The new dyno thread
18-09-2008, 09:20 AM
#161
Mike has put a LOT of effort in over the years to trying to convince people that Mark/Simon are liars and cheats!
Cossie Rich has even had it recently (his car is in MAD for a GT30 conversion at the moment) with people saying to him "why are you useing MAD when their figures cant be trusted" as a result of the bullshit from Mike that they have read.
Mike is a reasonabley well respected figure within the cosworth scene, perhaps more than he realises, and im not actually convinced he is aware of the extent to which the shit he stirs actually sticks to the like of MAD, which is of course totally out of order when Simon/Mark have done NOTHING dishonest or wrong!
18-09-2008, 09:25 AM
#164
15K+ Super Poster!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: All over the friggin place!!!
Posts: 18,685
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
ENOUGH NOW!
Do any of you actually realise what you are sounding like?
This is the kind of tit for tat that goes on when you are small children.
So give it a god damn rest.
Passionford has been an amzing place for finding issues with cars, enjoying cars, improving cars, but most of all FORGING FRIENDSHIPS.
Now as far as i am aware EVERYONE thats has participated in this converstaion, have met each other, conversed, and maybe even helped each other out at some point or another.
The way i see it here is it is PF members against Mike right now, and i find that VERY unfair.
So, i would suggest EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU pulls your head out of your fucking arse, and let it fucking drop.
You have ALL got your point across, you have ALL had your say, and you have ALL had the opportunity to take the piss, and receive a little bit back.
Please, now remember what this place is all about.
Do any of you actually realise what you are sounding like?
This is the kind of tit for tat that goes on when you are small children.
So give it a god damn rest.
Passionford has been an amzing place for finding issues with cars, enjoying cars, improving cars, but most of all FORGING FRIENDSHIPS.
Now as far as i am aware EVERYONE thats has participated in this converstaion, have met each other, conversed, and maybe even helped each other out at some point or another.
The way i see it here is it is PF members against Mike right now, and i find that VERY unfair.
So, i would suggest EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU pulls your head out of your fucking arse, and let it fucking drop.
You have ALL got your point across, you have ALL had your say, and you have ALL had the opportunity to take the piss, and receive a little bit back.
Please, now remember what this place is all about.
18-09-2008, 09:27 AM
#165
By saying that the Norris dyno couldnt be believed as it wasnt TUV approved currently, when in fact the one you quote apparently isnt either!
When it comes to something like Dyno figures I dont treat friends or enemies any different, all I want is an honest representation of the facts.
My understanding is that the way in which harvey does his values, with plot points from during mapping, it can cause a higher reading than if you do a power run as the turbo has FAR more time to spool when held on a particular load point than allowed to spool naturally on the dyno on he way up the rev range as if it was in a car, and likewise you have no transient fuelling issues as you are mapping from such a stable condition (probably part of the reason that you get 12.5:1 AFR's but wouldnt see them in the car)
A bit like the way you can see more boost in 5th up a hill than racing through first.
Hopefully
He DOES, I have seen it myself, but people generally would prefer to see a graph so he posts that, im sure next time he can post the tabular results format if you then make a promise you will apologise for all the nonsense you have thrown his way when he does so and proves to you that nothing out of hand is happening?
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? 
A bit like the way you can see more boost in 5th up a hill than racing through first.
Hopefully
He DOES, I have seen it myself, but people generally would prefer to see a graph so he posts that, im sure next time he can post the tabular results format if you then make a promise you will apologise for all the nonsense you have thrown his way when he does so and proves to you that nothing out of hand is happening?
18-09-2008, 09:29 AM
#166
Maria, amongst the bickering you are seeing, there is serious discussion taking place.
Im sure anyone reading this thread as far in as page 5 knows what to expect anyway, so I dont think there is any need to try and change the format of the thread now, anyone not interested wont still be reading this far in anyway.
Im sure anyone reading this thread as far in as page 5 knows what to expect anyway, so I dont think there is any need to try and change the format of the thread now, anyone not interested wont still be reading this far in anyway.
18-09-2008, 09:32 AM
#167
15K+ Super Poster!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: All over the friggin place!!!
Posts: 18,685
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have read every single page chip, and every single page of the other thread...
and its all
''well you said this'' and ''he said that''
its absolute bollocks. yes i am a moderator but yes i am entitled to my own opinion.
and its all
''well you said this'' and ''he said that''
its absolute bollocks. yes i am a moderator but yes i am entitled to my own opinion.
18-09-2008, 09:32 AM
#168
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corsham
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The testing procedure is almost exactly the same, for some reason you "remember" it as being different when infact it is not. You need to remove the blindfold you appear to have fitted and accept that you are wrong, like it or not.
Simon
18-09-2008, 09:33 AM
#169
Mike is rubbishing the figures from the dyno, while at the same time admitting he doesnt actually have much of a clue about why the figures would or wouldnt be any different, Ie that he has NO basis for this slandering of Mark.
If I talked shit like that (not that I would) I would expect to be "ganged up on" too, that IS what is good about PF, people dont let others get away with posting unfounded nonsense.
18-09-2008, 09:34 AM
#170
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corsham
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18-09-2008, 09:39 AM
#173
Its a good opportunity for Mike to shit stir and make out there is something underhand going on when there is NOT, thats the truth of it.
Mike has put a LOT of effort in over the years to trying to convince people that Mark/Simon are liars and cheats!
Cossie Rich has even had it recently (his car is in MAD for a GT30 conversion at the moment) with people saying to him "why are you useing MAD when their figures cant be trusted" as a result of the bullshit from Mike that they have read.
Mike is a reasonabley well respected figure within the cosworth scene, perhaps more than he realises, and im not actually convinced he is aware of the extent to which the shit he stirs actually sticks to the like of MAD, which is of course totally out of order when Simon/Mark have done NOTHING dishonest or wrong!
Mike has put a LOT of effort in over the years to trying to convince people that Mark/Simon are liars and cheats!
Cossie Rich has even had it recently (his car is in MAD for a GT30 conversion at the moment) with people saying to him "why are you useing MAD when their figures cant be trusted" as a result of the bullshit from Mike that they have read.
Mike is a reasonabley well respected figure within the cosworth scene, perhaps more than he realises, and im not actually convinced he is aware of the extent to which the shit he stirs actually sticks to the like of MAD, which is of course totally out of order when Simon/Mark have done NOTHING dishonest or wrong!
. If it was kept technical in the first place all those years ago, we wouldn't be here now .The ONLY reason I am defending my comments now, is that I am being forced to do so. I would just refer you to ForeignRS's comments, who captures in a simple statement what I was banging on about all those years ago (and now).
I have never put ANY effort into slating Mark or MAD, I just simply raised questions about the dynoing process, that even to this day, have not been clarified from any technical response. Instead, questioning the figures is deemed as tantamount to a treasonable offence.
If any of MY figures were questioned, I would look into the logic of it and do my best to explain the reasoning behind why it was done in a particular way. I most certainly wouldn't throw my toys out of my pram and set out to assasinate the person that questioned the figures.
Again the liars and cheats thing gets dragged up, and despite me not saying this is any way, shape or form, this is what people remember and then they forget the questions and that is ALL they remember, and then it gets perpetuated that I have accused Mark / Simon of lieing / cheating. So lets get this straight once and for all:
This is what I have accused Simon / Mark of:
1. That they use a different print out format that doesn't show all the correction factors, so isn't as transparent as one Harvey does.
2. They use a different recording process for the print out (but I can't remember what Mark said about how the figures are achieved).
3. That because of this, they cannot be directly compared to an identical engine dyno that uses a different capture and display format.
For all I know, the method that they use could give figures that are under what they would be if they were done in the way Harvey does his. However, ALL I am saying is that until identical methods are used, you cannot compare "apples and oranges".
18-09-2008, 09:44 AM
#175
Mike, as for all your comments being in the past, this is what you said TODAY:
All I did in the first place was ask:
As you seemed to be being a hypocrit, instead of just answering that question though, you have been throwing abuse at me/rich/tony/mark and anyone else who gets in your path!
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
Is there any reason why you believe one NON TUV approved dyno, and not another NON TUV approved dyno of the same type?
Or is it just for no reason at all?
Or is it just for no reason at all?
18-09-2008, 09:46 AM
#178
.My understanding is that the way in which harvey does his values, with plot points from during mapping, it can cause a higher reading than if you do a power run as the turbo has FAR more time to spool when held on a particular load point than allowed to spool naturally on the dyno on he way up the rev range as if it was in a car, and likewise you have no transient fuelling issues as you are mapping from such a stable condition (probably part of the reason that you get 12.5:1 AFR's but wouldnt see them in the car)
A bit like the way you can see more boost in 5th up a hill than racing through first.
A bit like the way you can see more boost in 5th up a hill than racing through first.
.
18-09-2008, 09:52 AM
#181
So at that point, it seemed really important to you that Harveys was TUV approved and Norris's was merely calibrated the same way but with no certificate, and that was totally unaccptable to you.
But now Harvey's is no longer TUV appoved, you have changed your story now to suit that.
When it suited you TUV approval was FAR more important than just correct calibration, but now it doesnt suit you, its not so important anymore!
But now Harvey's is no longer TUV appoved, you have changed your story now to suit that.
When it suited you TUV approval was FAR more important than just correct calibration, but now it doesnt suit you, its not so important anymore!
18-09-2008, 09:55 AM
#182
18-09-2008, 09:59 AM
#183
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corsham
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what I have accused Simon / Mark of:
1. That they use a different print out format that doesn't show all the correction factors, so isn't as transparent as one Harvey does.
2. They use a different recording process for the print out (but I can't remember what Mark said about how the figures are achieved).
3. That because of this, they cannot be directly compared to an identical engine dyno that uses a different capture and display format.
For all I know, the method that they use could give figures that are under what they would be if they were done in the way Harvey does his. However, ALL I am saying is that until identical methods are used, you cannot compare "apples and oranges".
1. That they use a different print out format that doesn't show all the correction factors, so isn't as transparent as one Harvey does.
2. They use a different recording process for the print out (but I can't remember what Mark said about how the figures are achieved).
3. That because of this, they cannot be directly compared to an identical engine dyno that uses a different capture and display format.
For all I know, the method that they use could give figures that are under what they would be if they were done in the way Harvey does his. However, ALL I am saying is that until identical methods are used, you cannot compare "apples and oranges".
1) We have those details but don't always/often choose to print them, dig out any of our dyno plots you are interested in and I will print out the said parameters for you today.
2) No we don't, we use the same method as already stated.
3) Based on the above that means they CAN be directly compared.
Do you now agree you are wrong and always have been about this? No apples and oranges here!
Simon
18-09-2008, 09:59 AM
#184
Ive been throwing accurate comments like he has been a hypocrit the "fuck off you wanker" type comments have been purely thrown by Mike and I dont personally feel that is giving back what he was given, but stilll im a big boy and I'll live Im sure even if Mike now doesnt like me anymore for daring to call him on the fact that when Harveys dyno was TUV approved that was the B all and End all, and now that Harveys dyno isnt, suddenly it doesnt matter anyway so long as its properly calibrated reguarly (like the one he was slagging off in the first place!)
I also appreciate that you are trying to clam things down maria as you are a star moderator unlike Mike roflol
18-09-2008, 10:00 AM
#185
Mike
1) We have those details but don't always/often choose to print them, dig out any of our dyno plots you are interested in and I will print out the said parameters for you today.
2) No we don't, we use the same method as already stated.
3) Based on the above that means they CAN be directly compared.
Do you now agree you are wrong and always have been about this? No apples and oranges here!
Simon
1) We have those details but don't always/often choose to print them, dig out any of our dyno plots you are interested in and I will print out the said parameters for you today.
2) No we don't, we use the same method as already stated.
3) Based on the above that means they CAN be directly compared.
Do you now agree you are wrong and always have been about this? No apples and oranges here!
Simon
18-09-2008, 10:02 AM
#186
Mike
1) We have those details but don't always/often choose to print them, dig out any of our dyno plots you are interested in and I will print out the said parameters for you today.
2) No we don't, we use the same method as already stated.
3) Based on the above that means they CAN be directly compared.
Do you now agree you are wrong and always have been about this? No apples and oranges here!
Simon
1) We have those details but don't always/often choose to print them, dig out any of our dyno plots you are interested in and I will print out the said parameters for you today.
2) No we don't, we use the same method as already stated.
3) Based on the above that means they CAN be directly compared.
Do you now agree you are wrong and always have been about this? No apples and oranges here!
Simon
Hopefully then Mike can see what he wishes to see, and will realise it is as per how Harvey does things anyway
18-09-2008, 10:02 AM
#187
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corsham
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So at that point, it seemed really important to you that Harveys was TUV approved and Norris's was merely calibrated the same way but with no certificate, and that was totally unaccptable to you.
But now Harvey's is no longer TUV appoved, you have changed your story now to suit that.
When it suited you TUV approval was FAR more important than just correct calibration, but now it doesnt suit you, its not so important anymore!
But now Harvey's is no longer TUV appoved, you have changed your story now to suit that.
When it suited you TUV approval was FAR more important than just correct calibration, but now it doesnt suit you, its not so important anymore!
Simon
to Simon !!
18-09-2008, 10:11 AM
#192
So at that point, it seemed really important to you that Harveys was TUV approved and Norris's was merely calibrated the same way but with no certificate, and that was totally unaccptable to you.
But now Harvey's is no longer TUV appoved, you have changed your story now to suit that.
When it suited you TUV approval was FAR more important than just correct calibration, but now it doesnt suit you, its not so important anymore!
But now Harvey's is no longer TUV appoved, you have changed your story now to suit that.
When it suited you TUV approval was FAR more important than just correct calibration, but now it doesnt suit you, its not so important anymore!
If Simon's is/was calibrated in the same way, please clarify why on Dave's figures the cell temps are at LEAST 10-15°C above ambient (Dave's sheet when they "used" to include these figures)?
This shows either incorrect mounting of the temp probe OR inadequate air exchange facilities (or a combination of the two).
However, since then, this may ALL have been addressed and rectified, but this was one of the reasons the figures were originally questioned (by me) and then after this, the format of information was watered down, so that only power / torque / revs were shown.
If the above issues have been addressed since then, all well and good, but I haven't brought up the TUV issue / calibration since then anyway, so WHY is it being dragged up now to batter me with?
.
18-09-2008, 10:20 AM
#195
Mike
1) We have those details but don't always/often choose to print them, dig out any of our dyno plots you are interested in and I will print out the said parameters for you today.
2) No we don't, we use the same method as already stated.
3) Based on the above that means they CAN be directly compared.
Do you now agree you are wrong and always have been about this? No apples and oranges here!
Simon
1) We have those details but don't always/often choose to print them, dig out any of our dyno plots you are interested in and I will print out the said parameters for you today.
2) No we don't, we use the same method as already stated.
3) Based on the above that means they CAN be directly compared.
Do you now agree you are wrong and always have been about this? No apples and oranges here!
Simon
I can't understand why you are mentioning dyno figures that I have not questioned
?I haven't questioned any figures that came out of ND since Dave's original figures (when the cell temps and barometric pressures used to be quoted).
As I have said earlier, if you want to clarify things, do so on the items I actually queried.
Use Dave's as an example and explain why you had cell temps of almost 30°C at the beginning of April 2006?
18-09-2008, 10:22 AM
#196
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corsham
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Mike Rainbird;3589546] If Simon's is/was calibrated in the same way, please clarify why on Dave's figures the cell temps are at LEAST 10-15°C above ambient (Dave's sheet when they "used" to include these figures)?
This shows either incorrect mounting of the temp probe OR inadequate air exchange facilities (or a combination of the two).QUOTE]
There is a huge thing in the middle of the room Mike called an engine, connected to that is an exhaust which emits masses of heat. The dyno cell cannot be at ambient or even that close to it! Do you not realise this?
Anyway even if the cell was very slightly hotter than ideal the engine is prodcuing less power as a result and therefore corrected to compensate. What were the correction figures on that particular engine as you seem to remember it so well?
Simon
This shows either incorrect mounting of the temp probe OR inadequate air exchange facilities (or a combination of the two).QUOTE]
There is a huge thing in the middle of the room Mike called an engine, connected to that is an exhaust which emits masses of heat. The dyno cell cannot be at ambient or even that close to it! Do you not realise this?
Anyway even if the cell was very slightly hotter than ideal the engine is prodcuing less power as a result and therefore corrected to compensate. What were the correction figures on that particular engine as you seem to remember it so well?
Simon
18-09-2008, 10:24 AM
#197
[quote=Simon Norris;3589564][quote=Mike Rainbird;3589546] If Simon's is/was calibrated in the same way, please clarify why on Dave's figures the cell temps are at LEAST 10-15°C above ambient (Dave's sheet when they "used" to include these figures)?
This shows either incorrect mounting of the temp probe OR inadequate air exchange facilities (or a combination of the two).
There is a huge thing in the middle of the room Mike called an engine, connected to that is an exhaust which emits masses of heat. The dyno cell cannot be at ambient or even that close to it! Do you not realise this?
Anyway even if the cell was very slightly hotter than ideal the engine is prodcuing less power as a result and therefore corrected to compensate. What were the correction figures on that particular engine as you seem to remember it so well?
Simon
Changing the subject mike
This shows either incorrect mounting of the temp probe OR inadequate air exchange facilities (or a combination of the two).
There is a huge thing in the middle of the room Mike called an engine, connected to that is an exhaust which emits masses of heat. The dyno cell cannot be at ambient or even that close to it! Do you not realise this?
Anyway even if the cell was very slightly hotter than ideal the engine is prodcuing less power as a result and therefore corrected to compensate. What were the correction figures on that particular engine as you seem to remember it so well?
Simon
18-09-2008, 10:30 AM
#199
[quote=Simon Norris;3589564]
I realise that, but with adequate air exchange and suitably mounted cell probe, how come Harvey sees dyno cell temps only 1-2°C above ambient (and only then at high rpm when the most heat is generated)?
I haven't seen the pre-corrected figures, only the corrected ones. Perhaps you could provide the uncorrected ones then?
It's just another reason (IMO) why the two figures can't be compared, as on the same day, Harvey's dyno cell air temp would have been in the low teens, so would have provided a negative correction, rather than a positive one....
If Simon's is/was calibrated in the same way, please clarify why on Dave's figures the cell temps are at LEAST 10-15°C above ambient (Dave's sheet when they "used" to include these figures)?
This shows either incorrect mounting of the temp probe OR inadequate air exchange facilities (or a combination of the two).QUOTE]
There is a huge thing in the middle of the room Mike called an engine, connected to that is an exhaust which emits masses of heat. The dyno cell cannot be at ambient or even that close to it! Do you not realise this?
Anyway even if the cell was very slightly hotter than ideal the engine is prodcuing less power as a result and therefore corrected to compensate. What were the correction figures on that particular engine as you seem to remember it so well?
Simon
This shows either incorrect mounting of the temp probe OR inadequate air exchange facilities (or a combination of the two).QUOTE]
There is a huge thing in the middle of the room Mike called an engine, connected to that is an exhaust which emits masses of heat. The dyno cell cannot be at ambient or even that close to it! Do you not realise this?
Anyway even if the cell was very slightly hotter than ideal the engine is prodcuing less power as a result and therefore corrected to compensate. What were the correction figures on that particular engine as you seem to remember it so well?
Simon
I haven't seen the pre-corrected figures, only the corrected ones. Perhaps you could provide the uncorrected ones then?
It's just another reason (IMO) why the two figures can't be compared, as on the same day, Harvey's dyno cell air temp would have been in the low teens, so would have provided a negative correction, rather than a positive one....
18-09-2008, 10:36 AM
#200
I haven't seen the pre-corrected figures, only the corrected ones. Perhaps you could provide the uncorrected ones then?
It's just another reason (IMO) why the two figures can't be compared, as on the same day, Harvey's dyno cell air temp would have been in the low teens, so would have provided a negative correction, rather than a positive one....
It's just another reason (IMO) why the two figures can't be compared, as on the same day, Harvey's dyno cell air temp would have been in the low teens, so would have provided a negative correction, rather than a positive one....