• http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=617
• http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=618
• http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=619
• http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=620
• http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=621
• http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=622
   

Furthermore, come (sic) of the entries in your dyno database related to our customer cars are not correct. We've brought this to your attention in the past and you have showed no willingness to enter the correct data, yet you continue to try to externally link others to this incorrect information.

...[Excerpts unrelated to Dyno Database removed]...

Thank you.

CC: Jason Forum Administrator

Mr. Benveniste also used this correspondence to file a formal complaint with the forum administrator with an apparent purpose of having any references to his product lackluster performance removed from the public record.  The forum administrator is an uninvolved third party and has no frame of reference for any of Mr. Benveniste's allegations and no way to fact check his story.  The forum administrator did not know that Mr. Benveniste's complaint was misleading and factually incorrect (he lied).

The day following this message, Mr. Benveniste sent a six-point message  to the Dyno Database administrator alleging factual errors in the Dyno Database.  This letter came a day after the allegations above stating that he had already sent these complaints (or something like these) before, and he alleged these fictitious complains were ignored by the Dyno Database administrator.

It is the belief of the Dyno Database administrator, that Mr. Benveniste brought this allegation up to an uninvolved third party for the purpose to mislead, request punitive action, and have factually accurate, scientifically accurate, but unflattering tests of his products removed from the public record.  It is further believed that Mr. Benveniste did not submit a multi-faceted complaint prior to making these comments, but did send one a day later in an attempt to write his own narrative and provide a false cover story.  The dates and timestamps of Mr. Benveniste's correspondence very clearly tell a different story than the one he writes.

The Dyno Database finds these dyno tests were performed approximately one year before the existence of 240E software.  Therefore it is impossible for these dyno test results to be based on 240E software when 240E software didn't yet exist for another year.

Mr. Benveniste didn't fact check his own story.  This is not an error in the Dyno Database.

The dyno files are encoded with the modifications list on the day of the dyno session as directly quoted above.  The software revision is not recorded on the dyno file modifications list.  Therefore the Dyno Database sees no reason to deny Mr. Benveniste's request to change the software revision from BPM Stage-1 to BPM Stage-2.

Software revision has been updated as per Mr. Benveniste's request.

Mr. Benveniste offers no proof to substantiate any of these alleged errors.  He offered no proof that the dyno was not in fact a Dynojet.  He offered no proof that the graphs printed showing SAE correction were not SAE correction.  He offered no proof that the charts themselves were forgeries or altered by anything other than the Dynojet software.  The dyno files are available for download and any attempt to recreate the images with the Dynojet WinPep software will clearly show the results exactly as recorded in the Dyno Database.  There is no error whatsoever in the Dyno Database.

The Dyno Database is very perplexed with this aspect of Mr. Benveniste's allegations as they are so far fetched and demonstrably false.  Mr. Benveniste should fact check his own stories before wasting other people's time to investigate frivolous claims.

When graphs and dyno results are posted within a car forum thread, the Dyno Database often times records the thread title and provides a forum link for reference.  Mr. Benveniste is apparently unaware he posted these same dyno results himself in the thread noted and linked in the Dyno Database; and now Mr. Benveniste is alleging these graphs are taken out of context to embarrass his company.  Mr. Benveniste is apparently unaware of his own actions and didn't bother to fact check his own allegations.  The following graph shows the forum thread title, link, and graphs posted by Mr. Benveniste, and clearly shows the references in the Dyno Database are correct:

(Click to Enlarge)

The Dyno Database believes this complaint was made in error.  Most of Mr. Benveniste's complaints seem exclusively based on an erroneous assumption that this Dyno Database entry was made in error by taking it out of context to paint his company (BPM) in a negative light.  In his haste to make this complaint, Mr. Benveniste didn't perform any due diligence to check his own facts.  Quite frankly, it would appear Mr. Benveniste didn't care about the facts and didn't care to investigate his own allegations because the Dyno Database administrator corresponded with Mr. Benveniste on at least two occasions urging him to check his facts before moving forward with this complaint.  Mr. Benveniste's last message indicated he was satisfied with the complaint and believed it to be true and correct.  Had he taken the Dyno Database administrator's advice to perform more thorough and accurate due diligence and fact checking his own story, Mr. Benveniste would have discovered all of these allegations of factual errors were false and all of his assumptions were made based on the fruit of his own poison tree (not realizing he posted these results himself in the same thread).

The Dyno Database makes the following findings about this complaint:
 

• Even though the original post in the thread shows Dynapack results, Mr. Benveniste also posted these Dynojet results later in the thread.  He is apparently unaware of his own actions.  This is not an error on the part of the Dyno Database.
• Mr. Benveniste posted these same dyno results in the following forum post location in post #75:  http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13162543&postcount=75.  This is not an error on the part of the Dyno Database.
• The thread title recorded in the Dyno Database correctly reflects the title of the thread where Mr. Benveniste posted the dyno results himself.  Mr. Benveniste's claim of a wrong thread title is false.
• The thread link recorded in the Dyno Database correctly points to the thread where Mr. Benveniste posted the dyno results himself.  Mr. Benveniste's claim of a wrong thread link is false.
• The Dynojet results were recorded approximately one year before 240E software existed.  Therefore Mr. Benveniste's claim that this software was based on 240E is false.
• Whereas this entry represents Dynojet results, the dyno files are also Dynojet files (of course they are).  Mr. Benveniste's claim is false.
• The modifications list is fully documented in the notes of the Dynojet files at the time of the dyno session.  The software version number was not recorded in the Dynojet files, and Mr. Benveniste would know better than the Dyno Database what software revision was contained therein.  The Dyno Database has changed the software revision according to Mr. Benveniste's requests.  All other modifications will remain as documented in the Dynojet files.
• No proof was offered that the dyno was not a Dynojet.  No proof was offered that the SAE correction shown on the graphs was not SAE correction.  No proof was offered charts were forgeries or altered by any program other than the Dynojet software.  The Dynojet files are available for download from the Dyno Database.  When these files are viewed in SAE correction, with Smoothing = 3, with RPM on the X-axis, the Dynojet (WinPep) software produces these exact results.  It's unclear whether Mr. Benveniste possesses enough knowledge and experience with Dynojet software to have fact checked his own story.  If he did possess such knowledge and used it to fact check his own story, it would have been apparent that this claim was also false.

Other than changing the software from BPM Stage-1 to BPM Stage-2, the Dyno Database administrator finds all other claims of Mr. Benveniste's made in this complaint to be false and mostly based on his own errors and lack of attention to detail.
 

Regarding the second matter of using the correct baseline.  The Dyno Database always records the highest results whether it's a baseline or final results.  Whereas using lower baselines is a common vendor technique to manipulate larger final gains of their products, the Dyno Database aggressively polices this practice and exposes it whenever it is discovered.  "Tuners" and vendors aren't allowed to dictate to the Dyno Database to use a lower baseline when a higher one is available and does not appear to be a gross numerical outlier. 

The baseline for this comparison was RunFile_004 because it is the highest baseline.  RunFile_006 is a lower baseline than RunFile_004.  Mr. Benveniste is requesting to use a lower baseline when a higher baseline is available, and the higher baseline is not a gross numerical outlier.  Whereas this practice of using lower baselines does not meet the Dyno Database standards for truth and accuracy, Mr. Benveniste's request to use the lower baseline is hereby denied.

The Dyno Database doesn't record base software revisions, and raising it as an investigation point is a waste of the Dyno Database administrator's time.  The actual software revision of the base software is irrelevant and the discussion is more academic and a waste of the Dyno Database administrator's time chasing down another of Mr. Benveniste's frivolous claims.

Furthermore, although RunFile_011 is shown on some graphs, it is not used in the Dyno Database calculations.  So using it as another point of investigation is another waste of Dyno Database time and not germane to the accuracy of results reported in the Dyno Database.

(Click to Enlarge)

The graph below was printed using the same files, same SAE correction factor, and smoothing factor as Mr. Benveniste's graph immediately above.  This allows a direct comparison between the two to illustrate the selection and use of a correct baseline value.

(Click to Enlarge)

RunFile_004 and RunFile_006 are recorded in their dyno files with the same modifications list.  The Dyno Database always records the highest results whether it's a baseline or final results.  RunFile_004 is the highest baseline showing 366.15 whp; RunFile_006 is a lower baseline at 364.61 whp. 

Whereas RunFile_004 is the highest recorded baseline and is not a gross numerical outlier, it is therefore the correct baseline.  RunFile_006 is not the correct baseline because it is not the highest results of the dyno set of results.  Mr. Benveniste is in error both in comparing an SAE graph to STD results and claiming the SAE graph "correct."  But he is also in error claiming that RunFile_006 is the correct baseline.

(Click to Enlarge)

But since this complaint involves the STD correction entry in the Dyno Database, the same graph viewed in STD correction is as follows:

(Click to Enlarge)

In the Dyno Database, all results are rounded to the nearest whole decimal.  For the purposes of this example, the graphs are shown with SMOOTHING=5, the same as Mr. Benveniste's "proper chart" listed above.  RunFile_004 showed 374.93 whp and would be recorded as 375 whp STD correction in the Dyno Database. The highest final results came from RunFile_010 and showed 379.12 whp and would be recorded as 379 whp STD correction in the Dyno Database.  Using the correct baseline and final results, this Dyno Database entry would yield 4whp gain as follows:  379 - 375 = 4.  If we used Mr. Benveniste's preferred baseline (RunFile_006), 373.35 whp would be recorded as 373 whp in the Dyno Database, and the net gains would be 379 - 373 = 6 whp.  This example shows the importance of choosing the proper baseline for fairness and accuracy of reporting.  The example also shows how some vendors, whether intentional or not, will compare a lower baseline to higher final results to show larger gains for their products than would be achieved using consistent measuring and reporting techniques.  In this case, the baseline manipulation gained an extra 2 whp (6 - 4 = 2 whp).

Furthermore, in Complaint #4, Disputed point #3, Mr. Benveniste mentions the runs 4 and 5 were used to establish a baseline.  Mr. Benveniste's point seems to be that although RunFile_004 is higher than RunFile_006, since it was establishing a baseline, the higher results should be ignored.  Applying this same philosophy to post-tuning results, RunFile_011 should be used instead of RunFile_010.  Yet in his own "proper chart exported to show the before/after" results, Mr. Benveniste doesn't follow this same methodology.  The inconsistency is clear, but the motives are not.

• Of course the download files are the same when the recorded dyno session is the same.  Dynojet software does not store different files for SAE, STD, Uncorrected, etc.  Dynojet software saves one set of files, and the WinPep software can convert from one correction type to the next.  Mr. Benveniste is apparently not familiar with Dynojet software enough to know how to use it correctly.
• Modifications since baseline has been changed to BPM Stage-2 as per Mr. Benveniste's request.
• The Dyno Database always compares the highest baseline to the highest final results.  The Dyno Database doesn't allow "tuners" or other vendors to dictate to use a lower result in an attempt to manipulate the public record and show higher gains.
• The Dyno Database rejects the request to use the lower baseline and compare to the highest post-tuning results.  The Dyno Database finds such a tactic manipulative, misleading, and inconsistent with the philosophies of the Dyno Database.
• Mr. Benveniste's claim that this is a different base software than above is perplexing.  The results discussed above are the same as these.
• Mr. Benveniste's claim that an SAE dyno chart containing a lower baseline to replace an STD chart using the highest baseline is denied.  The Dyno Database always use highest to highest comparisons, and takes a dim view of "tuners" who try to manipulate the record by using lower baselines.
• The Dyno Database automatically calculates the deltas between baseline and final results.  These calculations are not entered by hand and no proof has been shown that they are in error.  Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the Dyno Database made these calculations (simple subtraction) correctly.
• The Dyno Database does not record or use peak gains.  Attempting to use it as an allegation of an error shows lack of attention to the contents and purpose of the Dyno Database.