Roberto

Yes, it does, and the logworks developments into the MUT arena are of particular benefit to our community. Sure would like to see this mature into map tracing and real load values. I cant wait for the new version early this year.

jfitzpat

Well it is gone for now (understandably, since when I make direct feature comparisons about our line it is not fair to the official vendor/sponsors). I wish the pitch for lambda based tuning had survived, as well as the explanation of lambda vs. AFR measurements, because I think they are of generic interest, but I still understand evolutionm.net's position.

I'll forward the moderator's suggestion that we become an official vendor/sponsor to the powers that be here. But in the mean time I am going to respect their wishes and refrain from discussing our products. I only came to this forum to provide some informal technical support for some open source/freeware pieces we are giving back to the tuning community, and certainly don't want to wear out our welcome.

Best Regards,
-jjf

Roberto

Huh?!

I don't agree with evolutionm.net's position on this at all. Your product does not generally get distributed directly to end users from your company. It is typically sold to the end-users through resellers, and many of this site's sponsors sell your product. I bought your product through one of these sponsors. They are getting their financial support already through their sponsors who sell your products. They should not come and to you and double-dip by telling your that you need to (also) be a sponsor on here to discuss your product. If an engineer for HKS was willing to provide technical information on here, should he/she not be allowed because HKS is not a direct sponsor? I see you as a manufacturer's tech rep, and not a vendor.

Here you are, providing another data logging option (that is free to boot), which just may turn out to be one of the best and most mature for our platform. Just when we really get you involved in this community and get your motivation up to improve Logworks (to our benefit), the administration greedily hits you up for a a sponsorship? As a customer of the sponsors on here selling your product, I'm very unhappy about this potential stifling of your significant and future contributions to our community. I sure hope this does not drive you away as I fear it will.

nothere

iTrader: (23)

jjf,


really hope Innovate becomes a vendor just so the forum can have another well spoken and intelligent source of information.

No matter what happens I hope you continue to post. I see your considerations and your work in the ecu logging sphere as valuable. btw, thanks for the efforts you have made already.

Wishing you the best in the upcoming year!

Bruce

jfitzpat

Thank you very much. I've actually been enjoying working on the open tuning stuff quite a bit (though I still haven't accomplished all I would like). I hope the powers that be decide to sponsor, but as Roberto noted, it would be a good will gesture. We're not going to undercut our own dealers and distributers.

Still, I think Roberto is much too hard on the moderators. I really do understand their position. I don't think anyone has a problem with generic technical information. For example, I don't think that the problem in my deleted post was that I pointed out that 'Logging both AFR and Lambda' is technically incorrect.

That is expressing a simple technical fact. The sensor seeks proportional balance and the controller uses a meaurement mechanism see where that balance point is. The devices are inherently lambda meters. Lambda is converted to AFR for display purposes only using a fixed multiplier for a given fuel. 14.7 for avgas/mogas, 9.0 for ethanol, etc.

Similiarly, I don't think anyone objected to my pointing out the implication of the technical correction. Namely, fuel is often a blend, so the multipliers are frequently off for a given tank full, so performance tuning to lambda often can lead to more consistant results, since it is what is truly being measured and is fuel independant.

The problem is when a vendor points out features x and y and I say something to the effect of 'oh yeah, we've always had those, and we also do z, which makes x and y more useful...' or when I say 'and I see you can buy us here for $$...'

The accuracy and honestly of my statements is not relavent. It is a clash of commercial interests (albiet slightly indirect) and one side is a sponsor and one is not - and the board is stuck in the middle. Think of it as a race team. Keeping sponsors happy is a simple necessity. Without it, all the good, fun, stuff goes away.

-jjf