Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com
I had intended this thread for those familiar with analyzing logs. For example, looking at the DME boost target tells you the car was at WOT. Showing before and after run data throws off the scaling making it harder to analyze.
The colors are different because I didn't save the last file and had to remake the chart. Really I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from.  :
Mike |
Oh...that's right!
I forgot from our conversation at your condo that you mentioned you are colour blind - my bad.
I agree that bad scaling can be distracting. The scaling spikes can be controlled by limiting the upper and lower ranges of the y-axis. Just right-click on any of the numbers showing on the y-axis and choose the "Format axis" menu. Enter zero for the minimum value (which will cut off the negative timing values) and choose a maximum value that works with the majority of your data.
I recall pointing out to you in your parking lot that DME boost is not the actual boost when read by the BT tool. Piggybacks fool the DME as to those values. So how is anyone going to know anything about the boost on your graph other than it's relative position to target.
Besides, you scaled the y-axis as 1600 units of something for boost pressure and don't provide a legend or cross-reference, so it's left to interpretation. I know stock boost is around 9 psi and tuned boost around 15-16 psi.
But I see by your response that you infer I am not familiar enough with datalogs to understand
It looks suspect when you keep recreating your graph and swap colours around and omit data from the start and end of the run.
I'm skeptical of your excuse because you would have to save the file in order to be able to post it here. That's how excel works....the chart is imbedded in the worksheet itself.
If you are going to attack the credibility of the Procede data being posted then seems only fair that you should be subject to that same standard.
I don't claim to have any wisdom about timing control, but this topic has the same tone as the torque targeting smear campaign did, and I bought into that one and campaigned for JB3 until I tried a Procede for myself and started data logging on my own.
At that time, I recall letting you take my procede equipped car for a test drive and saw that you were impressed and that you commented on it's the bottom end driveability. And we both concurred that the JB had more top-end.
So in my experience, BMS has implemented and adopted some of the very same features that they criticized in the Procede as being smoke and mirrors.
If you can get me to recreate these results on my car, then I will have no choice but to acknowledge your claims.
But anyone can datalog in certain ways to emphasize or minimize the results they want to skew.
After all, isn't that the point of your thread? To reveal that Shiv is selecting choice datalogs to prove timing control?
Shouldn't a competing vendor who is attempting to prove claims of misinformation be subject to the same level of transparency ?