Close

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 61 of 61
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    878
    Rep Points
    891.7
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Problem spu4dea still isn't seeing after being proven wrong at many counts is that

    1) none of those sample tunes are on a dyno dynamics.

    2) none of those sample tunes are of an oe v3 tune on another dyno.

    Sometimes intelligent people who make nerd graphs in their free time to prove an agenda also shortsight the simple things. Scientific method.

    BG

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    293
    Rep Points
    226.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BrenM3 Click here to enlarge
    1) none of those sample tunes are on a dyno dynamics.
    Reread the OP. One of those is on a dyno dynamics and it behaves as expected.

    2) none of those sample tunes are of an oe v3 tune on another dyno.
    Dunno which OE vesion tune you posted on the 1st page, but that dynojet graph behaved normally:

    Click here to enlarge

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,104
    Rep Points
    31,294.1
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by spdu4ea Click here to enlarge
    Reread the OP. One of those is on a dyno dynamics and it behaves as expected.



    Dunno which OE vesion tune you posted on the 1st page, but that dynojet graph behaved normally:

    http://www.bimmerboost.com/images/im...3/bell2p-1.jpg
    Would you explain your graph please?
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    293
    Rep Points
    226.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Sure. Each post-tune dyno graph has variations in the power gained at various rpms points over the baseline run. If a tuner had exactly the average amount of variation, they would be at 0 on the graph. GIAC has almost average variation, ESS has a little less than GIAC. OE on dynojet and AA both have slightly more variation than average. OE on Gintani's dyno had much, much less variation.


    Click here to enlarge
    What normal distribution looks like... 95.4% of the data should fall within +- 2 standard deviations of the mean. 99.7% should fall within +- 3 standard deviations, and 99.99% should fall within 4, and 99.9999% should fall within 5. Gintani fell outside of 5 standard deviations. (6 is the statistical limit -- anything outside of that is essentially impossible rather than just really really really really $#@!ing unlikely).


    Potential criticism:

    1) Sample size is too small...

    Response: The calculation of standard deviation factors in sample size (small samples will have a larger standard deviation than larger samples of the same distribution).


    2) This assumes a normal distribution

    Response: It does assume a normal distribution... However, a normal distribution seems to hold when I add additional tuners to the existing graph:

    Click here to enlarge


    3) There is a dynojet bias to the data

    Response: Possible, but as you can see above Evolve's DD data fit the normal distribution -- as did GIAC's load-bearing mustang dyno. However, both of those graphs also included an aftermarket air filter and Evolve's before/after was done on 2 separate cars/days so they are imperfect comparisons (I would of course welcome additional data)
    Last edited by spdu4ea; 03-28-2011 at 09:40 AM.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,104
    Rep Points
    31,294.1
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I think you have a few assumptions in your data so I can't see this as complete proof.

    Plus, are you basing this all on 1 graph? As in, have you collected all the OE graphs and seen if they all hold true?

    You stated it was unlikely to have uniform deviation but however unlikely I take it that it could happen, correct? So this is really a theory, not proof.

    However, I think if you wish to support it further why not take a look at other OE graphs as well?
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    293
    Rep Points
    226.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3



    Reputation: Yes | No
    I've looked at at least a dozen OE graphs but only these 2 (OE vs stock @ Gintani, and OE vs PC @ Gintani) were statistically unbelievable.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    878
    Rep Points
    891.7
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Put all the graphs (of the larger sample) and re-do the bell curve. Then you can dissect and call on the dates of the ones you didn't like.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    293
    Rep Points
    226.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3



    Reputation: Yes | No
    that bell curve is only for a tune on a stock S65. When I recalculated using all of the remaining samples available from the dyno db, the standard of deviation got smaller and decreased the probability of the OE/Gintani data being legitimate from 0.00003 to 0.00000000443

    From (n=4):
    Click here to enlarge

    To (n=4):
    Click here to enlarge

    To (n=7):
    Click here to enlarge



    If you have more before/after tune graphs of stock S54s feel free to send them my way: (myusername)@hotmail.com

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,104
    Rep Points
    31,294.1
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by spdu4ea Click here to enlarge
    I've looked at at least a dozen OE graphs but only these 2 (OE vs stock @ Gintani, and OE vs PC @ Gintani) were statistically unbelievable.
    Let's assume you are right for a moment.

    And I would like to say I respect your opinion and don't believe you engage in any pointless witch hunts.

    Why would only these graphs have it and others would not?

    I think a larger sample size is necessary. Additionally, saying this is proof of OE fixing graphs when actual proof and a much larger sample of them clearly not fixing graphs exists does present tremendous evidence to the contrary.

    So, perhaps there is some other explanation to this possibly also what Bren hinted at?
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    293
    Rep Points
    226.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    And I would like to say I respect your opinion and don't believe you engage in any pointless witch hunts.
    Thanks -- I do like to keep vendors honest, but in this case I didn't start out looking for any wrong doing -- I just noticed the remarkable similarities between the PC/OE graphs and went from there.

    Why would only these graphs have it and others would not?
    Going forward I'd like to try to avoid speculating on motives.

    I think a larger sample size is necessary.
    I'd love to have more samples so if you have more stock vs tune graphs to send my way please do. Still, as I've said before, standard deviation takes sample size into consideration. When I went from N=4 to N=7 -- the standard deviation got even smaller (putting the Gintani/OE farther away from the expected bell).

    Additionally, saying this is proof of OE fixing graphs when actual proof and a much larger sample of them clearly not fixing graphs exists does present tremendous evidence to the contrary.
    I haven't done a great job of staying completely objective (for instance I should have never said "proof of manipulation" -- I should have said "Gintani/OE dyno graph proven invalid"). I don't know who/what caused this extreme irregularity and to stay objective I should avoid speculating.

    Back to your point, a large sample of data that passes this test doesn't invalidate a small sample that fails. That logic is like saying "but barry bonds only failed 2 drug tests." That appeal may carry some emotional influence, but does not have statistical merit.

    So, perhaps there is some other explanation to this possibly also what Bren hinted at?
    It is possible there is some other explanation. Maybe during 1.5 hours of tuning the dyno heated up and threw off the calibration. Or the throttle only opened 95% on the baseline. I'd be happy to hear a plausible explanation.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,104
    Rep Points
    31,294.1
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by spdu4ea Click here to enlarge
    Going forward I'd like to try to avoid speculating on motives.
    If there is a motive established it would strengthen your argument. As of right now it is inconsistent because other graphs exist which seem to conform with your standard of deviation even if they are Powerchip before and after graphs.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by spdu4ea Click here to enlarge
    I'd love to have more samples so if you have more stock vs tune graphs to send my way please do. Still, as I've said before, standard deviation takes sample size into consideration. When I went from N=4 to N=7 -- the standard deviation got even smaller (putting the Gintani/OE farther away from the expected bell).
    You can check my dynos in the garage if you like. Those are with Gintani tuning on a dynojet and look good to me.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by spdu4ea Click here to enlarge
    I haven't done a great job of staying completely objective (for instance I should have never said "proof of manipulation" -- I should have said "Gintani/OE dyno graph proven invalid"). I don't know who/what caused this extreme irregularity and to stay objective I should avoid speculating.

    Back to your point, a large sample of data that passes this test doesn't invalidate a small sample that fails. That logic is like saying "but barry bonds only failed 2 drug tests." That appeal may carry some emotional influence, but does not have statistical merit.
    You are right, you should have titled it differently as you stated. A large sample of data that passes this "test" doesn't invalidate a single sample. However, it does make it more of an anomaly than a consistency. It is possible, extremely unlikely, that what is going on is natural there. So, you have evidence that tamping could be going on yet we have proof that tampering in 99.9% of OE graphs is not. I would be more inclined to think this falls into the anomaly category.

    The Barry Bonds example is not apples to apples because there are factors like HGH which can not be tested for with standard drug tests. In this instance, your test works with all graphs and the test itself is not inadequate as in the case of Bonds.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by spdu4ea Click here to enlarge
    It is possible there is some other explanation. Maybe during 1.5 hours of tuning the dyno heated up and threw off the calibration. Or the throttle only opened 95% on the baseline. I'd be happy to hear a plausible explanation.
    I would as well and it would be interesting to try to figure out what else could explain this.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •