tdiplc

I am surprised and saddened to hear about this, and I have to say that it does not sound right to me at all and suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye. I hope you will not mind helping me get to the bottom of this, so I will email you shortly with a request for information so that I can undertake an analysis. Thank you in advance I doubt whether I’ll be replying to any posts, so if anyone wants to ask me any questions about this or anything else, please email me. Thanks

I am surprised and saddened to hear about this. This situation does not sound right to me at all and suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye, so I have prepared an analysis and a request for information which I will email to you today. I will also carbon copy the LOC management. I hope you review my communication objectively and reply personally to me as soon as possible. Thank you in advance. I doubt whether I’ll be replying to any posts, so if anyone wants to ask me any questions about this or anything else, please email me. Thank you.

that is fair enough if the data is being input by hand in the first instance, but when the data is electronically gathered and stored then surely hand written notes would only be an inferior back up and totally subject to mistakes or falsities forgive me if I am wrong but mapping is normally done with a laptop through a program, with data being stored within or by removable disc dyno work is carried out through a computer with all readings on show, recordable and printable, I have yet to ever see a hand drawn dyno graph Please allow me to explain: The electronic data in question is gathered by the Rototest DATAQ aquisition system and integrates with the dyno. It is designed as a scientific quality machine and is a long way from being "user friendly". Some operators say that the compromise of it's depth of capabilities lies in it's quirky data capture and storage. In real terms this means that data storage is not an intuitive or one step process so can easily not be stored properly due to human error. There is also the PC reliability issue to be concerned with (we have already had one hard drive failure on the Rototest), therefore we choose to also retain a paper hard copy of the fundamental elements of the data as a fall back position. This record is kept in a file on each client along with the job card, dyno chart (where appropriate) all written communications, hand written notes of verbal communications and our inspection reports etc. All of our records conform to ISO9001 standards, which no other company in our industry can claim. I understand the point that hard copies can be falsified, and would agree that it may be possible or even likely in a "one man band" type of operation. In our circumstances, for our paper records to be falsified it would require the Operator or Technician, the Workshop Manager (who signs the work off), and a Senior Manager (me or Sam) to all be complicit in falsification. From a commercial perspective this would not make any sense because it would be far more cost effective to repair a mistake or refund money that it would be to impugn our integrity or reputation. As a company we are transparent (which is a rarity in our industry) and always recommend that our work is independantly validated, so any falsification would become clear quite quickly. ECU calibration (or "mapping") is done via a lap top. The calibration files are completely different to the dyno data logging files stored on the Rototest. The ECU calibration files are stored on a lap top and on the main server. These are user friendly and are automatically saved, so we choose to have only electronic copies (not paper copies). The dyno graphs are printed from the Rototest dyno at the time of the test. If the data is saved properly to the PC (subject to human error), it should be retrievable at any time. As I said previously, we do try and retain electronic recrods of everything, but time and experience has proven to us that paper records are more reliable. I will understand if some of you don't agree, but the way we do business seems to work for us. I hope this helps.

Those are what we store and rely on. We find electronic media (or human operator) to be insuffuciently reliable. Our records conform to ISO9001 standards. We try to retain both electronic and paper records, but paper is the "fall back" position. Paper is "fall back" or paper is the main form as electronic is insufficient? make your mind up I have already made it clear: We try to retain both electronic and paper records, but paper is the "fall back" position. We have more problems with electronic data storage than paper storage.

As you and TDi are likely to be in litigation, I am not prepared to potentially prejudice our position by making any further comments on yourself or your car. This thread is about Adies car.

Think it would read something like Cho's lexus was running ok, dont worry about the lights on your dash, it will remind you of christmas time Ps, i would advise getting shares in BP or Shell, as you will be visiting these establishments more often than you think May I ask whether you have finished with your comments about Adies car?

Our records conform to ISO9001 standards. We try to retain both electronic and paper records, but paper is the "fall back" position.

There is a witness to the fact that you have. I think you may be confusing it with the electronic data you asked us for which we could not provide.

No we did not blow Adies engine. The sub standard head gasket solution (two head gaskets and a non-conformable decompression plate) that was implemented by whoever built the engine, failed catastrophically. Upon inspection, other internal isses were discovered that would have significantly reduced the engine's life expectancy, even if the sub standard head gasket solution had prevailed. As with all situations where there may be a suspicion over the quality of our work, I recommended that Adie obtain an independant Engineers report. He did that, and I guess it's up to him whether he wants to share that with you but I can tell you that there was no fault found with our work. That's correct. The head gasket failure was the original symptom and cause of the failure. Upon engine strip down and inspection it was discovered that the piston skirts had seized in the bores and that there was a significant amount of dirt and debris inside the engine. Aparantly the engine had previously experienced a recent oil pump failure so I guess it is possible that the engine was not cleaned properly at the time of the build or subsequently after the oil pump failure (this is purely a logical speculation based on the discoverable evidence, and is no way intended to be pejoritive towards the engine builder). Of crucial significance is the fact that there was no damage to the piston crowns. If there was damage to the piston crowns this could have meant that our tuning proceedures were not correct and possibly the cause of the engine failure. A classic symptom of incorrectly calibrated fuel and/or ignition is what is known as "detonation marks". Detonation marks are demonstrated by clear and obvious severe erotion damage to the piston crowns and cylinder head. Adies pistons had no detonation damage whatsover as confirmed by the independant Engineer. The reason Adie had to change the pistons was due to the scuff marks left by the partial seizures, and not related in way shape or form to any tuning work that we had carried out. The head gasket failed during road testing, therefore no dyno data was being captured at that point. Chanjit was offered the hard copy of his calibration report. I am hopeful that you and your chums have a better understanding of the situation now, and now realise that you have been completely wrong for a long time which has resulted in a high degree of toxicity for LOC and TDI. I don't expect an apology, but I will request that you try to avoid jumping to conclusions in future. All you need to do is ask to find the correct answers. All the best :) Thanks for your side of the story (as you keep telling me, 2 sides to every story) and in this case both different :duh: No problem. To avoid making the same mistake again it's normally a good thing to ask questions first. I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you are asking. Please rephrase your question or point. Charnjit was shown and offered a copy of the calibration report. I am not sure what you are refering to (the only thing I recall is repeating a quote about you being the Prolex Minister for Propoganda) but I apologise to you if I have said anything that is not correct in the heat of dealing with you.

Those are what we store and rely on. We find electronic media (or human operator) to be insuffuciently reliable.

No we did not blow Adies engine. The sub standard head gasket solution (two head gaskets and a non-conformable decompression plate) that was implemented by whoever built the engine, failed catastrophically. Upon inspection, other internal isses were discovered that would have significantly reduced the engine's life expectancy, even if the sub standard head gasket solution had prevailed. As with all situations where there may be a suspicion over the quality of our work, I recommended that Adie obtain an independant Engineers report. He did that, and I guess it's up to him whether he wants to share that with you but I can tell you that there was no fault found with our work. That's correct. The head gasket failure was the original symptom and cause of the failure. Upon engine strip down and inspection it was discovered that the piston skirts had seized in the bores and that there was a significant amount of dirt and debris inside the engine. Aparantly the engine had previously experienced a recent oil pump failure so I guess it is possible that the engine was not cleaned properly at the time of the build or subsequently after the oil pump failure (this is purely a logical speculation based on the discoverable evidence, and is no way intended to be pejoritive towards the engine builder). Of crucial significance is the fact that there was no damage to the piston crowns. If there was damage to the piston crowns this could have meant that our tuning proceedures were not correct and possibly the cause of the engine failure. A classic symptom of incorrectly calibrated fuel and/or ignition is what is known as "detonation marks". Detonation marks are demonstrated by clear and obvious severe erotion damage to the piston crowns and cylinder head. Adies pistons had no detonation damage whatsover as confirmed by the independant Engineer. The reason Adie had to change the pistons was due to the scuff marks left by the partial seizures, and not related in way shape or form to any tuning work that we had carried out. The head gasket failed during road testing, therefore no dyno data was being captured at that point. Chanjit was offered the hard copy of his calibration report. I am hopeful that you and your chums have a better understanding of the situation now, and now realise that you have been completely wrong for a long time which has resulted in a high degree of toxicity for LOC and TDI. I don't expect an apology, but I will request that you try to avoid jumping to conclusions in future. All you need to do is ask to find the correct answers. All the best :)

Gord confirmed that I was right. Please read his comments. Gord seems to have plenty to say about Adies problems, including blaming us for them. Perhaps those sitting on the fence may be interested in seeing his arguments put to the test in public.

He is clearly blaming us for the problems with Adies car, and has possibly infected other people with irrationality too, so it is appropriate that I deal with this issue. He seems to have admitted that he doesn't have any factual data to rely on so I would like to know what he thinks we have done. Am I being unreasonable?

That sounds like a very sweeping and possibly unfair statement to me. Obviously I don't know the answer but there may be very good reasons why RGS and Abbey have taken so long. Do you have any factual information to rely on? Why does that Statement mean you? it could have ment RGS or Abbey?! Guilty conscience? In post 758 Gord said "Thats intresting you should mention RGS & Abbey, when you was the one that blow the engine when it was being mapped, RGS & Abbey now sorting YOUR mess out, yet again" in answer to my post, which is clear proof that he was refering to TDI. I hope he can bring his concerns out into the open so that they can be dealt with.

Abbey and RGS seem to be the only companies that have taken the long time (for which there may well be a very good explanation) that was refered to. However, as you clearly seem to have made your mind up that the problems with Adies car are all our fault, please provide the evidence you have relied upon to form that opinion. Thank you in advance. It was on my super duper Hard drive, that can take upto 2000bhp 4x4 to, all the best stuff, cost me a right bomb i can tell you. Woops, dam, only problem with this sort of system is, when things go wrong and the customer want some data out of it :duh: However..................i do have it on a post-it pad...............somewhere :winky: OK, if you don't have any factual data, please provide me with what you think we have done wrong. Thank you in advance. As you know full well.............YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT CAN CONVICT YOURSELF............And thats why your customer dont have it when he asked you for it :o I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Whatever is on your mind, please bring it out into the open. I'm sure I can help you if you're prepared to listen.