V8 Vantage 4.3 Alternative Performance upgrade thread
Discussion
BamfordMike said:
Stuart Dickinson said:
Nice words, but no real substance
It’s fantastic this car has been transformed in the way the OP wants, and that he is so happy with the end result.You are correct when you state that to apply the hardware you outline, the end result BHP will be in the 'region' of what you state.
However, and as said by others here, whether +20/+30/+40/+50BHP - there have been statements made about data quality presented that I’m not the only one to question or read against the validity of. This does not affect what the delta improvement of the car is or the project in general, it is a simple discussion behind the background of data collection leading to a summary figure. It is an interesting and enjoyable discussion for me because this is / was my day job – a part of my career for over 21 years spanning 5 auto makers (including Aston, BMW, Jag) and 1 consultancy, covering in total over 20 model variants (the Aston Vantage was one of them!), it was my job was to report flywheel power to the Worlds legal and certification bodies to gain approval to quote a certain number for entry into a particular marketplace. In these circles nothing other than precision is accepted which makes it child’s play for me to spot concerns in any data, especially in the aftermarket world.
This discussion is nowhere close to forum war, and I don’t know why you would suggest such a thing? It is a normal discussion where folk have questions, folk reply and either folk agree or disagree.
There are a number of question-marks in the data, and for the purposes of making certain statements made with an objective bias, are indeed truly objective and not subjective, the discussion around these data quality points is therefore a valid one. But… I’m pretty much certain you won’t engage the discussion properly, as others and JohnG1 will well remember and not least because of the pledge JohnG1 said he would make to Help For Hero’s charity if you did, you did not however on the subject of pressure charging enter into a proper technical discussion on that occasion either.
And in line with not getting too technical, your last reply to me doesn’t contain anything data driven or scientific in explanation of the data collected, and therefore doesn’t help prove validity or methods.
You stated previously...
“We have not applied any correction factors”
Seriously?? Did you really mean to say that or it’s just a typo??– so… no barometric pressure or ambient air temp normalisation and no dyno corrections??
Is the dyno inertia with retarder?? If so, aren’t secret proprietary calculations (open to much critique) used to calculate torque because of how this dyno measures acceleration rate over short time-span to calculate torque, versus how an electromagnetic dyno’s ‘real’ measurement of torque is calculated??
Isn’t ‘modeling’ used on this dyno to transfer wheel power to flywheel power? as opposed to a more conventional coast down curve?
Your answer to why you explicitly stated “no correction factors used” when all of the above are in need of correction factors will be interesting indeed.
As Cockernee has already asked for; without the following, the results have doubt attached.
a)dyno calibration / calculation method of torque measurement and coast down (important as you are stating flywheel numbers),
b)raw torque measured at wheels and across what time-span,
c)Ambient air, Barometric pressure, relative humidity
d)engine coolant and oil temperatures
There might be some dyno’s that read low, some that read high, but the reasons are explainable in items (a-d) I state above, this MUST be so, because power is a resultant of a mathematical calculation based only from these parameters, if you disagree these points the discussion will turn interesting indeed…. doesn’t this in turn also mean I do not in fact need to educate myself with the “plethora” of info you suggest?? Because NOTHING OTHER than variables stated (A-D) to generate numbers in a controlled and correct way, returns the right end power result?
Because I do see a suspect road wheel number (when back calculated from the reported flywheel power),
Because I see no coast down curve,
Because you state you don’t use any correction factors,
Then contrary to what you state “In summary, I don't think it is natural to question the data at all” – oh boy, I do..! and the consistent delta which you claim to be all that is important, is compromised because the parameters we question here are all variable and not constant, meaning result-to-result / test-to-test can vary also.
Perhaps I can help you here, what I find useful when answering technical questions is to pretend the audience is a panel of chief engineers from OEM, and the questions are in the context of them interviewing me for a top flight position. Ask yourself, would anecdotal comments win me the job, or should retorts be data driven, rigorous and methodical?? It could be you have all the answers, but it doesn’t shine through in the outline of this whole thread, of course, IMHO and please chime in so we can develop the discussion.
I am very happy with the products we have produced, and with the results we have achieved. As I've stated previously, the fact that these results are very consistent with what you have demonstrated is possible only serves to reinforce that both companies are providing customers with honest descriptions of the realizable gains.
You've acknowledged that the results we have shown will be 'in the region' of what is being quoted, so all that's left is to question the EXACT figures by calling the dyno readings into question? I had an answer to this that I was going to type out but you put it much better yourself:
"The test was totally under the control of the dyno vendor, and the service provided I paid the going rate for, and is a process i could not influence in any way. Ring them direct if you want to follow up, in fact please do, then your appology will be more meaningful to me."
Anyway, don't worry, we'll be doing plenty more dyno runs with other vehicles as time goes on.
yeti said:
Eh? I'm dismissing nothing. He used to work at RSC, selling RSC/bought in bits, now he doesn't. He's created a company called Velocity that is having stuff fabbed by someone else.
That is a start up company?
There is nothing wrong with a start up company, BR were one 2-3 years ago, this is one. This is not a point to get defensive over, I'm not being derogatory!
Actually I think you are trying to be dismissive. You frequently use pejorative or diminutive language any time my company or products are mentioned. Even in the above quotation you feel it necessary to mention 'bought in bits' which is intended as a slight. That is a start up company?
There is nothing wrong with a start up company, BR were one 2-3 years ago, this is one. This is not a point to get defensive over, I'm not being derogatory!
You are also missing a large chunk of information here but you've just assumed that you know something and thrown it out there. Actually, my company was founded in 2007 and has remained in existence since then (this information is all a matter of public record.) My original business partner and I developed a number of products, first of which were our Aston designs. My company also did a fair amount of business with RSC Tuning, supplying them with their parts, which led eventually to me buying out my business partner and going to work with RSC Tuning in Miami as an Independent Contractor.
After giving it a go for a couple of years, I not happy with the business conditions or the way it was being run and I chose to leave. I have known the owner of my exhaust manufacturing company for many years, and when I left RSC, he purchased half of Velocity from me. So yes, Velocity's parts are 'fabbed' by someone else, a business which one of Velocity's owners also owns. This is a big part of the reason why we are able to produce great parts at such a low cost.
I would appreciate it if you refrained from posting inaccurate and unverified 'information' about my professional life or company. If you would like further information about either, I am happy to provide it to you, or you could just look on companies house.
Stuart Dickinson said:
yeti said:
Eh? I'm dismissing nothing. He used to work at RSC, selling RSC/bought in bits, now he doesn't. He's created a company called Velocity that is having stuff fabbed by someone else.
That is a start up company?
There is nothing wrong with a start up company, BR were one 2-3 years ago, this is one. This is not a point to get defensive over, I'm not being derogatory!
Actually I think you are trying to be dismissive. You frequently use pejorative or diminutive language any time my company or products are mentioned. Even in the above quotation you feel it necessary to mention 'bought in bits' which is intended as a slight. That is a start up company?
There is nothing wrong with a start up company, BR were one 2-3 years ago, this is one. This is not a point to get defensive over, I'm not being derogatory!
You are also missing a large chunk of information here but you've just assumed that you know something and thrown it out there. Actually, my company was founded in 2007 and has remained in existence since then (this information is all a matter of public record.) My original business partner and I developed a number of products, first of which were our Aston designs. My company also did a fair amount of business with RSC Tuning, supplying them with their parts, which led eventually to me buying out my business partner and going to work with RSC Tuning in Miami as an Independent Contractor.
After giving it a go for a couple of years, I not happy with the business conditions or the way it was being run and I chose to leave. I have known the owner of my exhaust manufacturing company for many years, and when I left RSC, he purchased half of Velocity from me. So yes, Velocity's parts are 'fabbed' by someone else, a business which one of Velocity's owners also owns. This is a big part of the reason why we are able to produce great parts at such a low cost.
I would appreciate it if you refrained from posting inaccurate and unverified 'information' about my professional life or company. If you would like further information about either, I am happy to provide it to you, or you could just look on companies house.
Thanks.
3033split said:
I'm confused, is this a commercial post/thread? if so can you answer my question from earlier please.
Thanks.
Perhaps it was missed in the middle of the p1ssing contest. Thanks.
I can tell you that Ive seem this before many times.
The product was tested by a third party and a hands off approach used.
Due diligence was applied and for that I applaud the supplier.
The rest of the 'professional' input to this thread is a complete disappointment. Such posting threatens to damage reputation.
divetheworld said:
Perhaps it was missed in the middle of the p1ssing contest.
I can tell you that Ive seem this before many times.
The product was tested by a third party and a hands off approach used.
Due diligence was applied and for that I applaud the supplier.
The rest of the 'professional' input to this thread is a complete disappointment. Such posting threatens to damage reputation.
I agree with the above, for what its worth, though apparently i dont care.I can tell you that Ive seem this before many times.
The product was tested by a third party and a hands off approach used.
Due diligence was applied and for that I applaud the supplier.
The rest of the 'professional' input to this thread is a complete disappointment. Such posting threatens to damage reputation.
gibbon said:
Why so condescending Yeti?
What can I say, guess that's just me. Apologies, though next time you do it, expect to be called out.There is a risk that this is decending into something it shouldn't do on this forum. Scotpak has the cheaper system he wanted so he's got his result.
Mike called Stuart out on his knowledge of dynos and testing methodology whilst stating his own expertise, Stuart answered.
We have the costs of all the products now so the grown-ups can make their decisions if they want to.
We don't need to bicker, despite the fact we're all 'new money bling/old fuddy duddys'
yeti said:
What can I say, guess that's just me. Apologies, though next time you do it, expect to be called out.
There is a risk that this is decending into something it shouldn't do on this forum. Scotpak has the cheaper system he wanted so he's got his result.
Mike called Stuart out on his knowledge of dynos and testing methodology whilst stating his own expertise, Stuart answered.
We have the costs of all the products now so the grown-ups can make their decisions if they want to.
We don't need to bicker, despite the fact we're all 'new money bling/old fuddy duddys'
Ha! A fair summation.There is a risk that this is decending into something it shouldn't do on this forum. Scotpak has the cheaper system he wanted so he's got his result.
Mike called Stuart out on his knowledge of dynos and testing methodology whilst stating his own expertise, Stuart answered.
We have the costs of all the products now so the grown-ups can make their decisions if they want to.
We don't need to bicker, despite the fact we're all 'new money bling/old fuddy duddys'
moving onStuart Dickinson said:
BamfordMike said:
Stuart Dickinson said:
Sadly, no answer to the specific questions
I repeat myself, this is a technical discussion on a matter of principal concerning data quality, it is not a p1ssing competition, it is not “forum war”, I am not “threatened” and I am not “lashing out” as you suggest I am. It might appear I’m being persistent perhaps, but this is because together with multiple forum members raising concerns too, there is evasion, without being able to understand why,to you addressing concerns in the inputs that calculate a final result, and that said result, which ‘might’ be compromised, then going on to be used as objective data to inform a forum, hence the need for peer review. The discussion persists because whilst no evidence is offered to verify the 12.9% delta, the 12.9% figure is still being banded around as objective. And plain and simple, this is all this discussion is about. It is indeed a good job you don’t want to win those sorts of jobs I mentioned, cos everyday in those jobs is peer review, scrutiny and precision. The difference is, whether right or wrong, those folk in those sorts of positions love and thrive on ppursuit of exactness, and their peers are often their best mates who whilst having a ding-dong in the day together, then go for a beer later. Professionalism…..
Because low speed torque seems in error (the upgrade kit returning no torque gain when it should have done, especially given the news it’s been designed by a holder of BA in physical chemistry), because road wheel power recorded seems in error (270 ish BHP), because calculated flywheel power seems in error (massively low), because the coast down curve cannot be seen, and because you state “no” correction factors were applied yet there is little way ambient conditions could be identical (not forgetting changes to decimal points have big influences on the horsepower number calculated at this level of output) <breath>. Whilst on one hand, and as I have said in many posts, yeah, the delta is gonna be ‘around’ what is stated, on the other hand to give the delta a precise figure, like 12.9%, is not a robust practice due to all the concerns raised but not addressed adequately in follow up answers.
To excuse the test as being the responsibility of another is not correct either, the correct course of action would have been to question it and not use it.
This is where I will leave this discussion, good luck to you that you do indeed get to dyno test lots more cars, and when that data is posted up on here, we can perhaps reignite this discussion then.
scotpak said:
Hi Mike
Do not understand what you mean here.
^^^ exactly this..!Do not understand what you mean here.
In light of the clear explanation I have given to the potential concerns which bring into question being able to quote such a precise delta, because you clearly don't understand or have any real concept of the precise science which is dyno testing, is why any further input on my part to inform you the issues and why you can't say you have 'precisely' 429BHP, is wasted on you.
Enjoy your car..! So happy for you it's worked out well
Lol. Typical answer from Mike.
Instead of addressing the question directly, you will flood the forum with technical jargon with a small dash
of diplomacy. Of course this is all done to mask the fact you are simply discrediting my cars dyno.
An alternative way you could have dealt with this scenario is to simply say, hmmm yes seem like good results however our products still have an edge due to A, B or C.
All I have attempted to do here is to help the consumer have choice in this small niche aston performance upgrade market. Given your near monopoly in this market and the fact you were able to increase the cost of your main exhaust product from £4.2k to £5k during these recessionary times, seemed unfair. Hopefully now customers in this small niche market have a credible alternative.
Peace!
Instead of addressing the question directly, you will flood the forum with technical jargon with a small dash
of diplomacy. Of course this is all done to mask the fact you are simply discrediting my cars dyno.
An alternative way you could have dealt with this scenario is to simply say, hmmm yes seem like good results however our products still have an edge due to A, B or C.
All I have attempted to do here is to help the consumer have choice in this small niche aston performance upgrade market. Given your near monopoly in this market and the fact you were able to increase the cost of your main exhaust product from £4.2k to £5k during these recessionary times, seemed unfair. Hopefully now customers in this small niche market have a credible alternative.
Peace!
As a relative newcomer to this forum, and knowing less about the subject matter than anyone who has contributed so far, but having followed the discussion with interest, may I ask a genuine question of Scotpak and Stuart Dickinson: Do you have a view on why the increased performance only really kicks in above 4,000 rpm? I can see that there is some limited gain between 1,500 and 2,000, and again between 2,300 and 3,500, but the lines touch at 2,200 and from 3,600 to 4,000. I would be interested to know why you think this is. If my question simply betrays my ignorance, please say so, no offence will be taken.
Lunablack said:
gmacdb9 said:
As a relative newcomer to this forum, and knowing less about the subject matter than anyone who has contributed so far
You do know that Jockman has contributed don't you??
divetheworld said:
3033split said:
I'm confused, is this a commercial post/thread? if so can you answer my question from earlier please.
Thanks.
Perhaps it was missed in the middle of the p1ssing contest. Thanks.
I can tell you that Ive seem this before many times.
The product was tested by a third party and a hands off approach used.
Due diligence was applied and for that I applaud the supplier.
The rest of the 'professional' input to this thread is a complete disappointment. Such posting threatens to damage reputation.
Evening all!
Just made a quick video on my Samsung phone (so excuse the quality) of my younger brother having a go on my very recently upgraded V8 vantage.
The mid-range torque is now amazing as discussed before, but the exhaust sounds epic!! turn up the volume and note that this is the sound with the windows up!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwDvcEzBr0U&fea...
Just made a quick video on my Samsung phone (so excuse the quality) of my younger brother having a go on my very recently upgraded V8 vantage.
The mid-range torque is now amazing as discussed before, but the exhaust sounds epic!! turn up the volume and note that this is the sound with the windows up!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwDvcEzBr0U&fea...
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff