Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

yeah definatley not baggin Chris don't get me wrong he is a really good and genuine guy who definately knows what he is doing, but he has the problem like alot of the trade has, they need to hire another worker but can't trust anyonbe to do the job right. For anyone in the motor industry they will understand how very hard it is to hire employees you can be confident in doing the job as good as you would do it yourself, its near on impossible, so if Inline gave a bloke a go and he stuffed a job on customers car than i would have no different of an opinion, that its hard to get good help, and by fixing everything no quams is a sign of good business. Peace

Look agree with both...

Yes i spose you cant put the blame on capital steering... the guy who made the mistake on my car, had obviously done it before which gave them the reason to let him go..

where the same thing could of happened at Inline.. Im sure Capital have dane really great jobs and people walk out happy and dont have to go back.. As they prob have at Inline...

And walk out with not so happy faces... Its part of life...

But im just glad they admitted what they did, were quick with fixing my car and gettin it back on the road, and are offering me free service next time i go back to get a check over.

Everyone makes mistakes... just leaves the other person not soo happy.

i feel both capital and inline are good workshops. just like anyone (and i mean ANYONE), its quite often impossible to run a business 100% smoothly. you get mistakes sometimes.

i can't vouch for chris enough tho. yes, he likes to take his time sometimes, but its of little consequence in the grander scheme of things because the work thats performed is simply brilliant. the knowledge that guy has about all things suspension/brakes etc etc is mind-boggling. he's set up hundreds (probably thousands) of racecars, a lot of which have been quite high profile!

and **** me can he drive. god damn.... scared the shit out of me when he took me and my car for a spin after i had some work done taking corners i'd white-knuckle at 140 at speeds well over 170-180. i actually thought i was going to die at one stage. hehe

d

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...