Dispute Record: 100617 |
Dyno
Database Entries Affected:
|
Received: 2014-06-17, 17:42:00 |
Disputed By: Mike "Benvo" Benveniste |
Responsed: 2014-06-24, 22:30:00 |
Dyno
Database Response |
Dispute
Text |
Mr. Collins,
...[Excerpts unrelated to Dyno Database removed]...
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 |
Dyno Database Response |
Before
receipt of this message, the only prior allegation he sought to address
and change in the Dyno Database was Dyno Dabase
ID00616 on
September 6th, 2013. That item was immediately addressed and
responded to Mr. Benveniste in a public forum on September 12th, 2013 at
m5board.com. At the time this message was sent, the Dyno Database
administrator had received no other allegations or investigation
requests of factually incorrect entries from Mr. Benveniste or any
agents of his company or any of his customers. This appears to be
one of Mr. Benveniste's attempts to create a false narrative that only
he can explain the motivation. 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. |
Receive Date/Time: 2014-06-18, 01:18:00 |
Disputed By: Mike "Benvo" Benveniste |
Response Date/Time: 2014-06-22, 17:30:00 |
Dyno
Database Response |
Dispute
Text |
I will
start by identifying the inaccuracies I see in your dyno database:
1. http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=620&vType=1&dynoID=2
The title of this entry is "BPMSport Tuned 240E Software – Dyno Results
- 430HP"
If you follow the article, you'll find this link: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=748613
-This dyno was performed on a Dynapack, however, the chart listed is a
dyno jet.
-Under notes it states that this is "Pre 240E software update", however,
both runs listed use 240E software.
-The dyno files for download are not from a dynapack.
-The modification since baseline field states "BPM Stage-I tune". The
link to the article contains information that this vehicle was equipped
with a full Akra Evo, and therefore the modifcation since baseline would
be the "BPM Stage II Tune". The blue line in the grpah is a different
vehicle that Mr. Church had dynoed prior to this dyno, of a stock BMW
M3.
-The dyno type, correction, files, notes, and charts are incorrect. |
Dyno
Database Response |
This was point-1 of
a six point message alleging factual errors to the Dyno Database
administrator. The Dyno
Database will address each of these items separately. |
Disputed
point #1 |
This
dyno was performed on a Dynapack, however, the chart listed is a dyno
jet. |
Dyno
Database Response |
That is correct.
Mr. Benveniste posted these results himself on post-75 of this same
thread. He is apparently unaware of his own actions and didn't
fact check his own story. This is not an error in the Dyno
Database. |
Disputed
point #2 |
Under
notes it states that this is "Pre 240E software update", however, both
runs listed use 240E software. |
Dyno
Database Response |
The first recorded reference of "240E" is
on or about September 07, 2012. The timestamps on these dyno files show they were recorded on September 30, 2011 between 11:53
AM and 1:56 PM. These dyno results pre-date the existence of 240E by
nearly one year.
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. |
Disputed
point #3 |
The dyno
files for download are not from a dynapack. |
Dyno
Database Response |
The dyno charts show Dynojet results, and therefore the
dyno files for download are from a Dynojet also. Mr. Benveniste
posted these results himself on post-75 of this same thread. He is
apparently unaware of his own actions and didn't fact check his own
story. This is not an error in the Dyno Database. |
Disputed
point #4 |
The
modification since baseline field states "BPM Stage-I tune". The link to
the article contains information that this vehicle was equipped with a
full Akra Evo, and therefore the modifcation since baseline would be the
"BPM Stage II Tune". The blue line in the grpah (sic) is a different vehicle
that Mr. Church had dynoed prior to this dyno, of a stock BMW M3. |
Dyno
Database Response |
The dyno
files themselves were annotated with the following notes on September
30, 2011:
Runs 003 - 006: Stock Tune, MS S2 intake/scoops, RD Pulley, Akrapovic
evo exhaust
Runs 007 - 011: MB Tune, MS S2 intake/scoops, RD Pulley, Akrapovic evo
exhaust
The relationship and purpose of tying these results to Church's
Automotive or blue lines on a graph is unknown and apparently made in
error. Mr. Benveniste is apparently unaware he posted these
results himself on post-75 of the same thread.
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. |
Disputed
point #5 |
The dyno
type, correction, files, notes, and charts are incorrect. |
Dyno
Database Response |
This
Dyno Database entry is located within the "DynoJet" section of the
database. The dyno files available for download can load under Dynojet
software. The allegation above has a very wide scope and far reaching
implications. When taken literally, the allegations state the dyno type is incorrect and
therefore these files are not from a Dynojet (even though they load with
Dynojet software). The graphs are printed with SAE correction, but
the allegation above says SAE correction is incorrect. The
charts themselves are alleged incorrect (forgeries?) and therefore not
an accurate representation of what the Dyno software (WinPep) will
produce when you load these files. 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. |
Summary
from the Dyno Database |
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.
|
Receive Date/Time: 2014-06-18, 01:18:00 |
Disputed By: Mike "Benvo" Benveniste |
Response Date/Time: 2014-06-22, 20:15:00 |
Dyno
Database Response |
Dispute
Text |
4. http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=621&vType=1&dynoID=2
-The downloaded files are the same as #1 listed above.
-Modifications since baseline should be BPM Stage II
-The baseline used should be run #6, as runs 4 and 5 were establishing a
baseline, and runs 1-3 had different modifications (AFE intake vs MS)
-The Modification since baseline should be BPMSport 220E Stage II (even
though this was not an official release of software - this was solely
testing the AFE vs MS intake at the beginning, and then a few tuned
runs. On Run 11 a different calibration was flashed to the car.)
-This is a proper chart exported to show the before/after at that time: https://www.bpmsport.com/bpm_dyno_eas.jpg
-Max Gains would have been 5.72hp and 1.86tq
-Peak gains were about 15whp and 13wtq |
Dyno
Database Response |
This was point-4 of
a six point message alleging factual errors to the Dyno Database
administrator. The Dyno
Database will address each of these items separately. |
Disputed
point #1 |
The
downloaded files are the same as #1 listed above. |
Dyno
Database Response |
Of
course they're the same download files. These are the same dyno
results printed in STD instead of SAE correction. This is not an
error in the Dyno Database. |
Disputed point #2 |
Modifications since baseline should be BPM Stage II |
Dyno
Database Response |
Already
addressed and fixed as per above. |
Disputed point #3 |
The
baseline used should be run #6, as runs 4 and 5 were establishing a
baseline, and runs 1-3 had different modifications (AFE intake vs MS) |
Dyno
Database Response |
RunFile_001
and RunFile_002 are not printed on any of the graphs referenced by the Dyno
Database so in this regard, Mr. Benveniste is in error making reference
to them. However RunFile_003 does appear in the graphs. The Dyno Database doesn't really
consider this an error since no numerical or analytical comparison is
made between RunFile_003 and RunFiles 004 - 006; the results are
numerically and visually indistinguishable from each other. This
complaint seems more like a nit pick by Mr. Benveniste to write his own
narrative of errors found in the Dyno Database than an actual request to
fix a factual error. Although technically not considered an error in the Dyno Database graphs, to avoid confusion the Dyno
Database will remove RunFile_003 from the graphs.
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. |
Disputed point #4 |
The
Modification since baseline should be BPMSport 220E Stage II (even
though this was not an official release of software - this was solely
testing the AFE vs MS intake at the beginning, and then a few tuned
runs. On Run 11 a different calibration was flashed to the car.) |
Dyno
Database Response |
In
complaint #1 (above),
Mr. Benveniste claimed these runs were all made on 240E software, and in
this complaint #4 he claims the baseline is 220E software.
Mr. Benveniste apparently isn't terribly attentive to details and doesn't realize these are the same dyno
results in STD correction instead of SAE correction. He's
therefore making
contradictory claims against the same results. To the Dyno
Database, this
distinction is important to the veracity of Mr. Benveniste's complaint.
In complaint #1, he has states that the "Notes" in the Dyno Database which state "Pre
240-E software update" is incorrect because the
base software is supposedly 240E. But in this complaint (#4), he
claims the software for the same dyno results to be based on 220E.
The latter complaint contradicts his earlier complaint. Whereas BMW software version 240E did not exist until a year after these dyno tests were performed, and Mr. Benveniste's acknowledgement that
220E software was used as the baseline is further proof that the
"Notes" of the Dyno Database are indeed correct. But more to the
point...
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. |
Disputed point #5 |
This
is a proper chart exported to show the before/after at that time: https://www.bpmsport.com/bpm_dyno_eas.jpg |
Dyno
Database Response |
This
Dyno Database entry is an STD dyno chart, and the graph linked above is
an SAE dyno chart. Therefore the chart linked above cannot be
replaced as the "proper chart" but it can be used to illustrate why Mr. Benveniste
has requested the incorrect baseline and to show how vendors manipulate dyno results to use lower
baselines and higher final results to show higher gains for their
products.
(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. |
Disputed point #6 |
Max
Gains would have been 5.72hp and 1.86tq |
Dyno
Database Response |
The dispute above
seems to imply that the gains calculated by the Dyno Database software
is incorrect. The results under dispute are taken from the
following graph:
(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. |
Disputed point #7 |
Peak
gains were about 15whp and 13wtq |
Dyno
Database Response |
The Dyno Database
doesn't record or have any way to record this metric. It is
superfluous to this discussion and another waste of the Dyno
Database administrator's time to mention it and request an investigation. It
seems like another "cry wolf"
false allegation of factual errors put forth by Mr. Benveniste. |
Summary
from the Dyno Database |
With
each complaint filed by Mr. Benveniste, the more outrageous and
ludicrous his claims become. Without knowing Dyno Database ID's
620, 621, and 622 were all the same results recorded as SAE, STD, and
Uncorrected respectively, Mr. Benveniste filed a second complaint
against the same results but with
contradictory claims. The Dyno Database makes the
following findings regarding this second set of claims on the same dyno
results:
- 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.
|
|
|
Receive Date/Time: 2014-06-18, 01:18:00 |
Disputed By: Mike "Benvo" Benveniste |
Response Date/Time: 2014-06-23, 19:30:00 |
Dyno
Database Response |
Dispute
Text |
6.
http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=622&vType=1&dynoID=2
-Same as #4, but uncorrected. All of the other points apply. |
Dyno
Database Response |
This is
an Uncorrection version of Dyno Database ID 620, and 621. All of
the same responses apply here as applied to them. |