because of the people involved, it is always assumed that it is a slanging match.
I can remember when Danny form ABC Motorsport came on, and I said the EXACT same thing about HIS figures, and he admitted that he was fed up with the disparity in them as well, hence why he would be using Joe for future mapping, whose dyno was to be set up in the same way as the SCS one. SO to claim it is me just targetting MAD is rubbish.
The pure and simple facts are, that I HATE the fact that in the tuning world, tuners think it is okay to pull the wool over people's eyes and claim inaccurate figures to make the customer happy (this is NOT aimed at any specific person / company, but is an "in general" statement), rather than truelly accurate figures that can be compared like for like with other figures. So whenever I see a format that is being used that cannot be compared to the industry approved norm, I mention it.
Anyone intelligent will be able to see why, and I thank the Lord for the likes of ForeignRS et al, who can see what I have been trying to get accross all along
, even if other people are too blinkered to see . If Harvey started changing his dyno recording method to one that was different to the recognised industry standard, I would soon be saying the same thing about his figures.
18-09-2008, 07:39 AM
#111
Dojj,
The way I understand it, is that the dyno is still calibrated and certified for accuracy (MOT), but the inspection of this process has not been recently carried out for TUV approval.
I suppose the analogy to compare with your MOT would be that the MOT has been carried out, but the MOT station hasn't been recently checked for compliance?
However, the thing that gets me is the lack of transparency. I try to be completely factual and neutral in my comments, but because I am comment about the dyno Mark uses, it is deemed that I am attempting to negate Mark's hard work / figures.
Now Mark is a VERY clever person, and I KNOW that he knows how Harvey / Ahmed et al dyno their engines and the process that is used to publicise the figures. At no time has he chosen to replicate this and choses to dyno his engines and show the figures HIS way (completely different to how the three I mention do it).
Given the above and to ensure comparibility, why does he not do the dyno runs in the same way as SCS et al? That way there could be fair and accurate comparisons made between the two.
So to end all this RUBBISH, why doesn't Mark do his future dyno runs in the same way for direct comparison, which would mean with both the cell temperature and barometric pressure listed, and the figures as the individual load sites captured on the mapping runs, rather than a full power pull at the end?
Then I would have nothing to harp on about regarding "apples and oranges" and then the only thing that could be queried is the calibration / set up of the dyno, instead of the two issues I believe are there at the moment.
It would be nice to have a logical and scientific discussion, but because of the people involved, it is always assumed that it is a slanging match.
I can remember when Danny form ABC Motorsport came on, and I said the EXACT same thing about HIS figures, and he admitted that he was fed up with the disparity in them as well, hence why he would be using Joe for future mapping, whose dyno was to be set up in the same way as the SCS one. SO to claim it is me just targetting MAD is rubbish.
The pure and simple facts are, that I HATE the fact that in the tuning world, tuners think it is okay to pull the wool over people's eyes and claim inaccurate figures to make the customer happy (this is NOT aimed at any specific person / company, but is an "in general" statement), rather than truelly accurate figures that can be compared like for like with other figures. So whenever I see a format that is being used that cannot be compared to the industry approved norm, I mention it.
Anyone intelligent will be able to see why, and I thank the Lord for the likes of ForeignRS et al, who can see what I have been trying to get accross all along, even if other people are too blinkered to see .
If Harvey started changing his dyno recording method to one that was different to the recognised industry standard, I would soon be saying the same thing about his figures.
The way I understand it, is that the dyno is still calibrated and certified for accuracy (MOT), but the inspection of this process has not been recently carried out for TUV approval.
I suppose the analogy to compare with your MOT would be that the MOT has been carried out, but the MOT station hasn't been recently checked for compliance?
However, the thing that gets me is the lack of transparency. I try to be completely factual and neutral in my comments, but because I am comment about the dyno Mark uses, it is deemed that I am attempting to negate Mark's hard work / figures.
Now Mark is a VERY clever person, and I KNOW that he knows how Harvey / Ahmed et al dyno their engines and the process that is used to publicise the figures. At no time has he chosen to replicate this and choses to dyno his engines and show the figures HIS way (completely different to how the three I mention do it).
Given the above and to ensure comparibility, why does he not do the dyno runs in the same way as SCS et al?
That way there could be fair and accurate comparisons made between the two.So to end all this RUBBISH, why doesn't Mark do his future dyno runs in the same way for direct comparison, which would mean with both the cell temperature and barometric pressure listed, and the figures as the individual load sites captured on the mapping runs, rather than a full power pull at the end?
Then I would have nothing to harp on about regarding "apples and oranges" and then the only thing that could be queried is the calibration / set up of the dyno, instead of the two issues I believe are there at the moment.
It would be nice to have a logical and scientific discussion, but because of the people involved, it is always assumed that it is a slanging match.
I can remember when Danny form ABC Motorsport came on, and I said the EXACT same thing about HIS figures, and he admitted that he was fed up with the disparity in them as well, hence why he would be using Joe for future mapping, whose dyno was to be set up in the same way as the SCS one. SO to claim it is me just targetting MAD is rubbish.
The pure and simple facts are, that I HATE the fact that in the tuning world, tuners think it is okay to pull the wool over people's eyes and claim inaccurate figures to make the customer happy (this is NOT aimed at any specific person / company, but is an "in general" statement), rather than truelly accurate figures that can be compared like for like with other figures. So whenever I see a format that is being used that cannot be compared to the industry approved norm, I mention it.
Anyone intelligent will be able to see why, and I thank the Lord for the likes of ForeignRS et al, who can see what I have been trying to get accross all along
, even if other people are too blinkered to see . If Harvey started changing his dyno recording method to one that was different to the recognised industry standard, I would soon be saying the same thing about his figures.
I can tell you quite categorically that I saw nothing out of hand when I was there recently with Rods engine, the dyno room was at ambient temperature, and the temp probe wasnt sat in anyone's cup of tea.
In fact the correction factor was only about 5bhp IIRC (upwards) but he quoted the uncorrected (therefore misleadingly low by about 5bhp if anything) figures IIRC when I was posting on here.
Last edited by Chip; 18-09-2008 at 07:47 AM.
18-09-2008, 07:51 AM
#112
Chip,
I HONESTLY have no idea why he won't show the figures in the format as described above. However, I seem to remember that he made a DELIBERATE choice to do it in a completely different way, but I do not know why, you would have to get him to answer that question.
What I find strange is, that Mark understands the following:
Which you need to have to be able to "officially" compare accredited DD runs to other accredited DD runs (they have to all be done EXACTLY the same way and in the same mode), which every accredited DD operator should be sticking to, to allow repeatability and direct comparison.
Yet, he doesn't seem to "get" where I am coming from with regard to direct comparisons with the engine dynos.
I HONESTLY have no idea why he won't show the figures in the format as described above. However, I seem to remember that he made a DELIBERATE choice to do it in a completely different way, but I do not know why, you would have to get him to answer that question.
What I find strange is, that Mark understands the following:
Yet, he doesn't seem to "get" where I am coming from with regard to direct comparisons with the engine dynos
.
18-09-2008, 08:03 AM
#116
The second you stoop so low, you will receive similar retaliation. If you don't want to receive this back, then don't dish out the comments that are designed to get a reaction
. I haven't got a temper, I just think you're a ************* (what-ever Rod thought I was ). When I see your comments, I laugh to myself at how sad you are, but then think that you deserve a back-lash reply, so give you what you so crave .
18-09-2008, 08:08 AM
#117
Mike, so what did I do that you class as stooping low to get a barrage of abuse from you? Because I tell the truth?
And what has Mark done to justify all your nasty slander that you are kicking off again with? Other than be totally honest and open about his figures, his failures, and his top speed results to back the figures up?
And what has Mark done to justify all your nasty slander that you are kicking off again with? Other than be totally honest and open about his figures, his failures, and his top speed results to back the figures up?
18-09-2008, 08:12 AM
#119
. I never ONCE said that Mark "fudged" the figures, it was the MADettes interpretation of my comments as per usual (Rod in the main saying that last time) .1. It is FACT that Mark does his runs differently to Harvey.
2. I have no idea why, and I have no idea HOW this affects the results. All I know is that whilst you continue to dyno in this method, people CANNOT make direct comparisons with other dyno figures, only those that are gained from the same dyno in the same way.
3. Get MARK to state why he does it differently?
4. This is why I got so upset yesterday, the CONSTANT twisting of words to create a perceived vendetta
.You say you want the truth, then badger MARK into answering the above questions (or if you already know the answers, post them up
).All I have EVER wanted is complete transparancy and comparibility - nothing more, nothing less.
18-09-2008, 08:16 AM
#120
Mike, Mark straps an engine on the calibrated dyno, the temp correction probe and barometric pressure sender are put in an appropriate place, he runs the engine up, he gets the figures.
In what way is that different to what Harvery does?
In what way is that different to what Harvery does?