The new dyno thread
18-09-2008, 08:22 AM
#122
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? 
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, 08:30 AM
#126
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike give up,as you are speaking for harvey and chip is speaking for Mark,reyland infact everyone else,lol.You cannot win,people are very selective on here as to what they digest and choose to ignore!
i can see exactly where you are comming from,but then i am digesting everything you write
i can see exactly where you are comming from,but then i am digesting everything you write
18-09-2008, 08:33 AM
#127
corrected dyno figures are just that corrected,when you drive your car up the road or on the track the power output is weather related.Barometric conditions can vary your cars output by upto 15% approx.
On a good power day your 500 bhp car makes 500bhp on a bad power day your car could only be 425 bhp
Happy bickering
On a good power day your 500 bhp car makes 500bhp on a bad power day your car could only be 425 bhp
Happy bickering
18-09-2008, 08:35 AM
#128
Mike give up,as you are speaking for harvey and chip is speaking for Mark,reyland infact everyone else,lol.You cannot win,people are very selective on here as to what they digest and choose to ignore!
i can see exactly where you are comming from,but then i am digesting everything you write
i can see exactly where you are comming from,but then i am digesting everything you write
Mike's main argument seems to be that Mark didnt put the temp and barometric reading on his graphs, but Ive been stood there personally when an engine has been dyno'd and there is nothing out of hand happening.
The only effect they have is on the correction factor and from what Ive seen Mark is happy to have people see both the corrected and uncorrected figures anyway!
18-09-2008, 08:39 AM
#129
See, this is what happened last time 
. 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.
. 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.
So instead of playing the victim and shouting abuse at people like myself and chip, sort yourself out, accpet that the 1st person EVER on this board to mention TUV approval and cell correction temps was you and therefore you get it back. As for you havent mentioned this subject for years. Well done. Tony from Turbo systems was years ago with his big power cossies. Didnt stop you winding him up and digging at him did it 
one rule for you and another for others i see
18-09-2008, 08:42 AM
#130
Chip / Tony,
Harvey's runs show:
Engine speed / Engine trq / Bhp / Oil pressure / Boost / Water in / Cell temp / Barometric pressure / Lambda
His recordered runs are the individual mapping points from 3000 rpm (or what-ever point the turbo makes boost at if it is a large one) to the rev limit in 500 rpm increments.
From what I understand of Mark's power runs, they do not show all these figures, as he has chosen not to do this (only he knows why). His print-outs (from memory of his comments), are also dyno power runs (a full pull?), not the static load points?
From what I understand from Harvey, the method he uses is how he was told by Ford / Ahmed that they required to enable direct comparison with Mountune / Ford's own dynos.
Why doesn't Mark want to do his runs in the same way? He has never explained why he has chosen to do it this way? Whereas Harvey does it this way, because that is the way he has been told to do it for comparibility purposes.
With the cell temp / barometric figures listed, you can even see what correction should have been applied (as in up or down).
If Mark honestly thinks this is a personal vendetta, why doesn't he just beat me at my own "alleged" game and adopt the method of obtaining figures that Mountune et al use? This is something that I have never understood . It would put an end to all this bullshit AND the figures can be directly compared to the ones obtained on Mountune, Ford, SCS and Blue Sprint dynos.
Harvey's runs show:
Engine speed / Engine trq / Bhp / Oil pressure / Boost / Water in / Cell temp / Barometric pressure / Lambda
His recordered runs are the individual mapping points from 3000 rpm (or what-ever point the turbo makes boost at if it is a large one) to the rev limit in 500 rpm increments.
From what I understand of Mark's power runs, they do not show all these figures, as he has chosen not to do this (only he knows why). His print-outs (from memory of his comments), are also dyno power runs (a full pull?), not the static load points?
From what I understand from Harvey, the method he uses is how he was told by Ford / Ahmed that they required to enable direct comparison with Mountune / Ford's own dynos.
Why doesn't Mark want to do his runs in the same way? He has never explained why he has chosen to do it this way? Whereas Harvey does it this way, because that is the way he has been told to do it for comparibility purposes.
With the cell temp / barometric figures listed, you can even see what correction should have been applied (as in up or down).
If Mark honestly thinks this is a personal vendetta, why doesn't he just beat me at my own "alleged" game and adopt the method of obtaining figures that Mountune et al use
? This is something that I have never understood . It would put an end to all this bullshit AND the figures can be directly compared to the ones obtained on Mountune, Ford, SCS and Blue Sprint dynos.
18-09-2008, 08:45 AM
#131
Mike, I would imagine Mark likes posting graphs rather than figures, the dyno allows you to do both, and there is nothing out of hand in picking one way or the other.
Im sure that for someone like ford, they want the data in the rawest possible form, but for posting on a website, a graph is perfectly acceptable IMHO, wether it is a superflow one or a dynodynamics one.
Im sure that for someone like ford, they want the data in the rawest possible form, but for posting on a website, a graph is perfectly acceptable IMHO, wether it is a superflow one or a dynodynamics one.
18-09-2008, 08:45 AM
#133
Mike give up,as you are speaking for harvey and chip is speaking for Mark,reyland infact everyone else,lol.You cannot win,people are very selective on here as to what they digest and choose to ignore!
i can see exactly where you are comming from,but then i am digesting everything you write
i can see exactly where you are comming from,but then i am digesting everything you write
To be honest I didn't realise that the two dynos were actually set up differently.
18-09-2008, 08:47 AM
#134
Havent spoken for you in anyway at all mate, Ive no idea what that fella is on about.
All Ive said, is that Mark uses a correctly calibrated dyno, and he chooses to publish the nice easy to read graphs from it, as opposed to columns of data, and I think there is nothing wrong with that at all, especially given that I have seen how slight the correction factor was on Rod's dyno runs anyway!
All Ive said, is that Mark uses a correctly calibrated dyno, and he chooses to publish the nice easy to read graphs from it, as opposed to columns of data, and I think there is nothing wrong with that at all, especially given that I have seen how slight the correction factor was on Rod's dyno runs anyway!
18-09-2008, 08:49 AM
#135
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corsham
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike why do you think SCS are the authority on the SF901 dyno just because they allegedly adhere to the TUV approval but do not currently hold a certificate for? We operate our dyno based on the manufacturer’s recommendations.
I would really appreciate it if you took your head out of your arse and smelt the salt that just because you/your tuner can’t do it, doesn’t mean it’s not possible. We have proved as a company that our cars are the fastest out there in their field using figures obtained from our SF-901 and all our customers get the same level of service. Get over yourself!
“When using the advised guidelines the SF-901 can result in 0.1% repeatability” Some of which is detailed below, our dyno conforms to or exceeds all parameters listed;
A) Test cell air should be replaced at least 8-10 times per minute.
B) Ensure exhaust system is correctly sealed within the cell and suffers from little or zero back pressure.
C) Calibration should be performed as often as possible.
D) Change absorber oil every 60-100 hours of operation.
E) Oil & Water temperature management should be sufficient and stable.
F) Correlate dyno Baro with mercury based Baro.
G) Use consistent test parameters.
H) Tune for the correct A/F ratio at all times.
These are just some of the notes to follow as advised by Superflow, there are many many more! Would you like me to list the load cell calibration procedure also???
Cheers
Simon
I would really appreciate it if you took your head out of your arse and smelt the salt that just because you/your tuner can’t do it, doesn’t mean it’s not possible. We have proved as a company that our cars are the fastest out there in their field using figures obtained from our SF-901 and all our customers get the same level of service. Get over yourself!
“When using the advised guidelines the SF-901 can result in 0.1% repeatability” Some of which is detailed below, our dyno conforms to or exceeds all parameters listed;
A) Test cell air should be replaced at least 8-10 times per minute.
B) Ensure exhaust system is correctly sealed within the cell and suffers from little or zero back pressure.
C) Calibration should be performed as often as possible.
D) Change absorber oil every 60-100 hours of operation.
E) Oil & Water temperature management should be sufficient and stable.
F) Correlate dyno Baro with mercury based Baro.
G) Use consistent test parameters.
H) Tune for the correct A/F ratio at all times.
These are just some of the notes to follow as advised by Superflow, there are many many more! Would you like me to list the load cell calibration procedure also???
Cheers
Simon
18-09-2008, 08:50 AM
#137
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry martin i added you and the rest for a bit of banter,as he does like to speak on others behalfs and wont let it drop.
as for the comment,you have lost 2 friends over this,i am dumbfounded,its the internet and i have always assumed that its all friendly banter with a bit of bravado because you are not within punching distance lol
as for the comment,you have lost 2 friends over this,i am dumbfounded,its the internet and i have always assumed that its all friendly banter with a bit of bravado because you are not within punching distance lol
18-09-2008, 08:52 AM
#139
Mike why do you think SCS are the authority on the SF901 dyno just because they allegedly adhere to the TUV approval but do not currently hold a certificate for? We operate our dyno based on the manufacturers recommendations.
I would really appreciate it if you took your head out of your arse and smelt the salt that just because you/your tuner cant do it, doesnt mean its not possible. We have proved as a company that our cars are the fastest out there in their field using figures obtained from our SF-901 and all our customers get the same level of service. Get over yourself!
When using the advised guidelines the SF-901 can result in 0.1% repeatability Some of which is detailed below, our dyno conforms to or exceeds all parameters listed;
A) Test cell air should be replaced at least 8-10 times per minute.
B) Ensure exhaust system is correctly sealed within the cell and suffers from little or zero back pressure.
C) Calibration should be performed as often as possible.
D) Change absorber oil every 60-100 hours of operation.
E) Oil & Water temperature management should be sufficient and stable.
F) Correlate dyno Baro with mercury based Baro.
G) Use consistent test parameters.
H) Tune for the correct A/F ratio at all times.
These are just some of the notes to follow as advised by Superflow, there are many many more! Would you like me to list the load cell calibration procedure also???
Cheers
Simon
I would really appreciate it if you took your head out of your arse and smelt the salt that just because you/your tuner cant do it, doesnt mean its not possible. We have proved as a company that our cars are the fastest out there in their field using figures obtained from our SF-901 and all our customers get the same level of service. Get over yourself!
When using the advised guidelines the SF-901 can result in 0.1% repeatability Some of which is detailed below, our dyno conforms to or exceeds all parameters listed;
A) Test cell air should be replaced at least 8-10 times per minute.
B) Ensure exhaust system is correctly sealed within the cell and suffers from little or zero back pressure.
C) Calibration should be performed as often as possible.
D) Change absorber oil every 60-100 hours of operation.
E) Oil & Water temperature management should be sufficient and stable.
F) Correlate dyno Baro with mercury based Baro.
G) Use consistent test parameters.
H) Tune for the correct A/F ratio at all times.
These are just some of the notes to follow as advised by Superflow, there are many many more! Would you like me to list the load cell calibration procedure also???
Cheers
Simon
18-09-2008, 08:54 AM
#140
sorry martin i added you and the rest for a bit of banter,as he does like to speak on others behalfs and wont let it drop.
as for the comment,you have lost 2 friends over this,i am dumbfounded,its the internet and i have always assumed that its all friendly banter with a bit of bravado because you are not within punching distance lol
as for the comment,you have lost 2 friends over this,i am dumbfounded,its the internet and i have always assumed that its all friendly banter with a bit of bravado because you are not within punching distance lol
I agree with that you its utterly pathetic.
18-09-2008, 08:55 AM
#141
sorry martin i added you and the rest for a bit of banter,as he does like to speak on others behalfs and wont let it drop.
as for the comment,you have lost 2 friends over this,i am dumbfounded,its the internet and i have always assumed that its all friendly banter with a bit of bravado because you are not within punching distance lol
as for the comment,you have lost 2 friends over this,i am dumbfounded,its the internet and i have always assumed that its all friendly banter with a bit of bravado because you are not within punching distance lol
what Mike cant take is people giving back to him what he so freely dishes out
18-09-2008, 08:56 AM
#142
Same reason that dyno dynamics and just about every other type of dyno or rolling road all choose to publish graphs rather than spit out raw data that wouldnt mean a lot to most people (obviously it does to you or me and I find the tabular format harvery displays in to be very interesting, especially seeing the AFR's and how greatly different they are when the engine is installed in the car, meaning it is nothing like the power quoted on the dyno results of course!)
18-09-2008, 08:57 AM
#143
MAD Carbon Cossie
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South London
Posts: 2,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have chosen to make it appear like a personal vendenta against you Mike. No one has said anything more or less than what they usually say apart from ************* which no one knows what it means So instead of playing the victim and shouting abuse at people like myself and chip, sort yourself out, accpet that the 1st person EVER on this board to mention TUV approval and cell correction temps was you and therefore you get it back. As for you havent mentioned this subject for years. Well done. Tony from Turbo systems was years ago with his big power cossies. Didnt stop you winding him up and digging at him did it
one rule for you and another for others i see
So instead of playing the victim and shouting abuse at people like myself and chip, sort yourself out, accpet that the 1st person EVER on this board to mention TUV approval and cell correction temps was you and therefore you get it back. As for you havent mentioned this subject for years. Well done. Tony from Turbo systems was years ago with his big power cossies. Didnt stop you winding him up and digging at him did it one rule for you and another for others i see
) I've known Mike for quite a few years now & he's ALWAYS been honest & straight up !!
I love you 2 (Chip & Rich) to death but that jus way I saw it, thought Martin's been very neutral & funny !!
BUT what does this "et al" mean ??
Also, Simon (Flux) posted a rough explination of the calibrating carried out on Norris's dyno, can we have the same description for Harvey's/TUV's dyno's ?? with a screen shot of these settings Mike's mentioned ??
Cheers
jb
(edited * put "dig" in instead of "attack" cos Chip was on a wind up & attach was a bit harsh
)
Last edited by jb fletch; 18-09-2008 at 09:12 AM.
18-09-2008, 09:01 AM
#146
That was a side effect though not my intention, my intention was to clear up all the bollocks about the Norris Designs Superflow somehow being massively less accurate than Harvey's superflow despite both being maintained and calibrated to the same standards (as mentioned by Flux)
"Et Al" means "and the others" basically
18-09-2008, 09:04 AM
#150
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corsham
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2) This is the funny thing, you are totally wrong! We obtain the results from each point while mapping NOT from a power run. Anyway a power run provides lower results not higher, we don't do this though as charge temps are difficult to control at high boost for a long period.
Simon
Last edited by Simon Norris; 18-09-2008 at 09:09 AM.
18-09-2008, 09:05 AM
#151
Chip,
How is questioning how things are done, shit-stirring?
What you have done regarding this thread is the epitomy of shit stirring, there has been no attempt to logically clarify anything, it has just been a witch hunt designed to make me look stupid (whereas I usually do a good enough job of that myself).
It would make a completely refreshing change to discuss the differences (and the reasons for them) in a completely adult fashion, and if this had been done in the FIRST instance this topic was discussed all those years ago, then there would be no issues what-so-ever and no falling out.
However, it would seem that no adult conversation can be entered into when it comes to questioning why tuners do things in a specific way. I clarified as best I could as to why Harvey carries out his dynoing in a specific way and why he shows all the figures on a dyno sheet.
Yet all I get when questioning why the Norris figures don't get posted in a similar way, is that everything is above board, trust us etc. Well if everything is above board etc, where is the harm in carrying out the dynoing and recording process in an identical format to how Mark USED to have his engines mapped when Ahmed did them ?
How is questioning how things are done, shit-stirring?
What you have done regarding this thread is the epitomy of shit stirring, there has been no attempt to logically clarify anything, it has just been a witch hunt designed to make me look stupid (whereas I usually do a good enough job of that myself).
It would make a completely refreshing change to discuss the differences (and the reasons for them) in a completely adult fashion, and if this had been done in the FIRST instance this topic was discussed all those years ago, then there would be no issues what-so-ever and no falling out.
However, it would seem that no adult conversation can be entered into when it comes to questioning why tuners do things in a specific way. I clarified as best I could as to why Harvey carries out his dynoing in a specific way and why he shows all the figures on a dyno sheet.
Yet all I get when questioning why the Norris figures don't get posted in a similar way, is that everything is above board, trust us etc. Well if everything is above board etc, where is the harm in carrying out the dynoing and recording process in an identical format to how Mark USED to have his engines mapped when Ahmed did them
?
18-09-2008, 09:08 AM
#152
Happily retired
Havent spoken for you in anyway at all mate, Ive no idea what that fella is on about.
All Ive said, is that Mark uses a correctly calibrated dyno, and he chooses to publish the nice easy to read graphs from it, as opposed to columns of data, and I think there is nothing wrong with that at all, especially given that I have seen how slight the correction factor was on Rod's dyno runs anyway!
All Ive said, is that Mark uses a correctly calibrated dyno, and he chooses to publish the nice easy to read graphs from it, as opposed to columns of data, and I think there is nothing wrong with that at all, especially given that I have seen how slight the correction factor was on Rod's dyno runs anyway!
18-09-2008, 09:08 AM
#153
PassionFord Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18-09-2008, 09:09 AM
#154
Mike, you are getting your knickers in a twist because Simon likes to output a nice easy to read graph from his dyno, not a big table of figures that wouldnt mean much to a lot of people, off the back of that you are accusing Mark of things like:
There is little point me trying to have an adult conversation with you when you are going to come out with bollocks like that, as its not something for discussion, its something for just totally dismissing out of hand as bitter ranting.
Ive told you I was there, and I have seen that the temp probe is in an appropriate place, its not resting on the exhaust or stuck in someone's cup of tea, its exactly as it should be, and how im sure Harvery does it, getting ambient temperature in the room.
If you choose to ignore the facts and just carry on ranting and raving and attempting to discredit open and honest people like Mark and Simon, dont expect to be treated like an adult in the middle of your tantrum.
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
Ive told you I was there, and I have seen that the temp probe is in an appropriate place, its not resting on the exhaust or stuck in someone's cup of tea, its exactly as it should be, and how im sure Harvery does it, getting ambient temperature in the room.
If you choose to ignore the facts and just carry on ranting and raving and attempting to discredit open and honest people like Mark and Simon, dont expect to be treated like an adult in the middle of your tantrum.
18-09-2008, 09:11 AM
#155
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wiltshire, Bath, chippenham area!
Posts: 7,428
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Mike.. why does it bother you ??
you don't disclose the power of your own engine.. so its only in your own head that you are measuring willy sizes surely? (sorry)
is it really that important
that Mark uses Norris dyno to print his graphs out a different way ?
you don't disclose the power of your own engine.. so its only in your own head that you are measuring willy sizes surely?
(sorry)is it really that important
that Mark uses Norris dyno to print his graphs out a different way ?
18-09-2008, 09:12 AM
#156
Interesting point I noticed on simons post zero back pressure in the exhaust on the dyno,whne the engine is installed in the car you won't see zero back pressure
I have also received the pm's from mike chip that you have mentioned
Last edited by Turbosystems; 18-09-2008 at 09:16 AM.
18-09-2008, 09:15 AM
#157
Happily retired
Mark also runs all accessories on his engines including Power steering etc, im told Harvey does not do that so perhaps for comparison I should add 20bhp to my figures.
.
.
18-09-2008, 09:17 AM
#158
I know nothing about this but what figures is Mark hiding so that Mike cant see, ive loads of figures that mean jack shite to me. Would the correction figures be of help or is Mark fiddling them as well, shit hes a clever bloke if hes doing all these fiddles & getting away with it while Chip is sat so close hes fiddling with his b****x.
Simon Norris prefers a nice easy to read graph, so that is what Mark ends up with by default (although I did of course see the table values when I was there observing your dyno run, but apparnetly despite me NOT being a madette, my word counts for nothing to Mike, despite the fact he should me well enough.
This is the reality of how hard Mark tries to hide his figures of course, this time from a Dyno Dynamics rolling road printout (JKM), he actually went to the trouble to go and screenshot the days weather conditions just to prove the numbers are correct.
Hardly the actions of someone "trying to pull the wool over peoples" eyes like Mike refers to Mark frequently on here in his little hate field rants.
18-09-2008, 09:17 AM
#159
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corsham
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike never questions anything other people say does he
Interesting point I noticed on simons post zero back pressure in the exhaust on the dyno,whne the engine is installed in the car you won't see zero back pressure
I have also received the pm's from mike chip that you have mentioned
Interesting point I noticed on simons post zero back pressure in the exhaust on the dyno,whne the engine is installed in the car you won't see zero back pressure
I have also received the pm's from mike chip that you have mentioned
Si
18-09-2008, 09:20 AM
#160
Chip / Rich,
How have I been a hypocrite? It's nothing to do with what has been said, it is the WAY in which it has been done that just makes me realise what an arse you are. There is never a neutral questioning stand point from you, it has to be done in a way to really stick the knife in. If you look back at all my posts regarding this, it has been from a purely logical and scientific questioning process. All I have ever wanted is to get some comparibility / transparency with the the dyno figures that have been posted up. It is then the fact that I dare question anything that tempers have frayed and then the original reason for the post gets lost in all the bickering, and the
only thing that gets remembered is "fudging / TUV".
Anyway, if you treat friends like this, I'm just glad I wasn't your enemy.
As to Simon's comments, I am sure I recall MARK saying that he chose the print outs to be done this way (I think due to my questions in the past about cell temps etc), and I also recall him mentioning how the runs differed from Harvey's figures, but can't remember EXACTLY what he said, but I "though" it was something about a simulated power run or something like that?
Again, perhaps Mark could clarify?
If I am so wrong about the discrepancies and incomaribilty between the dynos, where would the harm be in carrying out the next run in the same format as I have described for Harvey's dyno?
How have I been a hypocrite? It's nothing to do with what has been said, it is the WAY in which it has been done that just makes me realise what an arse you are. There is never a neutral questioning stand point from you, it has to be done in a way to really stick the knife in. If you look back at all my posts regarding this, it has been from a purely logical and scientific questioning process. All I have ever wanted is to get some comparibility / transparency with the the dyno figures that have been posted up. It is then the fact that I dare question anything that tempers have frayed and then the original reason for the post gets lost in all the bickering, and the
only thing that gets remembered is "fudging / TUV"
.Anyway, if you treat friends like this, I'm just glad I wasn't your enemy.
As to Simon's comments, I am sure I recall MARK saying that he chose the print outs to be done this way (I think due to my questions in the past about cell temps etc), and I also recall him mentioning how the runs differed from Harvey's figures, but can't remember EXACTLY what he said, but I "though" it was something about a simulated power run or something like that?
Again, perhaps Mark could clarify?
If I am so wrong about the discrepancies and incomaribilty between the dynos, where would the harm be in carrying out the next run in the same format as I have described for Harvey's dyno?