Originally Posted by ZimbutheMonkey
In fact I'll quote your thoughtful response below so you can't delete it later.
.
Originally Posted by ZimbutheMonkey
Seriously??? Your 'arguments' are nothing but a mix of speculation, selective reasoning and unsupported 'facts' compounded by monumental ignorance and a complete inability to comprehend the English language.
Now, before I tear your 'arguments' apart, I want to get this out of the way first.
Chuck, I don't like you. In fact, I have a special sort of disdain for you. I can tell by the way you lay out your arguments. I'm going to guess that you fancy yourself to be rather clever. But deep down inside, you know that you aren't....
You try and convince other people of your intellectual prowess by putting together arguments that look (at first glance) to be well thought out. You try and shore up your argument by using clever words like "verbose" and "mean". What's even better, is that you try and attack the other person's position by pointing out their "flawed logic". Little realizing that your argument has absolutely no internal cohesiveness or substance.
Now, I'm sure you're thinking "what does this guy know about logic and reasoning?" Well Chuck, I know a lot... Enough that I actually make a really good living by arguing. So I hate to be the one to break it to you, but aren't very good at it
Half of your arguments are baseless. If you had actually read what I stated at the outset you would have known how I gathered my data. As I will demonstrate below, I made it very clear that I took steps to make sure my data was equivalent and valid.
The other half of your arguments have either a) absolutely nothing do do with the issue at hand or b) are based on 'facts' that you back up with absolutely no explanation, reasoning or external sources.
Then, after your hamfisted attempt at persuading me by shitting on my thread, you have the gall to try and pat me on the head and convince me that you're really a good guy by offering to leave this thread on a positive note. Well, not before saying that "anything would be more reasonable than....".
Do you try that tactic often? If so, let me offer you a little 'friendly advice'. Don't.... It just makes you look like a complete douche.
So, get this through your head now: You aren't as smart as you think you are. While your tactics might work with people who don't know how to argue a point or are too polite to fight back, they WILL backfire when you try them on someone who does know how to argue and isn't shy about calling people like you out.
Now, on to the points you raise.
1) All data was taken at 100% throttle. 2) the plots are smooth because I did a 6th order polynomial trendline on the data. I would have thought a statistical wizard like you might have figured that one out? Or are you too busy trying to find ways to use the word "mean" in your comments...
What part of "aggregate results from 500+ data points taken over 3 days with ME7Logger" do you not understand? You do know what aggregate means don't you? You do know what ME7Logger is don't you?
Combined with
Wow, thanks Capitain Obvious, you mean that cold air makes more power? I suppose next you'll tell me not to drink lead paint and stare into the sun. You also completely missed the fact that the data for both plots was taken WITHIN THE EXACT SAME TEMPERATURE RANGE
Now, since literacy isn't your strong point, I'll hold your hand and run you through this again...
"ducting" Noun 1. An often enclosed passage or channel for conveying a substance, especially a liquid or gas.
Now, when I say "pre-ducting" what do you think that means... hmm? You think it may have to do with, oh, I don't know... the MAF readings I was seeing BEFORE I ran that piece of ducting from my fog light to my airbox!!!???
Or does it mean that I ?
Honestly, I don't know what color the is sky in your world for you to reach those two conclusions.
So, let me lay it out for you again:
1) I went back into previous logs I had of the stock airbox MAF readings
2) I took these logs with ME7Logger
3) I used Excel to filter though those readings to find as many WOT readings as I could with the stock airbox which were taken in EXACTLY the same temperatures as the MAF readings I took AFTER I added the ducting to my airbox.
4) "Taken in the same geographical region" means that both data sets were logged around the same location on planet Earth, at the same elevation.
And unless you have some means of generating 100KM+ winds, a dyno wouldn't register any gains with this mod. Also, if you know anything about tuning you'd also know that dyno readings vary wildly too.
Again, you use the 'mean values' in the wrong context. Statistical mean is the average value of a set of data, it has nothing to do with confounding variables like headwinds.
What the shit does this statement even mean?
Go fuck yourself, it's not your car. If you want to build a better one, knock yourself out.
Support this claim, with reputable outside references.
That's some seriously weak shit. You think that offering some backhanded compliment at the end of a thread will keep me from ripping you a new asshole? No, you haven't left anything on a positive note. I have no patience for this kind of stuff.
You've made my list asswipe....
EDIT I had my suspicions that you don't know a damn thing about cars, so I checked your thread history. 5 posted threads in 4 years, you're a superstar.... (clap....clap...clap...)
Now, before I tear your 'arguments' apart, I want to get this out of the way first.
Chuck, I don't like you. In fact, I have a special sort of disdain for you. I can tell by the way you lay out your arguments. I'm going to guess that you fancy yourself to be rather clever. But deep down inside, you know that you aren't....
You try and convince other people of your intellectual prowess by putting together arguments that look (at first glance) to be well thought out. You try and shore up your argument by using clever words like "verbose" and "mean". What's even better, is that you try and attack the other person's position by pointing out their "flawed logic". Little realizing that your argument has absolutely no internal cohesiveness or substance.
Now, I'm sure you're thinking "what does this guy know about logic and reasoning?" Well Chuck, I know a lot... Enough that I actually make a really good living by arguing. So I hate to be the one to break it to you, but aren't very good at it
Half of your arguments are baseless. If you had actually read what I stated at the outset you would have known how I gathered my data. As I will demonstrate below, I made it very clear that I took steps to make sure my data was equivalent and valid.
The other half of your arguments have either a) absolutely nothing do do with the issue at hand or b) are based on 'facts' that you back up with absolutely no explanation, reasoning or external sources.
Then, after your hamfisted attempt at persuading me by shitting on my thread, you have the gall to try and pat me on the head and convince me that you're really a good guy by offering to leave this thread on a positive note. Well, not before saying that "anything would be more reasonable than....".
Do you try that tactic often? If so, let me offer you a little 'friendly advice'. Don't.... It just makes you look like a complete douche.
So, get this through your head now: You aren't as smart as you think you are. While your tactics might work with people who don't know how to argue a point or are too polite to fight back, they WILL backfire when you try them on someone who does know how to argue and isn't shy about calling people like you out.
Now, on to the points you raise.
1) All data was taken at 100% throttle. 2) the plots are smooth because I did a 6th order polynomial trendline on the data. I would have thought a statistical wizard like you might have figured that one out? Or are you too busy trying to find ways to use the word "mean" in your comments...
What part of "aggregate results from 500+ data points taken over 3 days with ME7Logger" do you not understand? You do know what aggregate means don't you? You do know what ME7Logger is don't you?
Combined with
Wow, thanks Capitain Obvious, you mean that cold air makes more power? I suppose next you'll tell me not to drink lead paint and stare into the sun. You also completely missed the fact that the data for both plots was taken WITHIN THE EXACT SAME TEMPERATURE RANGE
Now, since literacy isn't your strong point, I'll hold your hand and run you through this again...
"ducting" Noun 1. An often enclosed passage or channel for conveying a substance, especially a liquid or gas.
Now, when I say "pre-ducting" what do you think that means... hmm? You think it may have to do with, oh, I don't know... the MAF readings I was seeing BEFORE I ran that piece of ducting from my fog light to my airbox!!!???
Or does it mean that I ?
Honestly, I don't know what color the is sky in your world for you to reach those two conclusions.
So, let me lay it out for you again:
1) I went back into previous logs I had of the stock airbox MAF readings
2) I took these logs with ME7Logger
3) I used Excel to filter though those readings to find as many WOT readings as I could with the stock airbox which were taken in EXACTLY the same temperatures as the MAF readings I took AFTER I added the ducting to my airbox.
4) "Taken in the same geographical region" means that both data sets were logged around the same location on planet Earth, at the same elevation.
And unless you have some means of generating 100KM+ winds, a dyno wouldn't register any gains with this mod. Also, if you know anything about tuning you'd also know that dyno readings vary wildly too.
Again, you use the 'mean values' in the wrong context. Statistical mean is the average value of a set of data, it has nothing to do with confounding variables like headwinds.
What the shit does this statement even mean?
Go fuck yourself, it's not your car. If you want to build a better one, knock yourself out.
Support this claim, with reputable outside references.
That's some seriously weak shit. You think that offering some backhanded compliment at the end of a thread will keep me from ripping you a new asshole? No, you haven't left anything on a positive note. I have no patience for this kind of stuff.
You've made my list asswipe....
EDIT I had my suspicions that you don't know a damn thing about cars, so I checked your thread history. 5 posted threads in 4 years, you're a superstar.... (clap....clap...clap...)
If you're really interested in discussing your findings, I'll distill my point down to this: Get on a dyno before you claim HP numbers in your thread title, because what you're measuring isn't that.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks