Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SeniorFunkyPanths

I have indeed had email exchanges with Clevite just as you have...

Originally Posted by SeniorFunkyPants

But for the sake of transparency lets also include the quote you were replying to:

But let's talk about transparency for a moment.

Did you, or did you not have further communications with Clevite that you didn't report here to m3post? You admitted you did. But you didn't report them here...did you? So ironic being accused of hiding my own comments from Clevite on another site -- comments that "turned up here on m3post" and where here all along. But where did you hide your further comments from Clevite?

In those communications, did they, or did they not tell you that your theory was out to lunch and very unlikely -- for the same reasons myself and many other people here tried to teach you 1+ years ago? Clevite told me that's the advice they gave you. Were they lying or were you hiding what they said from m3post?

Where's your transparency?

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

I'd have to disagree with that. selecting +/- shells to match is far more inefficient than hitting exact sizes.

Modern day CNC machine tools don't wear as such when grinding a crank. The machine will have a diamond dressing tip in a fixed position. As the grinding wheel gets to the finishing stage, it's lightly dressed across the diamond. This gives a perfect finish to the wheel and calibrates it's exact position, hence the outstanding size consistency of an S65 crank.

In real terms, there is no need to select different size rods. They can just use any rods that are deemed to be mid limit. They have some pretty good honing machines at BMW which give equally as good size consistency.

Each and every rod journal will be inspected and recorded. If it happens that one journal is more than a couple of microns out, I'm sure a rod from the other end of the tolerance scale will be used.

Buying an odd rod from the parts counter will net you a mid limit rod that will fit well within spec. Who would buy a single rod though? If you bought all 8 it would only be a fool who didn't check each rod and match it to the most suitable journal just to make sure.

Obviously you haven't seen and measured too many parts. I can tell you from lots of experience in engine assembly and measuring mass produced components in general, getting exact sizes via machine work is not as easy as you say. If this were the case are you saying all rods that are not mid spec would be throw away then? How would the supplier make any money.

The reality is that there is a tolerance spec and anything inside this spec is ok, outside of spec is not. The whole reason +/- bearing sizes exist are to dial in final clearances, if the parts were perfect one size bearings would be all that existed.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

You're bringing this up as if it was your idea.
You're alleging I left this out of m3post when it was my idea AT M3POST in the first place!

Seriously LMFAO

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

In those communications, did they, or did they not tell you that your theory was out to lunch and very unlikely -- for the same reasons myself and many other people here tried to teach you 1+ years ago? Clevite told me that's the advice they gave you. Were they lying or were you hiding what they said from m3post?

AGAIN Whatever Clevite told you please quote them....word for word.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Obviously you haven't seen and measured too many parts. I can tell you from lots of experience in engine assembly and measuring mass produced components in general, getting exact sizes via machine work is not as easy as you say. If this were the case are you saying all rods that are not mid spec would be throw away then? How would the supplier make any money.

The reality is that there is a tolerance spec and anything inside this spec is ok, outside of spec is not. The whole reason +/- bearing sizes exist are to dial in final clearances, if the parts were perfect one size bearings would be all that existed.

I've measured plenty of parts thank you.

S65 crank production is very slick and precise. It's not some old chap standing in front of a greasy machine with a mic anymore. This is 2015

I'm not saying all rods that aren't mid tolerance are thrown out. Far from it. I'm saying that a very high percentage will be mid tolerance. Anything outside or on the tolerance limit will be discarded.

In theory a bottom limit rod will run fine with a top limit journal. It just won't happen at the M division. The inspection log will flag anything getting near the limits.

You don't need + / - bearings when cranks are this good

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Seriously LMFAO

So, question. Your position is that it could be, but isn't necessarily, bearing clearances, correct (could also be knock)?

If so, do you see any way to determine if it definitively is bearings or not other than a large number of people using them over a variety of driving cycles for an extended period of time?

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

I've measured plenty of parts thank you.

S65 crank production is very slick and precise. It's not some old chap standing in front of a greasy machine with a mic anymore. This is 2015

I'm not saying all rods that aren't mid tolerance are thrown out. Far from it. I'm saying that a very high percentage will be mid tolerance. Anything outside or on the tolerance limit will be discarded.

In theory a bottom limit rod will run fine with a top limit journal. It just won't happen at the M division. The inspection log will flag anything getting near the limits.

You don't need + / - bearings when cranks are this good

I certainly don't think the manufacturers that make the parts for the S65 are working out of a greasy backyard shop. What I do know is that machining still hasn't gotten good enough to be perfect on mass production parts, the measurements in this thread prove that.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

I certainly don't think the manufacturers that make the parts for the S65 are working out of a greasy backyard shop. What I do know is that machining still hasn't gotten good enough to be perfect on mass production parts, the measurements in this thread prove that.

+1

Mass production means variations. We're talking very small differences in this case. If BMW wanted finer tolerances, it would drive production costs up a lot.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Obioban

So, question. Your position is that it could be, but isn't necessarily, bearing clearances, correct (could also be knock)?

If so, do you see any way to determine if it definitively is bearings or not other than a large number of people using them over a variety of driving cycles for an extended period of time?

Not really.
Personally I think the safest option would be to have Clevite replicate the original 088/089 lead faced rod bearings with the same clearance as OEM when including their TriArmor coating.
The advantages are that they are a known quantity, for the vast majority of owners of pre 2011 cars the 088/9 bearings are good to over 60,000 miles (some cars are heading towards 200,000 miles).
A bearing change every 60,000 miles is hardly going to break the bank and at least you know where you are with them.
Bearings with extra clearance are a gamble....it will take a few years for equipped cars to hit 60,000 miles, assuming that any do.
Also makes a far better business proposition.
I would rather buy OEM spec 088/9 lead faced bearings than the newer BMW 702/3 non lead version for two reasons:
You seem to get better advance warning from Blackstone oil reports (tracking lead ppm over time).
The later non lead bearings (with slightly larger clearance) appear to be less reliable.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by Z K

+1

Mass production means variations. We're talking very small differences in this case. If BMW wanted finer tolerances, it would drive production costs up a lot.

Do you have any idea how good these crank sizes are?

96 journals with some at 90k miles all within 5 microns of mean tolerance?

Don't take my word for it, Go and ask a proper precision engineer how good that is.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Not really.
Personally I think the safest option would be to have Clevite replicate the original 088/089 lead faced rod bearings with the same clearance as OEM when including their TriArmor coating.
The advantages are that they are a known quantity, for the vast majority of owners of pre 2011 cars the 088/9 bearings are good to over 60,000 miles (some cars are heading towards 200,000 miles).
A bearing change every 60,000 miles is hardly going to break the bank and at least you know where you are with them.
Bearings with extra clearance are a gamble....it will take a few years for equipped cars to hit 60,000 miles, assuming that any do.
Also makes a far better business proposition.
I would rather buy OEM spec 088/9 lead faced bearings than the newer BMW 702/3 non lead version for two reasons:
You seem to get better advance warning from Blackstone oil reports (tracking lead ppm over time).
The later non lead bearings (with slightly larger clearance) appear to be less reliable.

You could organize a production run of them, if you think that's a superior solution. Undermining this effort accomplishes nothing in terms of moving the platform forward.

The entire solution reminds me of the s54 vanos exhaust hub tab failure (the notorious s54 vanos issue) before it was resolved. It used to be that they would fail at a random interval/mileage, and could take out the engine depending how things shook out (if they caused the timing chain to jump. These days there are multiple aftermarket solutions on the market that so far have a 100% success rate over any usage cycle-- the issue can be completely eliminated with a $150 part (so long as you do it preventatively). You could develop an alternate solution. Time would tell which (or both) was the correct answer.

But, just undermining this is counter productive.

Side note: If BMW went with larger clearances on the later cars, that does imply they think that larger is better. They did have to go with bearing materials with worse properties at the same time, which could easily explain why they're wearing worse.

To me it seems like the bearing issue is semi lottery based. Aka, I think we'll see late production cars with 200,000 on the bearings as well, just as we saw early production cars failing them at low mileage intervals. There's more high mileage early cars on the road now purely because they've had more time to accumulate miles.

I absolutely agree that lead bearings are far superior entirely because of their ability to be diagnosed by oil analysis. Oil analysis was why I swapped mine out at 125,000 miles on my S54 and I have a WPC treated set standing by for when my s62 shows elevated lead.

My s54 bearings (125,000 total miles, ~10,000 track miles, plus winters and daily red lining):



On the s54, bearing wear is very much correlated to mileage and usage cycle (mine's about as hard as a usage cycle gets). The vanos exhaust hub tabs are seemingly random. The s65 bearings seem to be random to me (which is one of the reasons the tolerance stack theory makes sense to me).

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Do you have any idea how good these crank sizes are?

96 journals with some at 90k miles all within 5 microns of mean tolerance?

Don't take my word for it, Go and ask a proper precision engineer how good that is.

Please expand on this. This is quite important in my view. I wish someone could better quantify this.

I've done machining and QA and mechanical engineering but never got involved in this level of manufacturing precision. regular guy has very explicitly said this measured variation supports his theory of tolerance stacking and thus bearing clearance as "the issue", he also says to just look at the data and "decide yourself". Quite typical of his general view that data is equivalent to a conclusion or valid analysis of the data... Furthermore kawasaki tells me that there is tons of statistical or limit data on crank journal sizes and I should go "look it all up" or something equivalent. Neither has responded to my inquiries on this.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Do you have any proof of this, or is this just speculation? I think you're speculating; actually I know you're speculating. How do you know I'm even in business in this? Didn't I already state elsewhere that I'm NOT in business, and not the business behind this? How do you know he's in business in this? Did he state that somewhere or is this just your own speculation? This doesn't sound like the scientific method to me. So...

Using scientific methods, tell us what you know, test your hypothesis, then revise it as necessary. Let's see how close you get. I would advise you to only change one variable in between because I will only give you a single answer (right or wrong) to whatever you say. I'll leave it up to you to figure that out. But I promise to give a truthful answer. Let's see how close you come and let's see how long it takes to turn your hypothesis into a theory.

So let's get this started. First answer: wrong.

Revise your hypothesis and try again.

I don't have any interest in these games. You two appear quite clearly to be involved somehow or another in the specification, quoting, production, demand creation or whatever for this new product. If you don't stand to profit I will take your word at that. However, it's also pretty obvious that most folks also feel some need to keep secrets here. If all you guys (or the others responsbile for the spec) are doing is copying a Dinan spec perhaps you can just let us know that instead of posting 400,000 "data points". There was some allusion to that already since Dinan has apparently tested some non OEM clearances. But, in short, yes, I can keep you guys separate if that helps the discussion. Again, you please do the same.

Originally Posted by regular guy

The specific material we're talking about here was posted right here: post #1628, dated Dec-12, 2013 (that's 15-months ago for you math majors).
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...postcount=1628

Everything appearing on page-1 always appears elsewhere in this thread. I did that to protect myself against people who say things like ^^ above as a way to sweep their own mistakes under the carpet. So let's test your hypothesis by looking at the actual modification dates of my posts on page-1:

Post-1: Feb-2015 (updated as noted in post #2190, previous change: Apr-2014)
Post-2: Jan-2014
Post-3: Apr-2014
Post-4: Apr-2014
Post-5: Sep-2013
Post-6: Nov-2013
Post-7: Jan-2014
Post-8: Jan-2014
Post-9: Jan-2014

It's time for a new hypothesis. Revise and try again.

Are you serious, more incomprehensible babble. Let me repeat myself as clear as I can. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ALL OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT A PREPRODUCTION BEARING SIZE IS ABOUT. I think you simply tried to drag me into a side discussion that I have no interest in, egging me on to criticize other participants in this debate. I'm surely not going to play anymore games on this point.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Did you ask BMW for test results before you bought their car? Did you ask Dinan for test results when they changed the clearance on their stroker engines? I've asked you this before. What was the answer?

You can't be serious. Leaving out Dinan (which I think we can, unless, again, the new bearings are simply copying Dinan which would make vast swaths of this thread utter garbage...), the implication here is that you and kawasaki are as credible in engine dynamics and tribology as BMW factory engineers. Tell me which Professional, degreed, engineer with any reasonable specialty in engine dynamics and tribology have validated the new bearing design and I will question it far, far less. I'd like to specifically hear their thoughts that an increased clearance will improve S65 engine longevity in all vehicles with no downsides. If folks in general can be blinded by data which generally do not support stated conclusions and will trust the heart of their $20k motor to the demonstrated level of expertise here, I guess that is good enough for them. I'll stick with the assumption that BMW is more qualified to make a balanced decision than the largely unidentified "team" here working on this project. Whomever, said super top secret team is...

Originally Posted by regular guy

Yep you caught me on the word substitution error: I meant to say "may have" instead of "will have." You must feel validated. But not funny how many other places I said it correctly that you ignored.

I'm still confused. You said, "There were 3% of all measurements at 3-sigma too large." And my immediate reply was that this is factually incorrect. You also used some utterly hocus-pocus "math" to equate the incorrect 3 sigma outliers rate with the failure rate of 3%, the latter of which is also incorrect. That led to the side discussion with kawasaki on whether or not your measured standard deviation (whether or not if 3% of the measurements were more than 3 sigma out) is known to be outside of industry norms. You have clearly implied your measurement data supports your theory of tolerance stacking. I say the data looks great and the conclusions are both factually incorrect and likely not justifiable even if we excuse the errors in statistics. I've slightly expanded on this thrust in my reply above to Yellow Snow.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Oh how the world turns. You made a word substitution error of your own. You sound strangely a lot more more conciliatory towards yourself than you did to me. It almost sounds like you expect "understanding" for your "honest and innocent" mistake. Oh the irony.

Again, completely confused. Which word substitution error are you talking about that you made? If I don't get a pass for journal size vs. clearance substitution when one absolutely contributes in a precise way to the other, then we probably can't continue any sort of rational discussion. You get so far down in the weeds and obsessed in these odd "meta discussion" debates that the forest is clearly lost for the trees.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Well then I don't understand what 3-sigma means because I'm not a statistics guy. But I did show that to one statistics guy before posting and he had no objections. So I'm genuinely confused who's right and who's wrong. Call it whatever it is, and make the substitute in your mind for whatever I typed to whatever it is. Most people are able to do that.

Sounds an awful lot like the recent line taken by politicians who deny anthropogenic climate change, "I'm not a scientist"... Give me a f&*^ing break.

Don't talk about statistics if you don't understand them, I'd say it is that simple. If you relied on an expert then you chose the wrong "expert". Plug your data into a calculator or spreadsheet and ask for the standard deviation (of course NOT the standard deviation for the population, but the standard deviation for the sample - that's simply because you did not measure every journal ever produced - and indeed they are different formulas) and you will find 100% of your parts are within +/- 3 sigma. Even without being able to do the calculation yourself, one only has to look at any labeled bell curve with the areas computed at varying sigma to get an appreciation for how much data you generally have to have to even get 1 data point of generally Gaussian data outside of 3 sigma.

On a loosely related, point do you know that BMWs specification on their crankshaft CAD drawing is not the maximum value you measured, +0, -(the total measured spread)? That puts an entirely different spin on assuming that your mean value is the nominal value representing their design intent. The same thing goes for the vast majority of specifications you have posted where you have arbitrarily decided how to assign a +/- specification. If you have measurements that are normally distributed they should be reported as a mean value +/- an equal error/deviation. If you try to convey design intent on a CAD drawing and maintain control over tolerance staking you may want to have asymmetric allowables. However, ARBITRARILY assigning an assymetric allowable range falsely implies an understanding of design intent or even knowledge of the actual OEM specification, neither of which you have.

But again, I will give you a pass on this statistics error. The real problem is that you drew a utterly bizarre conclusion that 3% of bearings above 3 sigma will be the ones to "magically" fail and again that 3% of cars have failed and that those numbers are somehow related. Even more serious is the idea that your demonstrated measurements do not need any context to decide how relatively large or small BMW S65 crank journal variation is and how significant the corresponding reduction in clearance is (or is not). Yellow Snow is calling this control in manufacturing phenomenal (perhaps slightly putting words in his mouth, but I'm sure that won't end up in pages of utterly crappy meta debate...). Again, kawasaki pretty well said the answer to this requirement of some meaningful "baseline" to compare your measured journal size variation to is readily available. I, and most here on the forum have no idea where to get this. If you do, please share, if you don't fine. I'll wait for him to answer.

In short, the primary and vast majority of your conclusions from your gathering of crank journal size variation needs to be reconsidered. Again the data is fine, it is the conclusions that absolutely do not follow.

Originally Posted by regular guy

There, problem solved.

Without following my suggestion just above in bold, no, no problem has been solved. Talk about trying to sweep things under the rug...

Originally Posted by regular guy

Oh I love your sarcasm.

Sorry, but it really should have been obvious. My initial reply to your post with the added journal size data was completely ignored.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by xaappx

swamp2 - I saw many many pages ago you were going to give M1 0w40 a try, but couldn't find your opinion/findings on the oil.

Did you end up trying?

regular guy and kawasaki, what oil do you guys run?

I did make the change, much to the immense entertainment value gained from the ensuing discussion with regular guy.

I have the earlier lead bearings, I don't have a supercharger nor any aftermarket engine software (not even the 240E BMW OEM engine software either). As I've stated Ad infinitum, the combination of a thicker oil along with relatively tight clearances offers a reasonable speculation as to a minor problem affecting a very small number of cars, perhaps 1% at worst (i.e. nothing like the E46 M3 bearing debacle...). Thus monitoring oil and switching to a slightly thinner oil seems like a very low burden "insurance plan" of sorts. It was debated quite a bit if the lower value of the upper viscosity figure might mean a bit less protection under extremely high loads and it probably does. Especially since I haven't had the time and luxury of tracking my car recently it did not seem like too much of a risk.

I saw an inconsequential (8 to 10 ppm) increase in lead following this change. One might say that a 20% increase in lead is terrible or dangerous. Others have commented that clear and positive/beneficial changes have been observed after this same change in oil, but I've yet to see any conclusive data to support that claim. Such claims are difficult to establish due to there being a pretty wide range of "noise" in oil monitoring data. I believe that the 20% jump I saw is absolutely noise, especially at 10 ppm. The "editorial" comments from Blackstone Labs also implies that the lead change alone is inconsequential.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Obioban

You could organize a production run of them, if you think that's a superior solution.

Thats not going to happen you have my word on that...I have no financial agenda.

Originally Posted by Obioban

Undermining this effort accomplishes nothing in terms of moving the platform forward.

You don't want to accept Clevite's analysis of the bearing wear pattern, that is entirely up to you.
But how does putting forward theory based on their expert opinion accomplish nothing in terms of moving the platform forward?

Originally Posted by Obioban

Side note: If BMW went with larger clearances on the later cars, that does imply they think that larger is better. They did have to go with bearing materials with worse properties at the same time, which could easily explain why they're wearing worse.

A few things could explain why:
Most likely: The rise in >2010 failures is a spike due to the small number of cars that do in fact suffer from some sort of tolerance stack and fail early.
I doubt the marginal increased clearance has made any difference either way - despite tight bearing theory predicting that any increase in clearance should produce a benefit.
True the materials change is to a slightly harder bearing surface, though still massively softer than the crank journal, but I can't see how a slight increase in hardness makes them more likely to wear. I would have thought the opposite.

Originally Posted by Obioban

To me it seems like the bearing issue is semi lottery based. Aka, I think we'll see late production cars with 200,000 on the bearings as well, just as we saw early production cars failing them at low mileage intervals. There's more high mileage early cars on the road now purely because they've had more time to accumulate miles.

I think thats reasonable.
The answer of course lies in these high mileage cars. You want to know what rod bearing clearance to specify, pull apart a few very high mileage engines and measure them. If you can get to 150,000 on the original bearings then their clearances are the ones you need to use.

[gatorfast]

Looks like the old gang is back together

[Obioban]

You can't be serious. Leaving out Dinan (which I think we can, unless, again, the new bearings are simply copying Dinan which would make vast swaths of this thread utter garbage...), the implication here is that you and kawasaki are as credible in engine dynamics and tribology as BMW factory engineers. Tell me which Professional, degreed, engineer with any reasonable specialty in engine dynamics and tribology have validated the new bearing design and I will question it far, far less. I'd like to specifically hear their thoughts that an increased clearance will improve S65 engine longevity in all vehicles with no downsides. If folks in general can be blinded by data which generally do not support stated conclusions and will trust the heart of their $20k motor to the demonstrated level of expertise here, I guess that is good enough for them. I'll stick with the assumption that BMW is more qualified to make a balanced decision than the largely unidentified "team" here working on this project. Whomever, said super top secret team is...

BMW has had some HUGE engineering faults on every M3 engine prior to the the S65, all of which have been comprehensively addressed by the aftermarket with very simple solutions. They are far from infallible.

e.g. Half a thread to hold on the oil pump? Sounds good enough :P

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Thats not going to happen you have my word on that...I have no financial agenda.

NOBODY is going to get rich off of these (this design or the spec I was suggesting you bring to market). The quantity is low, the margins are low. I don't think anyone is doing it for the money. I was suggesting you do it to address a shortcoming on the platform, to move the platform forward.

If you consider the amount of time RG has put into measuring bearings, gather data, etc (and paying engine builders), I'm sure he'll end up FAR below minimum wage on this project. The idea that it's being done for a "financial agenda" is preposterous.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Obioban

NOBODY is going to get rich off of these (this design or the spec I was suggesting you bring to market). The quantity is low, the margins are low. I don't think anyone is doing it for the money. I was suggesting you do it to address a shortcoming on the platform, to move the platform forward.

Fair enough.
I have been accused on several occasions of having an agenda.
Sometimes things come along that just strike me as a bit off...the M3 oil recomendation debacle for instance, where BW USA unilaterally appeared to declare any LL-01 oil to be OK for M engines.
Initially most everyone took it as validation that BMW had screwed up with its original 10W60 recommendation, only a few of us started to wonder if it could be true and then argue that it was some sort of admin snafu.
Its not like I argue for the plaudits - no one is going "well done SFP" for picking at the obvious holes in the tight bearing theory (in fact quite the contrary) - its just interesting to have to research and learn a whole new science and then use that information to progress a theory.

[Yellow Snow]

Obioban:

Do you have any new unused S54 shells hanging around? If so, could you measure the thickness please for comparison. Do you have a 2mm slip gauge to use as a comparator?

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Obioban:

Do you have any new unused S54 shells hanging around? If so, could you measure the thickness please for comparison. Do you have a 2mm slip gauge to use as a comparator?

I do not, only S62 at the moment. Any interest?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Obioban

BMW has had some HUGE engineering faults on every M3 engine prior to the the S65, all of which have been comprehensively addressed by the aftermarket with very simple solutions. They are far from infallible.

e.g. Half a thread to hold on the oil pump? Sounds good enough :P

I'm hardly suggesting BMW (nor any OEM for that matter) are infallible. If you happen to have read much of my posting history and leanings, I'm quite quick to point of problems and criticisms of BMW. That being said, I don't really agree with your characterization of "HUGE".

Originally Posted by Obioban

NOBODY is going to get rich off of these (this design or the spec I was suggesting you bring to market). The quantity is low, the margins are low. I don't think anyone is doing it for the money. I was suggesting you do it to address a shortcoming on the platform, to move the platform forward.

If you consider the amount of time RG has put into measuring bearings, gather data, etc (and paying engine builders), I'm sure he'll end up FAR below minimum wage on this project. The idea that it's being done for a "financial agenda" is preposterous.

I know this particular comment was not addressed to me, but let me chime in. I pretty much agree here. It's really more of a matter of pride and obstinance from those contributing to a solution. From my perspective it is also a very clear case about hack engineering vs. real engineering and the scientific method. The proposed hypothesis is continually and firmly presented as unquestionable fact, it has been since day 1. Regardless of whether or not the hypothesis turns out to be correct, the conclusions have often been incorrect and are similarly often not justified/established by the existing data. There is also clearly an "oh no the sky is falling" perspective that this problem is much more widespread than it is.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by Obioban

I do not, only S62 at the moment. Any interest?

Yes, that would be handy for reference.