Which setting for shocks - Installing Steeda Adj ProAction + GT350R Springs

[DG]

And Steeda (and Koni) didn't design their, mind you, **~$700 for an entire set of dampers package** for a much narrower range than Ford, just for stiffer spring rates and lower drops,

"Lower drops" doesn't affect valving, unless you are talking about body length and where in the stroke the bump rubber engages. Stiffer springs, yes.

so I don't understand any criticism of a meaningless (to the targeted customer and then some) variation between two mass-produced shock valve actuals on a dyno plot. Expecting Steeda (or Koni) to offer valve-matched shocks and individually dyno each damper that goes out the door for $700 is lunacy. Ain't happening.

Well here's the thing - how is the customer expecting to use the product?

In my world, Koni Yellows were the first step up into Real Race Shocks, where there is an expectation that the shock forces are to some degree optimised for the car and where the adjustment knob forms some sort of useful purpose.

For Koni Yellows specifically, this is much more true than many other alternatives in the same price range (BC, JIC, Megan, etc etc etc) so if you are price-constrained, a Koni Yellow is a MUCH better starting point than most other choices. But, like you said, mass produced. That implies - and I have direct evidence of - variation shock to shock that needs a dyno to discover.

We sold Koni packages. To make them, we bought Konis in lots of 10. That was usually good for 3-4 matched sets, and a couple of oddballs. The oddballs would go in the shelf, and sometimes they'd match with oddballs from the next batch. At any given time, there were, say 3 oddballs on the shelf.

I have a distinct memory of dynoing a pair of brand new Koni Yellows whose entire operating range did not overlap anywhere on the trace. The first thing I did was check part numbers to see if they matched. The second thing I did was re-dyno my baseline (an OEM Z06 shock) to make sure something hadn't fucked up the dyno. Nope - dyno worked fine, same part numbers - just happened to hit extreme variation.

But the point is THAT CAN HAPPEN - so you have to dyno and know for sure.

As for "lunacy"... man, *everything* I sold came with a dyno plot. No exceptions. I considered it a sacred duty to the customer.

Steeda's Pro-Action shocks are more expensive because they are a variation from the norm for Koni to produce (blue in color, valving, different stickers, and it cannibalizes their own marketed product). That's all.

Makes sense to me. No argument here.

I have 350 front rate springs and 1200 rear rate springs (front is a strut, ... ... beat my PB at that track be 4 seconds on a partially wet track. They do just fine. And nobody but the most seasoned of race drivers on the stiffest of chassis will notice in the real world effect of manufacturing variation between valve effectiveness on Koni Yellow (and similar valve design) shocks. Nor is it actually holding them back.

Well... yes and no.

"Yes" in that, if the shocks are in the ballpark - and that ballpark can be pretty wide, depending on a whole slew of circumstances - generally speaking, shocks are rarely THE limiting factor to performance. There can be exceptions, but big hand, small map, a decent set of shocks that aren't cavitating, overheating & fading, and aren't completely wonky left to right will probably do OK.

But with that said, there can be serious time to be found via shock tuning and attention to detail if the circumstances line up to support it - and that means time spent tuning (and money spent ensuring the equipment will support tuning) isn't wasted, if you goal is maximizing performance.

If it isn't - and that's fine if it isn't, not everybody is as crazy and as financially irresponsible as you need to be to go racing - then why is there a knob on the shock in the first place? You'd be better off with a Bilstein (which has next to no part-to-part variation, but no knob) valved for that average case.

If you are a "set it and forget it" guy, Bilstein is a much better raw material than a Koni.

Sponsored

 

[DG]

I'm a normal Koni Yellow customer - I enjoy track days (not competition), and have no access to a shock dyno. I set up my suspension by feel because I have no other choice. I'm constantly amazed at how far I have to rotate adjusters to feel a difference, so I found your article comforting (maybe there is no difference!).

Because of the way the adjuster works, the closer you get to full hard, the more control authority the knob gets. In that range of about (YMMV) 1 turn off full hard, the shock forces spike hard, typically.

Generally speaking, "full hard" is WAY too hard.

But...

In my world - back when I did this for a living - I had the freedom to change springs and bars to whatever I needed, then I matched the shocks to the spring package. I never needed the shocks to do anything other than damp the suspension and tune transients.

If you live in a world where you are NOT tuning via spring and bar changes, you can "fake it" by running more damping than optimal. The stiffer shock acts as a "fake spring" and feels to the car like a higher spring rate, up until the point when the car takes a set (suspension stops moving) because a shock exerts no force unless the piston is moving.

This is common in SCCA Stock class autocross (where spring changes are verboten) and where the car almost never takes a set because the course is all transients. It has also been exploited by OEMs - my Stealth uses computer controlled rebound damping changes to control transient handling, so you can keep the shocks soft for ride reasons and then crank them up for handling reasons in response to driver inputs. Crude, but effective.

So even though discussion of this nature starts my eyebrow twitching because that is NOT how you tune a race car... it has its place in the right circumstances.

How should I set up my Yellows? Rebound adjustment shouldn't make a damper feel stiffer, but I swear it does. Is my butt lying to me?

Oh hell yes your butt IS lying to you - it does that all the time. But yes, large changes to rebound DO make the car "feel stiffer". What you are feeling isn't what you think it is, but the feeling that "something is different" is valid.

With that said, the most common mistake with "valving by feel" is that people crank in WAY too much rebound. Rebound feels "safe". The car feels "planted". It doesn't roll as much. Weight transfer seems to happen faster. So it is not at all unusual to have Stock class guys keep adding more and more rebound. I have seen Stock class shocks valved at 1500lbf at 1in/sec, which is INSANE (I had to make thicker dyno adaptors, because the ones I had were deflecting and throwing off the readings) so be aware that there is a "too much" setting and that even experienced, sensitive drivers ROUTINELY err on the side of "too much".

Excess rebound can help a guy like you, but only up to the point where it doesn't.

I would still recommend dynoing the shocks, so you know for sure exactly where each shock is and what the knob actually does. You are less concerned about absolute force values, and more about "do my shocks overlap?" and "at which settings do they match?"

Then you can add rebound to control axle hop etc - and STOP adding rebound as soon as the shock does what you want out of it.

And tune with a stopwatch, not your butt.

 

[jbailer]

Hi there! Far North Racing here!

One of the cool things about having a racing history is that you have friends everywhere, and some of them are nice enough to alert you when you become the subject of discussion.

"Full of himself"... well... it isn't like I've never heard that before. And yet, I always find that strange, because it seems like half of A2W is me saying about how you canh't just take my word (or anyone else's word) as gospel, and you MUST MUST MUST test for yourself. I've never figured out how "I might be full of shit so make sure you test this yourself" comes over as "full of myself"... but there you are.

Now as it happens, to date, nobody has tested anything and come back with proof that I got it wrong, or that things have changed since I wrote A2W. It is far more common to have people come back with supporting evidence that backs up what I wrote. Given the amount of research and raw measurements that went into A2W, that's what I expected.

I'm not sure what your point there was other than you believe that you know everything. If anything, I think you further proved my point.

As for overgeneralizing... A2W has to boil down some pretty advanced stuff into general rules of thumb and easily digested explanations. When you sacrifice precision for accessibility, you wind up glossing over some of the nuances.

The good news is that none of those nuances are particularly important. Follow the rules of thumb, and you are 80-90% of the way to optimum. The gains found in what remains are pretty small, and usually lost in the noise of driver variation. Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough.



About a thousand different parts designed, tested, and manufactured, with constant feedback from customers and our own research... so.. yes?

Not sure what your point is?

My point is if you knew anything about QA as you claim, you'd know that testing doesn't 100% transfer from batch to batch. Quality has to be retested with every change. So you tested some Koni dampers... So? Have you tested the Koni dampers we're talking about? I'm guessing not. Your basis is from analysis done on some Koni dampers. For proper testing you would have to have a fair number of them even from the same batch, I'm willing to bet that didn't happen either. I'd bet you just had some random dampers that you tested from Koni and you probably had no clue which batches they were from. They probably have nothing to do with the current dampers that we're running and talking about either. A lot of guesses but I bet I'm pretty damned close.

OK, war story time. Helmets on everyone!

I wasn't always a shock engineer, nor did I have any particular desire to become one. Basically, it took Carroll Smith (yes, *that* Carroll Smith) smacking me upside the head and calling me an idiot for *not* doing the stuff I wound up doing post Smith-slap to get me moving. Like 99% of everyone else out there, I took the claims of the manufacturers and my fellow racers at face value. Why wouldn't I? Some of those cats had been racing for *decades*! *Of course* they knew more than me!

I had a set of custom stocks made by a short-lived company called ShockTek. Nice guy. Meant well. Was blending Bilstein and Penske (Fox) parts with his own custome-machined bits to make OEM fitment double adjustables with remote reservoirs. Cool stuff. Heart was in the right place and his ideas were sound, but his manufacturing process and QA wasn't up to the job.

Anyway, I was UTTERLY CONVINCED that the compression settings on my remote reservoir shocks had an effect on handling. I *routinely* made a run, and moved adjusters up/down a click, and made another run, and noted the "changes". There was *no way on earth* that I could have been convinced that those adjusters did anything other than what I expected them to do.

Then Carroll called me an idiot and told me to dyno them. And when I dynoed them, I discovered that the settings that I *routinely* used as a tuning tool DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - and then I took the shocks apart and discovered why. Once you see how the adjuster works.... the light bulb came on and I believed the dyno. *Of course* it did nothing - the way it was designed, it never had a hope in hell of doing what I thought it did.

And I got a very powerful lesson on the strength of self-delusion and placebo effect.

I stopped listening to my butt-dyno, hung all kinds of sensors on the car, and started listening to the sensors - and we *immediately* started winning races.



Although it is *possible* that Koni has changed the internal mechanism - so I might be full of shit and you should test it yourself - if the Koni Yellow mechanism is still the same as those I tested, that is *not happening* and you are seeing placebo effect. In and around full hard, yes, very tiny changes to adjuster opening makes large force changes (to the point where hysteresis in the adjuster and the difficulty of being precise enough with the angular change on the knob makes it next to impossible to hit the same force repeatedly) As you get to the midrange, there is still decent control authority and the shock is no longer as sensitive to tiny changes in knob position - that range is usable. But as you continue to back the knob out, you run out of control authority and nothing else happens - even though the knob will still keep turning.

I *completely* believe you when you say you can feel a difference in that range, because Brother, I was there too. But unless you have a dyno trace that proves it... it ain't happening.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Nice story bro.

How can you say you *completely* believe me when I say I can feel a difference in that range and then say it didn't happen if it wasn't tested. I don't have or need a dyno to tell you there was a significant difference in that first half turn. In that half turn, the ride goes from bouncy like you're riding on springs to a pretty firm ride. That is not imagined and doesn't require testing. You can't just hide behind a dyno that most people don't have access to and say because I said so...

Koni doesn't want 3rd party shock tuners. They had some bad experiences with Super Tunas making "custom" Konis and angry customers blaming Koni for the problems. I totally got that and did not hold it against them. Me & Lee got along just fine.

Bilstein and Penske absolutely would work with me. Both outfits were awesome. I was an approved Penske rebuilder, for a while....

Koni makes a product to fit a price point, and their product is *leaps and bounds* better than all the other low-price-point "shocks" (BC, Megan, JIC, etc etc etc) But the tradeoff at that price point is that the adjuster is limited and the shocks do not match off the self (unless you get lucky). We sold kits based on Koni parts - we just bought in bulk, and dynoed everything, and then paired up matching parts.



Ain't no such thing. "Proprietary valving" is a HUGE Super Tuna red flag (and I note that Steeda doesn't seem to be making any such claim) because unless you are on the same natural frequencies, your valving is specific to you. Change the driver from Matt Braun (130 lbs soaking wet) to Sam Strano (significantly north of that last time I saw him) and the valving changes. Lighter wheels? Valving changes. etc etc.



Steeda is right. I tested shocks with click-adjusters that produced different forces at a given number depending on which direction you approached it from. So if you wanted setting "3", going 1-2-3 produced a different result than going 5-4-3.

In the useful adjustment range, Koni shocks are immune to this. Near full hard, this is a real problem on a Koni. Near full soft, the knob isn't doing anything anyway so you can be off by 180 degrees and it'll still match.

If anybody has any questions, feel free to ask.

I really have no questions. I'm an older guy and one thing I know for sure. Anyone that thinks they know everything is a fool and not worth listening to. A wise person is still learning every day. Maybe listen more than you preach is my advice.

 

[jbailer]

The article actually goes more into depth than just that line, and provides multiple shock dyno plots to prove the point.

I get you though, but if you pay attention to the underlying message what he is actually saying is that there is no consistency and your feelings vs. his findings would actually help support this.

The guy is a professional suspension designer, an expert in his field, and has built suspensions for multiple professional race teams. I'm not sure how much of that anyone else here has done that we could deny his findings. I'll also note that Steeda are staying quiet on this.

That's good that you just believe whatever he says, people like that need people like you. Kind of to his point, I don't just believe everything I'm told, I need to see it. Granted there's a weighting factor and I will take on faith, sometimes to a large extent, what I'm told by people that I find credible. I didn't see that level of credibility from him. A lot of what is says is wildly extreme and reckless. Does he have a lot of information? Yes but that doesn't justify the claims.

As for noticing that Steeda is staying quiet, I think that's a sign of class. These kind of heated debates never work in favor of the vendor. They are here supporting the community and have been readily available.

 

[jbailer]

Yesssssssssss! Hahahaha

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[DG]

I'm not sure what your point there was other than you believe that you know everything.

So when you write a rebuttal like the one I lead off with, it is going to play out in one of two ways:

1. The person rebutted pulls a *mea culpa*. Sometimes there are further questions and a productive conversation results; or

2. The person rebutted doubles down on their ignorance.

I always hope for COA 1. About 80% of the time, I see COA 2. It's frankly disheartening sometimes, but my unsubstantiated faith in the better part of human nature being given an opportunity to rise to the occasion continues to get the better of me, and I keep trying.

Quality has to be retested with every change.

My. Point. Exactly.

Your basis is from analysis done on some Koni dampers.

Where "some" is approximately 300 Koni Yellows of various vintages personally dynoed, along with a couple of dozen of other reports from readers of A2W - all of which support the same conclusion.

When you've had them apart and seen how the mechanism works, WHY that is the case is immediately obvious.

Does that mean that, necessarily, ALL Konis MUST behave that way? NO. As I said in my initial post, it is entirely possible that Koni changed the internal mechanism on some or all of their entry-level adjustables and/or made QA improvements that improve the part-to-part variation across part numbers with the same internals. Entirely possible. I'd readily believe it if provided with evidence.

Lacking that evidence, and knowing that the Koni Yellow mechanism has been stable for decades, and knowing the inertia within a big corporation that is selling the part in question just fine (so not providing much motivation to revisit the part) - it is MUCH more likely that the Konis in question behave the way I have described.

You can "win" this portion of the discussion in seconds: dyno your shocks. Speed range 0-3 in/sec, average force/velocity graphs, full control sweep at quarter-turns of the knob. Provide the graph and let's see what you got.

How can you say you *completely* believe me when I say I can feel a difference in that range and then say it didn't happen if it wasn't tested.

Because I have worked with drivers of extremely high skill and performance level who have reported similar results in the face of similar testing. In one case, I proved a point to a particularly intransigent driver by "testing" his shocks by sending him out on multiple runs to report handling differences between settings. Each time, he reported something else. The funny part - I never touched the shocks. Car went out each time unchanged.

Another time, customer came in with a set of Super Tuna Penskes (tuned by a wildcat Tuna in California) Complaint was "something ain't right" but had a hard time describing the nature of the problem. When pressed, he finally said that *maybe* something was different turning left compared to turning right.

Shocks go on the dyno. Left front makes 1200 lbf at 3/in sec rebound (which is ENORMOUS on a C5 Corvette) Right front makes 1200lbf at 3in/sec compression. Shocks come apart, Super Tuna built the RF upside down (compression stack on rebound side and vice versa)

Driver was upper mid pack. No Mark Daddio, but not a scrub either.

So yes, aside from my own experience with self-delusion, I've seen plenty of examples of it in the field. It is a thing. It is real. And I can prove it. Dyno your shocks and let's see who's right.

Maybe listen more than you preach is my advice.

When I go to my doctor, I listen to him. He's been practicing medicine his whole life, and while he may not know everything, he sure knows more than me about doctoring.

When I go to my lawyer, I listen to him. He's been studying law his whole life, and while he may not know every nuance of the law, he sure knows a lot more than I do.

One of us was a professional shock engineer, built championship winning race cars, and wrote a book (that some nice folks have called "a bible"). Do I know *everything*? Hells no - I might be full of shit, and you should test it yourself.

Let us know when you have results to share.

 

[jbailer]

So when you write a rebuttal like the one I lead off with, it is going to play out in one of two ways:

1. The person rebutted pulls a *mea culpa*. Sometimes there are further questions and a productive conversation results; or

2. The person rebutted doubles down on their ignorance.

I always hope for COA 1. About 80% of the time, I see COA 2. It's frankly disheartening sometimes, but my unsubstantiated faith in the better part of human nature being given an opportunity to rise to the occasion continues to get the better of me, and I keep trying.



My. Point. Exactly.



Where "some" is approximately 300 Koni Yellows of various vintages personally dynoed, along with a couple of dozen of other reports from readers of A2W - all of which support the same conclusion.

When you've had them apart and seen how the mechanism works, WHY that is the case is immediately obvious.

Does that mean that, necessarily, ALL Konis MUST behave that way? NO. As I said in my initial post, it is entirely possible that Koni changed the internal mechanism on some or all of their entry-level adjustables and/or made QA improvements that improve the part-to-part variation across part numbers with the same internals. Entirely possible. I'd readily believe it if provided with evidence.

Lacking that evidence, and knowing that the Koni Yellow mechanism has been stable for decades, and knowing the inertia within a big corporation that is selling the part in question just fine (so not providing much motivation to revisit the part) - it is MUCH more likely that the Konis in question behave the way I have described.

You can "win" this portion of the discussion in seconds: dyno your shocks. Speed range 0-3 in/sec, average force/velocity graphs, full control sweep at quarter-turns of the knob. Provide the graph and let's see what you got.



Because I have worked with drivers of extremely high skill and performance level who have reported similar results in the face of similar testing. In one case, I proved a point to a particularly intransigent driver by "testing" his shocks by sending him out on multiple runs to report handling differences between settings. Each time, he reported something else. The funny part - I never touched the shocks. Car went out each time unchanged.

Another time, customer came in with a set of Super Tuna Penskes (tuned by a wildcat Tuna in California) Complaint was "something ain't right" but had a hard time describing the nature of the problem. When pressed, he finally said that *maybe* something was different turning left compared to turning right.

Shocks go on the dyno. Left front makes 1200 lbf at 3/in sec rebound (which is ENORMOUS on a C5 Corvette) Right front makes 1200lbf at 3in/sec compression. Shocks come apart, Super Tuna built the RF upside down (compression stack on rebound side and vice versa)

Driver was upper mid pack. No Mark Daddio, but not a scrub either.

So yes, aside from my own experience with self-delusion, I've seen plenty of examples of it in the field. It is a thing. It is real. And I can prove it. Dyno your shocks and let's see who's right.



When I go to my doctor, I listen to him. He's been practicing medicine his whole life, and while he may not know everything, he sure knows more than me about doctoring.

When I go to my lawyer, I listen to him. He's been studying law his whole life, and while he may not know every nuance of the law, he sure knows a lot more than I do.

One of us was a professional shock engineer, built championship winning race cars, and wrote a book (that some nice folks have called "a bible"). Do I know *everything*? Hells no - I might be full of shit, and you should test it yourself.

Let us know when you have results to share.

Lots of words and you still haven't tested the dampers we're talking about yet you are still making broad general statement about something you haven't tested based on past experience. Again showing you know nothing about QA.

As I mentioned before, it's pretty lame to hide behind the fact that you have a dyno at your disposal and the average person doesn't. You know that I'm not doing the testing and can't. I absolutely know my experience with the dampers and certainly don't need to prove anything to you so you can let that go...

And your reply to that first part is a joke! Again showing your arrogance. You automatically assume that I should either admit I'm wrong or that I'm ignorant and those are your only 2 possible outcomes. Arrogance + ignorance. :tsk:

 

[DG]

it's pretty lame to hide behind the fact that you have a dyno at your disposal and the average person doesn't. You know that I'm not doing the testing and can't.

Doctor: Gee, I think you have a broken arm there. You'd better get an XRay so we can make sure.

Man with Broken Arm: It doesn't feel broken to me!

Doctor: Well, all the other arms I've examined that look like that have been broken. Let's get an XRay.

Man with Broken Arm: You've never seen *my* arm before!

Doctor: No... but I have seen a lot of arms over the years, broken and no. Let's get an XRay and find out for sure.

Man with Broken Arm: None of those arms were mine, or my siblings! Not even from the same batch! Don't you know anything about quality control? No! Sad!

Doctor: Well, we can find out right away. Let's take an XRay...

Man with Broken Arm: You and your fancy XRay machine! I *know* it isn't broken! I'm not getting it tested!

Doctor: .....

-------------------------------

Gentlemen, I submit to you the very reason why it is SO IMPORTANT to test. I'd be hard pressed to find a better example of self-delusion and resistance to learn. These people are all around you. Some of them give advice on forums. Some of them sell parts.

jbailer, as an aside, you wouldn't happen to be related to Terry Fair, would you?

 

[wildcatgoal]

LMFAO

 

[jbailer]

This seems like the perfect place to end this discussion, at least I will on my end because it isn't going anywhere. No doubt you will walk away from this thinking you came out of it with some kind of victory because that's what it appeared to mean to you and your arrogance still after all that left you blind to the conversation, never addressing my point. I'll walk away satisfied that you proved my point about your arrogance and ignorance.

 

[DG]

No doubt you will walk away from this thinking you came out of it with some kind of victory

No. No I don't.

*Victory* would be you agreeing to dyno your shocks. Because then 1 of 2 things happens:

1. The dyno proves my claims. You learn the same lesson I learned so many years ago about the power of self delusion and placebo effect, and the rest of us learn that the observations made in A2W about Koni shocks remain valid; or

2. The dyno shows control authority right out to full soft. We all learn that these shocks *don't* act like typical Konis, and I update A2W to state that some Konis may behave differently than described earlier. And we all get further reinforcement about the importance of the shock dyno.

Your choice to throw all your toys out of the pram and go sulk in the corner denies *everyone* a chance to learn something. That's no victory.

never addressing my point.

Well spell out exactly what point you were trying to make then, because I obviously missed it, notwithstanding my attempts to address them.

Use short words and small sentences so we can eliminate any doubt as to what that point might be.

 

[jbailer]

No. No I don't.

*Victory* would be you agreeing to dyno your shocks. Because then 1 of 2 things happens:

1. The dyno proves my claims. You learn the same lesson I learned so many years ago about the power of self delusion and placebo effect, and the rest of us learn that the observations made in A2W about Koni shocks remain valid; or

2. The dyno shows control authority right out to full soft. We all learn that these shocks *don't* act like typical Konis, and I update A2W to state that some Konis may behave differently than described earlier. And we all get further reinforcement about the importance of the shock dyno.

Your choice to throw all your toys out of the pram and go sulk in the corner denies *everyone* a chance to learn something. That's no victory.

Again you're still stuck on that, you repeatedly show that you don't get it.

Well spell out exactly what point you were trying to make then, because I obviously missed it, notwithstanding my attempts to address them.

Use short words and small sentences so we can eliminate any doubt as to what that point might be.

:lol::lol::lol::lol: If you didn't get it the first few times, you certainly won't get it if I say it yet again. As I said, I'm done with this meaningless discussion.

 

[PatrickGT]

That's good that you just believe whatever he says, people like that need people like you. Kind of to his point, I don't just believe everything I'm told, I need to see it. Granted there's a weighting factor and I will take on faith, sometimes to a large extent, what I'm told by people that I find credible. I didn't see that level of credibility from him. A lot of what is says is wildly extreme and reckless. Does he have a lot of information? Yes but that doesn't justify the claims.

He has years of data, experience, and everything you simply do not. You have google, which simply isn't good enough. You don't have a single credential that you can provide in your favor, you don't have any evidence that isn't anecdotal, and you haven't been able to effectively argue a single thing without resorting to pathetic and childlike personal attacks.

So yeah, probably a good time for you to take your ball and run home because you really aren't making yourself look good here. Why don't you try arguing your point instead of trying to argue against an expert? Why don't you provide evidence as to why the easily repeatable data garnered from dyno plots somehow isn't valid in your eyes? Why don't you provide anything to SUPPORT what you are saying here instead of trying to denigrate others? Can you focus on that for just a single post? You couldn't even explain what you were getting after when directly challenged, proving that you really aren't knowledgeable. You keep trying to move the target, and can't even explain what you're after... it's so obviously transparent. "If you don't get it by now..." is the battle cry of people unable to explain their side, or support their own argument... you simply cannot put understanding of YOUR point on the other party in a debate, it is your own failure.

 

[jbailer]

He has years of data, experience, and everything you simply do not. You have google, which simply isn't good enough. You don't have a single credential that you can provide in your favor, you don't have any evidence that isn't anecdotal, and you haven't been able to effectively argue a single thing without resorting to pathetic and childlike personal attacks.

So yeah, probably a good time for you to take your ball and run home because you really aren't making yourself look good here. Why don't you try arguing your point instead of trying to argue against an expert? Why don't you provide evidence as to why the easily repeatable data garnered from dyno plots somehow isn't valid in your eyes? Why don't you provide anything to SUPPORT what you are saying here instead of trying to denigrate others? Can you focus on that for just a single post?

:lol::lol::lol: Well that was so predictable...

 

[DG]

As a recent arrival, I'm lacking a degree of context here. Is this dude your regular board troll?

Sponsored