I have a fantastic new idea for MINI performance parts that will undoubtedly make everyone happy (doubters and early adopters alike). If you come out with a new part and post about it here, use one of these two simple choices for the introduction:

1) Announce the part and describe it, but don't make any QUANTITATIVE OR MEASURABLE claims about it's performance. For example, instead of saying "it outflows every other widget on the market", say "it sounds great and is available in your choice of red or blue".

- OR -

2) Announce the part and describe it, and make whatever QUANTITATIVE OR MEASURABLE claims about it's performance that you want. BUT, do not get mad and complain when users ask for data to back up the claims. For example, instead of saying "We measured 10% more efficiency, but we refuse to present any of the testing data", say "We used a Magnehelic pressure gauge to check vacuum levels at the entrance to the supercharger at WOT, 6,000 rpm in 2nd gear on a MCS with 15% pulley. Stock measured 11 inches of vacuum, while the widget measured 10 inches of vacuum under the same conditions. "

For some reason, the above choices seem hard to grasp for some people, so I spelled it out. IMHO, both of the above choices would satisfy the vast majority of users here, myself included.

 

I think you added 10% more HP to your MINI with this post, and I am sure you have all the necessary test equipment to back it up!

Thanks Andy... :smile:

 

Andy,

Some of us buy on faith - early adopters - and some buy based on empirical data. I buy based upon both depending upon my compulsive nature, oh and how much green is burning a hole in my pocket, on any particular day. That said, I agree with you in spirit, absolutely. I cannot help wondering, however, that I do not know everything there is to know about desinging, testing and bringing a product to market...what is the cost in time and money for extensive testing? I think it is safe to say that some products can offer a reasonble 'duh' factor. Meaning, we'll know this will work without any testing...how much better it works is another story. Other products that are on the edge might benefit from some type of performance support, for sales purposes.

In my ideal world, and that's how humans should begin their thinking, I would prefer realistic numbers for everything based upon some base we can all place our arms around. The quarter mile is one way of determining how a product works. Dyno testing is another. But the shear number of possible permutations is beyond anyone's grasp, or at least mine.

I think you are idealy based and I commend your efforts. But after the ideal must come some sort of practical application. I find this a bewildering task. While this leaves your vigilant quest open to ridicule for the time being, it also leaves some of the rest of us buying stuff that just won't work. A happy medium???

Michael

 

This dead horse certainly hasnt been beaten enough

 

That all sounds great, but honestly, some people want to be told what to buy in the simplest terms possible.

If someone told me to buy a Miltek header over a PiloRacing header, I probably wouldn't give a flying flip about internal diameters, mandrel bends, cell counts, .0000000000003% differences in x, y, and z, or anything else technical. I would probably respond to someone saying "it makes you go real fast". Simple, direct, and to the point, and if I want more details, I'll contact the manufacturer directly.

Now, I really do see your point: plasma boosters make the same claims, and snooker people every day. But caveat emptor. And, for that matter, caveat vendor.

If you want to list the absolute specifics for new parts, feel free. However, you will only get early adopters and serious gear-heads to buy your parts. The rest of the motoring community will be put off by the officious and pedantic nature of your offers, and you'll wind up being forced to rely on word-of-mouth, which puts you back squarely in the camp of "it makes you go real fast".

Just my $.02. <--Calculated by removing two pennies from my right front pocket and having the specific value determined on a Kitchen Aid kitchen scale, with an accuracy of +- 2% and ultimately put toward the purchase of a Kit Kat bar.

 

Where was this thread in 2002?

 

I have been put off by Andy's approach and tone in the past. His ideal as I wrote above, should however, appeal to anyone with half a brain.

An ideal testing arena would eliminate unsatisfactory componenets from entering the market place. That would leave us with products that truely make us go faster. Applying Andy's ideal to a format that makes sense, and is fair, is bewildering.

There is nothing wrong with his thinking, nothing. His tone, well, lets move on. If we really want to accomplish something, lets try to think of a way of presenting claims that benefit both buyer and seller. We will never ever eliminate the sharks, or uninformed buyers. The two go hand in hand...that's why they exist... But we can try, yes?

 

That's why I proposed a choice of 2 different methods. Numbers claims with evidence -OR- Numberless claims without evidence. Both work fine.

I think you are missing the point. It is only when a vendor MAKES A QUANTITATIVE CLAIM, that they are undoubtedly asked for evidence to back up that claim. Without that claim, there is no need for evidence. IMHO, the choice of the above 2 methods IS the happy medium.

 

Does that mean you agree with my suggestion of choices?

 

Okay with me.

 

I disagree with that. You are saying that there are people who would:

A) Buy a part if the vendor makes unsubstantiated claims

-YET-

B) Not buy the same part if the vendor presents testing data to back up the claims

 

I work with very exacting numbers every (work) day of the week pertaining to accuracy of electronic and physical test and measurement equipment, so I know the value of empirical data and testing methods, and how that relates to specifications and claims. So, yeah, I am a 'numbers man' by nature. At the same time, I can recognize a worthwhile new design or proven previous design and know in my gut that I could buy the particular widget and benefit from it's gains. Ultimately, I prefer to see an item out there for a while that has gone through independent testing as well as customer reviews. The data will be backed up by lots of claims, and if they show a consistent positive gain, you can rest assured you arent gonna get stuck with some kind of junk.

Around NAM, I see extremes. Everything from the diehard skeptics to the ones forming immediate lines for the kool-aid trough. I fall in the middle of this. A vendor will make an announcement and an instant Congress will form, with harumphs and huzzahs from both sides. I will generally congratulate the manufacturer for his efforts and then wait for the test results. Generally manufacturer's specs can be a little bit or more suspect, since it is in their best interest to show the greatest gains. Numbers coming from end users and testers have gone through a crucible of comparison and measurement and the desire to 'tell the truth' in most cases. It's always a good choice to wait things out a bit.

In short, I do like seeing what the vendors are coming up with, especially sneak previews. I dont always expect raw numbers, and I can get an idea from those sneak previews and actual releases will indicate a decent product worth my while. In the end, I like to see tests, opinions and 'numbers'.

 

Right, so a method 1 post would work nicely in that case. Plus it wouldn't be making any QUANTITATIVE CLAIMS, so there would be no need or call to back up those claims.

 

It occurs to me that there should be a catchy acronymn for these two methods. How about:

NBNB : No Bark No Bite, aka method 1. Announce the part and describe it, but don't make any QUANTITATIVE OR MEASURABLE claims about it's performance.

ABAB : All Bark All Bite, aka method 2. Announce the part and describe it, and make whatever QUANTITATIVE OR MEASURABLE claims about it's performance that you want. BUT, be able to provide data to back up the claims.

Again, NEITHER are a bad method, and EITHER should be agreeable to a vast majority of posters.

 

let me just add that numbers areant always the whole story. Some products will enhance the drivability of your car while not actually adding any measureable numbers. I guess if you analize the dyno plot you can see where the part affected the curve but numbers arent always the bottom line.

Not long ago there was a thread about the 15% pulley and people being disapointed in that the power curve didnt change as much as they expected. Kinda like the old saying one mans junk is another mans treasure, I guess what I am trying to say is eveyones opinion of what works and doesnt work or is good or bad wont be the same. Also consider just because a prt makes HP numbers doesnt necessarily mean its a ood mod for your car, it might make the car a pian to drive in traffic or ??

An earlier poster posted about beating a dead horse, what I think he mean was this whole subject had already been beaten to death and we should just let it go.

Form your own opinions and spend your money based on your opinion and the info given to you...Is it really that dificult?

 

You forgot 1 thing Andy!!!! It helps if the Widget is really loud!!!!!!!! they then sell like hot cakes.


We all know noise equals performance right??

 

The problem is not as simple as you describe. Again, if a vendor makes a QUANTITATIVE OR MEASURABLE CLAIM about the performance of the product, but refuses to disclose any of the testing data to support that claim, then there will undoubtedly be many people who will question the product and hold off on buying it as a result. That's an example of ABNB (All Bark No Bite). If the vendor had instead used the ABAB or NBNB techniques, then the whole situation would be avoided.

 

Thank you. I have been building my own engines for over twenty years and numbers mean absolutely NOTHING to me unless I am drag racing and pushing that engine 100% at all times. Let’s be honest, when we tune our (street) cars, what are we really after? Some want HP bragging rights. Most of us are on a quest for that adrenaline rush we get when we actually have that occasional chance to get on the right pedal. Some of that comes from actual HP gains. But to be honest, most of it comes from the PERCEPTION of power or NOISE it makes. Why are ALTA CAIs so popular? Ten, twenty, or even thirty horsepower is nothing if the drivability isn’t also enhanced. I just built a ’68 Cooper S engine about a year ago. In it’s stock configuration it only puts out about 70HP. After I was done, it put out 120 on the last dyno run. Nice gain but it was a monster to drive.

 

Right, in that case, NBNB marketing would work fine.

 

Andy,

If I produced a performance product that was tested and proven to increase hp and some other vender stated that their new product produced more hp than mine, specifically stating 'mine' I would make them prove it.

In the absence of such an argument, one might be left to believe that nothing really works. Are we all pigeons.

 

Definitely.

 

the problems relating to the AGS snafu are all about confusing bark and bite.

 

NBNB .... ABAB...I don't care, I just want more POWER

Actually, a lot of things make no more HP but make you go faster, like lighter wheels.

My lighter SSR Comps made no HP difference but it is like knocking off 120 lbs of weight from my heavy wheels.

I think the real test, forget HP, would be to take the "Stock" (before new mod) MINI out and go from say 50 to 95 in 5th and time it. Do the new mod, go back and do the 50 to 95 in 5th again, and give me the time difference. Quicker time -- I'll buy it.

Earl

 

This thread isn't about horsepower, or any specific unit of measurement. It's about vendors making claims (whether it's horsepower, weight, efficiency, whatever) without backing up those claims. For many mods, horsepower is not the best measure of its performance (like an intercooler) but what is important is that whatever measure is used, should be backed up by testing results (ABAB). If there are no testing results or if the vendor does not want to present them, then they should choose a (NBNB) approach, which works just as well.

 

I always have agreed with your suggestions....just not the way you go about presenting them