6.68 second 60-130 mph (with heat soak and misfires)
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 444
Rep Power: 41
Originally Posted by Craig
Based on the foregoing, I only see one option: F*ck it! My AX22 clearly states that I ran a 6.68 second 60 to 130 mph time. Given that I did exactly as I was instructed, it is my position that 6.68 is a valid time. Jean may disagree, and I do not fault him for doing so. That being said, my AX22 says that the time is valid, and I will live with that.
I've asked Jean why he thinks some times, like yours, are not accurate. When I learn more, I'll post my findings. BTW, the AX-22 measured my CS at 8.79 seconds on one run and about 12 seconds on all the others. The 8.79 seconds was obviously wrong and could not be explained. So, there may be a problem with the AX-22 that we don't understand yet.
Originally Posted by Bill S
The 8.79 seconds was obviously wrong and could not be explained. So, there may be a problem with the AX-22 that we don't understand yet.
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,803
From: Missing in action
Rep Power: 214
Originally Posted by Bill S
Craig, congratulations on your 6.68 time! I have a Ruf 993 Turbo R, and the best I can do is 9.1 seconds. A CGT is about 8 seconds, so you're faster than a CGT!
I've asked Jean why he thinks some times, like yours, are not accurate. When I learn more, I'll post my findings. BTW, the AX-22 measured my CS at 8.79 seconds on one run and about 12 seconds on all the others. The 8.79 seconds was obviously wrong and could not be explained. So, there may be a problem with the AX-22 that we don't understand yet.
I've asked Jean why he thinks some times, like yours, are not accurate. When I learn more, I'll post my findings. BTW, the AX-22 measured my CS at 8.79 seconds on one run and about 12 seconds on all the others. The 8.79 seconds was obviously wrong and could not be explained. So, there may be a problem with the AX-22 that we don't understand yet.
Your comment about the one divergent time for your CS is telling for two reasons. First, I firmly believe that you strictly followed the correct procedures when conducting this run and, yet, the time was nevertheless questionable for reasons that you cannot explain. Second, in my case, I have a second time that is .03 seconds slower than my first time. Of note, I recalibrated the AX22 between runs (while stationary). Thus, whereas your times were all "about 12 seconds" apart, with the singular exception of the divergent 8.79 time, my two times are consistent with each other (albeit a rather small sampling).
Craig
Last edited by Craig; Dec 6, 2006 at 02:44 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 444
Rep Power: 41
Originally Posted by Craig
Your comment about the one divergent time for your CS is telling for two reasons. First, I firmly believe that you strictly followed the correct procedures when conducting this run and, yet, the time was nevertheless questionable for reasons that you cannot explain.
Here's how you know if it happened to you. Check your shift points in the graph, and compare with the MPH that you expect to shift. If it doesn't match, the AX-22 was drifting and the run was incorrect. In some cases, it drifts so bad you will not even see the last shift. I have proof that this happens, but I can't upload images for some reason. If you just did one or two shifts, it may be hard to see this. I've seen it start drifting half-way through the run. I'll post the proof on the 60-130 MPH thread on Rennlist under the 993TT where I can upload files.
So the mystery is revealed. If that is the case I would return this box for a refund... that's not right. No wonder Alexander is having strange numbers and then there is Jean saying "no its incorrect"...
The funny thing is that Jean says it works great when used properly. Alex duck taped the unit to his windshield and the antenna was as stationary as it can be... I'm really not looking forward to doing this myself...
The funny thing is that Jean says it works great when used properly. Alex duck taped the unit to his windshield and the antenna was as stationary as it can be... I'm really not looking forward to doing this myself...
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,327
From: ATL
Rep Power: 171
This is frustrating me!
Here's an idea for you guys with AX-22 problems. Take the data from the AX-22 and average the times of three runs that are within .1 second of eachother (if this is possible with the AX-22). All runs are to be performed under similar conditions, preferably within a 24hr period, no more. After the average time is figured, make one more 'verification pass' under similar conditions, preferably within 24hrs of obtaining the average number. For your time to be valid, the 'verification pass' has to be within .2 seconds of your average time.
I would suggest all devices be sent to an independent party for calibration and data gathering. Hopefully, each device would be given a unique number before being returned to their owners. This unique number would have to be provided along with times so that the differences can be applied and calculated for independent verification.
There may be many holes in this formula - ****, it may be a big hole itself. Please feel free to modify/adapt/discard my suggestion.
I look forward to these numbers and am usually excited when the thread gets bumped, only for my excitement to be shot down and to be filled with frustration.
Uggggghhhh.
Here's an idea for you guys with AX-22 problems. Take the data from the AX-22 and average the times of three runs that are within .1 second of eachother (if this is possible with the AX-22). All runs are to be performed under similar conditions, preferably within a 24hr period, no more. After the average time is figured, make one more 'verification pass' under similar conditions, preferably within 24hrs of obtaining the average number. For your time to be valid, the 'verification pass' has to be within .2 seconds of your average time.
I would suggest all devices be sent to an independent party for calibration and data gathering. Hopefully, each device would be given a unique number before being returned to their owners. This unique number would have to be provided along with times so that the differences can be applied and calculated for independent verification.
There may be many holes in this formula - ****, it may be a big hole itself. Please feel free to modify/adapt/discard my suggestion.
I look forward to these numbers and am usually excited when the thread gets bumped, only for my excitement to be shot down and to be filled with frustration.
Uggggghhhh.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Craig
Bill, I do not know you, so I will assume that your suggestion that I might have "manipulated" the data was inadvertent and/or ill-conceived. As stated above, I strictly and scrupulously followed the instructions to the letter, both as supplied with the AX22 unit and as posted here and on Rennlist, precisely to avoid any hint of irregularity. I assure you that whatever Jean perceived as irregular had NOTHING to do with data manipulation.
While I continue to believe that the AX22 is accurate, we now have several documented instances where the results were called into question, notwithstanding strict adherence to the instructions for installation and calibration. I have NO IDEA why this is occurring. However, the fact that it does occur, and not merely once, suggests to me that the AX22 is not quite as infallible as I had hoped when I forked over $1,000 to purchase it.
Here on 6Speed, we happen to have access to Jean and his verification process. What do the other 99% of AX22 users do . . . what do the 99% of AX22 users do if they do not have access to Jean? Ill tell you what they do. They believe the data supplied by their AX22 units, without question, because the included instructions state that the data is accurate and do not say anything about verification of the data to ensure reliability. In this regard, the AX22 is poorly documented and poorly marketed.
As a member of the 1% of AX22 users that have access to Jean, I am now left with data that has been denied validation, and I have no way to remedy or resolve the issue. I did everything strictly by the book. There is nothing else I can do to increase the likelihood that the data will receive Jean's blessings. Moreover, Scott has required Jean's blessings in order to include the time in the 6Speed compilation. While I understand the legitimate reasons for this requirement (to prevent intentional manipulation), I am left with no recourse.
Based on the foregoing, I only see one option: F*ck it! My AX22 clearly states that I ran a 6.68 second 60 to 130 mph time. Given that I did exactly as I was instructed, it is my position that 6.68 is a valid time. Jean may disagree, and I do not fault him for doing so. That being said, my AX22 says that the time is valid, and I will live with that.
BTW, I sent Jean a data file from a second run that I did (.03 slower). Perhaps he will validate that run (I am not holding my breath).
As I previously stated, nothing in my comments should be interpreted as the slightest bit pejorative towards Jean. I firmly trust and believe that Jean's validation procedure is legitimate. The mere fact that my run did not pass his test, notwithstanding my strict adherence to AX22 use instructions, does not render Jean's procedures any less valid. On the other hand, the fact that my run did not pass his test, notwithstanding my strict compliance with use instructions, is telling. I cannot explain the disconnect.
My point is simply that there is nothing more I can do to resolve the issue, so I will accept that data as accurate, just as 99% of AX22 users in my shoes would do. Scott will decide whether to incorporate the time into 6Speed’s compilation. However, his decision will not make the time any less valid.
Finally, when I change my spark plugs and run an even faster time, I will accept the AX22 results as valid, just as Race Technology states that I should, and just as 99% of AX22 users do.
Regards,
Craig
While I continue to believe that the AX22 is accurate, we now have several documented instances where the results were called into question, notwithstanding strict adherence to the instructions for installation and calibration. I have NO IDEA why this is occurring. However, the fact that it does occur, and not merely once, suggests to me that the AX22 is not quite as infallible as I had hoped when I forked over $1,000 to purchase it.
Here on 6Speed, we happen to have access to Jean and his verification process. What do the other 99% of AX22 users do . . . what do the 99% of AX22 users do if they do not have access to Jean? Ill tell you what they do. They believe the data supplied by their AX22 units, without question, because the included instructions state that the data is accurate and do not say anything about verification of the data to ensure reliability. In this regard, the AX22 is poorly documented and poorly marketed.
As a member of the 1% of AX22 users that have access to Jean, I am now left with data that has been denied validation, and I have no way to remedy or resolve the issue. I did everything strictly by the book. There is nothing else I can do to increase the likelihood that the data will receive Jean's blessings. Moreover, Scott has required Jean's blessings in order to include the time in the 6Speed compilation. While I understand the legitimate reasons for this requirement (to prevent intentional manipulation), I am left with no recourse.
Based on the foregoing, I only see one option: F*ck it! My AX22 clearly states that I ran a 6.68 second 60 to 130 mph time. Given that I did exactly as I was instructed, it is my position that 6.68 is a valid time. Jean may disagree, and I do not fault him for doing so. That being said, my AX22 says that the time is valid, and I will live with that.
BTW, I sent Jean a data file from a second run that I did (.03 slower). Perhaps he will validate that run (I am not holding my breath).
As I previously stated, nothing in my comments should be interpreted as the slightest bit pejorative towards Jean. I firmly trust and believe that Jean's validation procedure is legitimate. The mere fact that my run did not pass his test, notwithstanding my strict adherence to AX22 use instructions, does not render Jean's procedures any less valid. On the other hand, the fact that my run did not pass his test, notwithstanding my strict compliance with use instructions, is telling. I cannot explain the disconnect.
My point is simply that there is nothing more I can do to resolve the issue, so I will accept that data as accurate, just as 99% of AX22 users in my shoes would do. Scott will decide whether to incorporate the time into 6Speed’s compilation. However, his decision will not make the time any less valid.
Finally, when I change my spark plugs and run an even faster time, I will accept the AX22 results as valid, just as Race Technology states that I should, and just as 99% of AX22 users do.
Regards,
Craig
With that stated here are two of my 99.9% verified runs..they look good to me...what do you guys think?? The first 6.31 second run was done with 1.2bar of boost and two shifts...the second run yielded a 3.84 60-130mph which was done on KILL mode (no NOS) and one shift...here is the graph for verification...
Attachment 45184
Last edited by VRAlexander; Dec 28, 2006 at 03:28 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,726
From: Michigan
Rep Power: 416
Originally Posted by Al Norton
SMR mentioned earlier in this thread the Performance Box from Racelogic. I have been looking into this product myself and have spoken with the tech rep to clarify that it is fully programable from speed A to speed B. Here is a link to a data sheet that I found a little misleading and incomplete ergo my call to the rep.
http://www.vboxusa.com/datasheets/Pe..._datasheet.pdf
For those of you who would like to see more of the "nuts and bolts" of it, so to speak, here is a link to the owner's manual.
http://www.vboxusa.com/manuals/RLPB_Manual.pdf
The tech rep I spoke with was Jim Lau.
I've been exploring threads extensively since my recent joining, and remember that several of you did a group buy on the AX22. I asked Jim if his company would entertain the idea of a group buy at a discount, and he said yes.
I believe Craig arranged the last group buy and I expect he wouldn't want to go through all that again. If there are people other than I who are interested in buying this product, I would be willing to try to make the arrangements. I realize I am new to the forum, and unknown to most all of you, so I will not be offended if someone wants to take the responsibility. Hell, I haven't even found another P-car to buy, so maybe I have a default disqualification.
http://www.vboxusa.com/datasheets/Pe..._datasheet.pdf
For those of you who would like to see more of the "nuts and bolts" of it, so to speak, here is a link to the owner's manual.
http://www.vboxusa.com/manuals/RLPB_Manual.pdf
The tech rep I spoke with was Jim Lau.
I've been exploring threads extensively since my recent joining, and remember that several of you did a group buy on the AX22. I asked Jim if his company would entertain the idea of a group buy at a discount, and he said yes.
I believe Craig arranged the last group buy and I expect he wouldn't want to go through all that again. If there are people other than I who are interested in buying this product, I would be willing to try to make the arrangements. I realize I am new to the forum, and unknown to most all of you, so I will not be offended if someone wants to take the responsibility. Hell, I haven't even found another P-car to buy, so maybe I have a default disqualification.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,726
From: Michigan
Rep Power: 416
Gentleman.... the tone directed towards Jean is unwarranted and unnecessary. Of the many people I have come to know and trust on this site Jean is very high on the list. I feel he has NO agenda and truly is seeking the truth. Alex and Craig: I have not been given the keys to the kingdom with Jeans proprietary calculations, but I understand it more than most. Jean has shared the results of his tests on my own personal data and on many other files with me as well as sharing much valuable data. The calculation is sound. IF you were referred to Jean by the manufacturer...doesnt that tell you something? I know little of the AX22 and its inner workings. I own and believe in the Dbox. Make no mistake...none of theses units are inherently inaccurate. Dbox makes mistakes.....example 1: DMK's run of 6.15 and 3.9 seconds within 120 sec of each other in a continuos data log.3.9 aint happening my friends. Dbox will log its own errors and satellite dropouts in the files. That is how Todd and I resolved his issues.... nothing but updated firmware was needed. Vehicle was rerun and results were similar with no dropouts and no speed/distance summary errors. This whole 60-130 issue is turning south very quickly. One should ask themselves why are we doing this? Bragging rights or knowledge? Take your pick...you want bragging rights then plaster any graph on the forum ,preferrably with a 10% negative slope and we will all gasp in awe. If you want knowledge, then ask some questions about the results and answer some as well. It is disingenuous, in my opinion, to post runs without accurate descriptions of the vehicles build level so a comparison van be made with other vehicles on the list. Lets tone this down a bit..... Kevin
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 444
Rep Power: 41
Originally Posted by VRAlexander
Attachment 45183
With that stated here are two of my 99.9% verified runs..they look good to me...what do you guys think?? The first 6.31 second run was done with 1.2bar of boost and two shifts...the second run yielded a 3.84 60-130mph which was done on KILL mode (no NOS) and one shift...here is the graph for verification...
Attachment 45184
With that stated here are two of my 99.9% verified runs..they look good to me...what do you guys think?? The first 6.31 second run was done with 1.2bar of boost and two shifts...the second run yielded a 3.84 60-130mph which was done on KILL mode (no NOS) and one shift...here is the graph for verification...
Attachment 45184
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,509
From: Virginia, USA
Rep Power: 789
Originally Posted by KPG
Gentleman.... the tone directed towards Jean is unwarranted and unnecessary. Of the many people I have come to know and trust on this site Jean is very high on the list. I feel he has NO agenda and truly is seeking the truth. Alex and Craig: I have not been given the keys to the kingdom with Jeans proprietary calculations, but I understand it more than most. Jean has shared the results of his tests on my own personal data and on many other files with me as well as sharing much valuable data. The calculation is sound. IF you were referred to Jean by the manufacturer...doesnt that tell you something? I know little of the AX22 and its inner workings. I own and believe in the Dbox. Make no mistake...none of theses units are inherently inaccurate. Dbox makes mistakes.....example 1: DMK's run of 6.15 and 3.9 seconds within 120 sec of each other in a continuos data log.3.9 aint happening my friends. Dbox will log its own errors and satellite dropouts in the files. That is how Todd and I resolved his issues.... nothing but updated firmware was needed. Vehicle was rerun and results were similar with no dropouts and no speed/distance summary errors. This whole 60-130 issue is turning south very quickly. One should ask themselves why are we doing this? Bragging rights or knowledge? Take your pick...you want bragging rights then plaster any graph on the forum ,preferrably with a 10% negative slope and we will all gasp in awe. If you want knowledge, then ask some questions about the results and answer some as well. It is disingenuous, in my opinion, to post runs without accurate descriptions of the vehicles build level so a comparison van be made with other vehicles on the list. Lets tone this down a bit..... Kevin
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KPG again.".....I tried.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,726
From: Michigan
Rep Power: 416
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
Great post, Kevin. Thanks.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KPG again.".....I tried.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KPG again.".....I tried.
