View Single Post
      03-27-2011, 08:54 AM   #107
crummer
Private
 
crummer's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 E92 M3
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cbus, OH

Posts: 99
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by spdu4ea View Post
3 things...

To those people: The probability of this "unusual" distribution occurring naturally is 0.003% (0.00003). In a world with few absolutes, I'll call this proof:

Where the tuners fall on that curve:
This is a VERY good example of data supporting the manipulation claim and certainly explains the original accusation. Probabilities at this level just do not occur everyday, but when they do happen, it should be investigated / researched to to understand "why" and if there is anything to be gained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@Powerchip View Post
Finally, I asked Alex to show me the OP's original dyno graphs and raw data. Alex refused to show me the OP's graphs or to reprint them in "Shootout" mode so they could be independently analyzed and verified.
If true, this does not help Gintani's position, a veil of secrecy does not contribute to the community in a positive fashion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@Powerchip View Post
The whole point of this is to verify the OP’s results – after all, he is certainly due a refund if they are accurate. I still cannot understand why Alex and Jeremy would not show me the dyno graphs on the computer. Also, the graphs that they retroactively posted do not even show the correction factor. The factors you see listed are live, not the conditions from when the runs were actually made. Also, you can export from dyno dynamics to a picture directly – for accuracy’s sake, I would prefer that over something that was copied and pasted into Paint (you can see lots of photo editing software on the taskbar of the dyno screenshots). It's worth mentioning, that 28 out of 28 dyno charts posted at OE Tuning blog, all of them were exported JPG files. For the purposes of this test only, the graphs presented here used screen captures and photo editing software to present the graphs.
One possible way to resolve: should Gintani provide the raw data behind the dyno runs. I don't think there is anything proprietary to be found in a data dump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@Powerchip View Post
I would like to renew my offer to the OP to allow his car to be independently tested on an independent dyno. In addition to all of the conditions in our previous offer, we would like to add the following to "sweeten the pot" and to ensure that Gintani's concerns of "file stealing" doesn't occur. If the OP does not own an OE Tuning EZ Flash, then we will buy one and he can keep it when the test is finished. He can load it with his current tune, and we will provide the stock factory tune to be used as part of the test. The car owner can operate EZ Flash on his own car to flash the OE Tune and his OEM tune, and we will never need to interact with his OE Tune ECU files. In the end he can keep the EZ Flash at our expense.

We encourage the OP to accept our offer for independent testing and do not understand how Gintani and/or OE Tuning could legitimately exert any pressure or influence on him to deny such a request. We believe the OP has the right to do anything he wants with his car, and if his tests were legitimate and independent in the first place (not sponsored or coerced), then no outside influence at Gintani or OE Tuning should get in the way.
The other way to resolve the issues, wild wild west style. Highly unlikely, but if it happens, it would be one for the ages.....

So 5 pages deep and we have data to support the fact that, "The probability of the gains mentioned in the OP's post are very unlikely from a mathematical perspective." With that being said, lets see the raw data (in numerical format not jpg) and let the experts figure it out.
crummer is offline   United_States
0