On starting this discussion with you Harvey I thought it could go one of a few directions.. we agree to disagree, one or both of us changes their opinion or part of their opinion, or one or both of us gets annoyed. I expressed concern at the offset that I was concerned you would feel I was attacking you personaly when I wasn't.

Unfortunatly you seem to have been the one who has got annoyed and are now resulting to personal attacks. I am sorry you have got annoyed and I never like falling out with anyone.. I will not retailiate with personal attacks as I cannot see that getting us anywhere.

My original reason for getting involved in this discussion was to express the fact that imho you stated some information about the Apexi incorrectly.. and I say again that was my opinion and I thought we could discuss it.

Therefore regardless of whether putting a car on the rollers and changing ecu etc would not sort out the reason I got involved in this discussion.

The which ecu is best discussion is a separate one, and I cannot see me resolving that issue by travelling accross the country etc would help the reason I involved myself in this discussion.

Simon

 

I cannot see now, me posting the emails would prove or disprove anything.
You feel the discussion we had was not discussing a trade agreement, I do.

I'll post them if people really think it would help.. but again it was not what the discussion was about, I only mentioned I had been talking to you about the Sigma because it had come accross that I was downing the ecu and I was trying to point out that in actual fact I had a small interest in the ecu myself.. I was purely trying to correct what I felt was incorrect about stuff mentioned about the Apexi ecu.

Simon

 

Im not discussing the sigma here, I suggest you go away and have a think about what I have quoted, and then think what the cam positon sensor does.

Also Remember I said I am not discussing the sigma specifically, just commenting generally, would reply in length but supposed to be working

David

 

Perhaps the best person to comment is Proteus, he seems to be the only one who has publicly bought and used both ECUs and both from TEGsport if memory serves.

 

https://www.scoobynet.com/general-te...bhp-98-uk.html

Simon

 

i seem to be lost on my own post here

 

Harvey,

You seem to have been mis-informed on alot of the facts. I will phone you.

Teg Sport.

 

What are your goals with the car?

What are your current mods?

personally where you are, I would head up to AndyForrestPerformance



David

 

Im looking at around 300bhp, my car was running 270bhp with just a z4 ecu upgrade, since then i have had a de-cat downpipe fitted .

 

David: I know you have difficulty with reading and comprehension.
I am talking about the SIGMA. If you want to give hints about other things go start your own thred elsewhere. I am dealing with the SIGMA.

 

I'm getting confused here ? Who is Proteus, does he make the ecu ? and how come TEG sport know nothing of Sigma ECU's

Andy

 

Why is it that people capitalise an abbreviation ? Detonation is not spelt DETonation! Anyway, back on topic...

On the subject of MAF vs MAP.... MAP has a linear relationship with Manifold Absolute Pressure, which has a casual relationship with engine load. One could argue for hours what is the best / truest representation of engine load, but the two most likely candidates are BMEP and cylinder charge load. MAP is therefore no "closer" to real engine load than MAF. If anything, linear MAF is closer, since airflow systems' primary load variable is basically (total airflow / engine speed), in other words cylinder charge load. The only tenuously plausible justification behind MAP exhibiting better linearity is down to quantisation noise in the A/D stages... since the standard MAF sensor exhibits a quasi-logarithmic airflow to voltage [QA->V(maf)] transfer function, it could be argued that since d(V(maf))/d(QA) tends to zero asymptotically one would need increased A/D resolution with increasing V(maf) to maintain the same basic QA accuracy. In reality, though, this is far less a problem than the maths would imply. While it is true that a 0.02V error at 4.52V V(maf) would result in a much larger error in measured airflow than at 1.34V V(maf), it is also true that if you have a 0.3g/sec error when you're flowing 5g/sec, it is likely that you'de only see a 15g/sec error at 250g/sec. Ironically, then, the specific "limitation" that Harvey ascribes to the MAF system is in fact an advantage! We have a quantisation system with constant percentage error rather than quantisation monotonicity.... if we have a 1% error when we're flowing 10g/sec or when we're flowing 1000g/sec makes little difference, a 1% error is a 1% error! That said, a MAP sensor is still my first choice when specifying an ECU because they are far more reliable than airflow meters, but I wouldn't consider them any more "accurate" or to have a more linear relationship to engine load.

On the subject of timing accuracy, there is a fundemental limitation in the accuracy that the ECU can "place" the crank using the stock Subaru timing pattern. While this was not the major motivating force behind my development of the optical 36-1 crank pickup, it is in no small part responsible for the continued development thereof, and more recently, magnetic 36-1 pickups. The fundamental problem is that there are only six teeth on the crank sprocket on a GC8 Impreza Turbo engine, at 97, 65 and 10 degrees BTDC No.1 and No.3. Of those, the only useful one for placing sparks is the 65BTDC tooth. It is by no coincidence that there is a tooth at 97 and 65 degrees BTDC, that's exactly 32 degrees worth. So, the way to place your spark is to measure the time it takes from 97 to 65, then do a bit of maths... take your desired spark angle away from 64, then multiply by the time it took to get from 97 to 65, finally divide by 32 and hey presto you know how long to wait from the last known point during the rotation to the point of firing the spark (over simplification, there is other code in the background that allows the scheduler code to execute 1 degree after the 65 degree index pulse). Easy. But what if the crank wasn't turning at a constant speed ? What if it was accelerating ? Then the time it took to get from 97 to 65 will be greater than the time it will take to get from 65 to 33. If you've scheduled your spark assuming constant angular velocity you'll wait too long, because the crank is turning faster than when you did the maths. Ergo, you have retarded timing. The same sort of thing can also happen when the crank is decelerating rapidly, but of course the timing is then too advanced. This can manifest itself as a timing drift during rapid acceleration or deceleration when testing with a flat ignition table. I won't comment on whether this does or does not afflict the PowerFC because I have no data either way. What I will say is that I did do a back to back test using an ECU that supports both patterns and found that the stock pattern did indeed result in transient retard where the 36-1 did not. I know that the Sigma firmware has code that tries to compensate for crank angular velocity and while it is a valiant effort to combat the inadequacies of the Subaru crank pattern it is still not as accurate as a 36-1; the PowerFC may implement a similar strategy. Neither ECU can realise the full timing potential of the engine, because both are still fundamentally constrained by the stock timing pattern.

On the subject of boost control, the Sigma implements a strategy similar to the Pectel that it is largely based on, and as such should be excellent. Having a full 3 dimensional boost and wastegate control table allows you to get the best out of the turbo. This is particularly pertinent when the turbo is incapable of satisfying the engine's air requirements at the top end of the rev range. There is nothing specifically wrong with running a TD04L at 1.3 bar through the midrange, but there is something very seriously wrong with trying to hold that to the redline. The compressor is physically incapable of moving that much air so normal boost controllers will cause the compressor to choke and superheat the air in an attempt to maintain 1.3 bar to the redline. In doing so it slams the wastegate shut and increases EGBP, which reduces VE, which then allows the MAP to rise. So, boost target achieved at the expense of a massive increase in heat, which will no doubt increase the propensity of the fuel to autoignite, necessitating a reduction in ignition advance the stave off detonation and in the same process result in poor thermal efficiency robbing power. I've never seen anything this bad on a Subaru but I've seen it very vividly on a Supra; it made significantly more power at 1.1 bar than at 1.2 bar. That said, even if no power penalty is suffered as a result of trying to hold too much boost on a Subaru, if you can make the same power with less boost, then that's got to be a good thing. I think that Mark's comments regarding boost control refelect the general dynamics of boost control, and do not specifically address the condition of compressor choke which would fit with Harvey's description; both are right in their own contexts.

On the subject that the Sigma is going to replace the PowerFC, that lies somewhere between highly improbable and plain not going to happen. The Sigma is too expensive compared to the PowerFC, and even if it was price matched, it is severley limited since there is only one person who can map it, and there seems to be no prospect of getting the software. Only recently I was asked to tweak one, the owner simply would not go back to the supplier, but since the software was not available it has left the owner with only two options a) put up with it or b) replace the ECU. The only way you're going to get people to take this ECU seriously is to make the software available, and with past experience, that's not going to happen any time soon. That's a real pity because it's a good ECU, it has great software, but noone can get it. I'm not holding my breath, I've been down that road and abandoned it. Harvey also seems to be discounting the possibility that something else might become available with more features at the same or lower price point.... these are interesting times indeed!

Cheers,

Pat.

 

Andy,

I would suggest that perhaps the Sigma is, or is derived from, the Alcom Epsilon One, which later became the AlcaTek E1 S96.... do you think that the features et bears remarkable resemblance to this : ?




Cheers,

Pat.

 

Pat : Any existing customer wanting software only has to request it.

It would be a good idea if you guys attacking the Sigma/Steve Simpson/my Group Buy, stuck to the facts.

 

Excellent news! I'll get the customer to request it and report back as to what happens.

You don't know the whole story so I suggest you keep your "facts" to yourself. You're not in possession of the full facts, so please don't pretend you are (or are you really that deluded?) !

Cheers,

Pat.

 

Keep going Pat. If you want a bun fight, OK by me.
Last time you posted on S/Net that I remember you stated that I had suffered more than my fair share of engine failures. A total lie. In all my Subaru ownership over six years, I have had the cylinder head of one high power engine twice and that is the sum total of my "engine failures"
Now you avoided the issue of how many engines you had lost during mapping. Probably more relevant because you are supposed to be a professional mapper.
Please don't attack me or I will respond.
Your grasp of the facts is unfortunately tainted. In time this will become obvious.

 

Harvey,

once again you go off on a tangent that has no relevance to the subject matter at hand. Just how many engine failures you or I have had is totally irrelevant to this discussion because a) you personally are not supplying or mapping these ECUs and b) I'm not supplying and mapping them either.

Re: your "facts"......

How much clearer does it have to be ?

I can just about make out the logic, but it required a visit to Never Never Land

Cheers,

Pat.

 

Pat : You clearly have not considered the possibility that you have been lied to. I know exactly what the situation is and I think you are heading for hot water.
It is also clear that you tell lies when it suits you. Now please leave me alone to get on with what I have to do. If you are bright enough put a bit of effort in to discovering the truth.

 

Have you ?

Cheers,

Pat.

 

Harvey,
I think you may have been slightly misled, the Alcom/Alcatek/Sigma prototype ecu first ran in my rally car in winter 03/04 where it still resides

Regards

Ian

 

I thought you had sold your car Mouse?
You are not claiming to have developed this ECU are you?

 

I don't need to discover the truth because I witnessed it first hand. Perhaps you would care to tell us where you were and where your interest was when the Alcom Epsilon One first saw the light of day in a public place in a TEG Sport glass cabinet at Autosport at least two years ago (I think it was Autosport 2004, was this Mouse's ECU ?). Did you even know that it existed back then ? Were you taking an interest ? Somehow I doubt it, but isn't it strange that I recall it? That might be because a) I knew about it even before then b) was interested in it all that time ago, c) was looking at supplying them as a more cost effective alternative to Pectel, but due to some political reasons that shall remain private, that never happened. At the time you were still running around extolling the virtues of the Link; Bob was your hero, and you were oblivious to what was going on around you. Now you come on here and assert that you have discovered the best thing since sliced bread, that you know all of these things about it when the truth is that you're new to this ECU, probably didn't even know it existed this January, never mind January 2004!

So, please don't try to tell me that I'm lying about something whose history you clearly do not understand or appreciate. Your arrogance seems to know no bounds, in your mind you are always right, and noone else can possibly have another perspective on the situation. You conveniently ignore the fact that one of the people that was instrumental in actually turning the concept into reality is telling you that your information is wrong. How can someone that central possibly have less accurate information than yourself ? The mind boggles !

I don't claim to know overall more about it than you do, and certainly not more than those directly involved, that's just absurd! But I do know certain things that perhaps you did not. Just because you weren't privy to them or didn't take any notice when you had the opportunity doesn't mean they didn't happen or are somehow lies. One day you might learn that, until then I live in hope....

Cheers,

Pat.

 

Pat : 370HSSV-0773H
I happen to have a correspondance file that shows exactly what the situation really was. This is correspondance from mainly 2005 relating to the development of the Epsilon 1 S96 and related issues. There is a separate file with invoices and receipts. This is quite incontrovertible and has been in my possession for some time while you have been making dishonest statements to the contrary.
You are a FCKwit and come on here as some superior arrogant clown insulting me when really you know jack ****.
Keep going my friend because when you have made a a bigger ******* of yourself and told more lies I will demonstrate for all to see what a screwed up fruit cake you are.
Be careful because you are not far away from legal retribution.
Now **** off and mind your own business.

 

Will you lot grow up!!

 

Or, for the benefit of those that don't really want to turn their monitor upside down to read your diatribe :

Can you please refrain from making insults and conduct yourself in a civilised and rational manner? If you are unable to make a contribution based on reasoning and civility then please don't contribute at all, it contributes nothing of any value to the thread.

It would be good to compare that to my own recollections, those of others that I know and of course those people who were closest of all to the creation of this unit. Perhaps you would be so kind as to make this available ?

It would appear, then, that you have been involved with the latest development phase, but not with the project from the outset, which is what I have maintained all along. For you to have the full facts you would need to have been present, otherwise your facts are incomplete. How can you be sure what was or was not said in the first meetings ? How can you know what the originators were thinking at the time ? I wasn't present, so I don't know for sure. I had been told, back in 2003, that the aim was to create an ECU with the intention of running a rally car but sufficiently equipped to cope with a road car. I don't consider that a fact, just some information I obtained that I had not managed to authenticate and may of course be incorrect, but the anecdotal evidence would tend to support this position. If the idea was to build a road ECU then surely it would have been more sensible to fit it to a road car first ? Perhaps Mouse can comment on whether ALS and such features were already present in 2003 ?

I am at a loss to find any dishonest statements I have made in any of my posts. Perhaps you would be so kind to point them out to me so I may have a chance to apologies if I was in error. If you cannot then I will treat this as an unfounded assault on my character.

I fail to see how you can suggest that I am a "superior arrogant clown" when I have not stated anything that has been shown to be incorrect, yet refused to accept that I was wrong when shown to be so ? You on the other hand seem to have difficulty accepting that some of the information you have is either incomplete or incorrect. While my experience of obtaining the software was a negative one I have been assured that it is indeed available, and I wait with baited breath for its arrival. When it arrives I will be happy to post that I was indeed in error and that it is available. I would also be happy, at Steve Simpson's request, to remove that particular assertion from my original post. My aim is not to cause him any grief, I am simply reacting to the extravogant and unsupportable claims that you have been making in his name. I should also like to offer you the opportunity to support your allegations a) that I am a superior arrogant clown and b) that I know "jack ****". Again, if you cannot support them then I shall treat them as an unfounded attack on my character.

I would heartily invite you to do so. If there is a failing in my character I would be only too happy for this to be pointed out to me so that I may rectify the error of my ways. I eagerly await your demonstration.....

I would suggest that you yourself are in a precarious situtation at the moment. Some of the comments you have made probably would be viewed as verbal assault. There is a world of difference between calling someone arrogant (an observation) and calling someone an "*******", "FCKwit", a "screwed up fruitcake". I find it somewhat ironic that you of all people should caution me about legal retribution, when I have not hurled any assault your way and many of my statements are supported by information present on this very page!

My business in this matter is the truth. So long as you try to pervert it you'll have to contend with those that will stand up and see that truth be told.

As a parting note, then, for those readers just joining at this juncture, I'll reiterate the wise words of those who, beyond a shadow of a doubt, know more about this than you or I....

Cheers,

Pat.

 

Pat : You started by insulting me so expect me to respond with insults you Fcukwit.
You tell lies. Fact. You select the bits you want to deal with and avoid the bits that are a problem to you. This has been your tactic on this and other boards through out the time I have known you. Not just when dealing with me but generally when dealing with things that are a problem to you.
You are completely mistaken as to the origin and ownership of the Sigma ECU.
An early example was put on Mouse's car. That is not disputed but he did NOT develop this ECU.
You have probably been fed lies too and it appears that you have jumped to conclusions which are wrong regards the birth and development of the Sigma.
The documentation will prove this. You accuse me of not considering I could be wrong but I would rather rely on contemporaneous documentation which was not contentious at the time it was written, than the impressions given by other which at best are mischievous or your rambling recollections and conclusions or deductions you have made. In fact it is you who is too naive to consider you may be completely wrong.
You have seen fit to involve yourself in my GB when it was nothing to do with you.
You are calling into question the development of this ECU. I don't see that has anything to do with you but realise you are a sad busy body that likes to dabble.
Even ignoring the ownership of the ECU it is a fantastic piece of kit which I have been operating happily for several months so all this hoohaa is not warranted.

I WILL demonstrate how wrong and deluded YOU are but I will choose when I have the time.
I have to be in Scotland on family business so you have a clear field. Keep posting your crap because it will just add to the public demonstration of what an ******* you have been/are.

 

How ironic.

 

harvey i am a relative newcomer to this forum so ill wind my head in and just say one thing.. you come accross as extremely imature and arrogant , and you are doing nothing for the sigmas or indeed your own reputation , you have resorted to what can only be called petty playground name calling.......... i certainly will voice my opinion of yourself and your attitude to anyone on this forum and any people at southern meets who ask questions about mappers and ecus , your petty personal comments and insults are detrimental to youre group buy and "youre" ecu , i hope u will wake up soon and see YOU are the one making an **** of yourself

thank you iain

 

Actually I started by responding to your illfounded and naive comments suggesting that the days of the PowerFC are numbered and that the Sigma is what is going to about this end. That is not true and I have stated why, or are you now going to dictate Steve Simpson's pricing policy for him ? Are you now going to say that the normal, day to day, retail price of the Sigma is going to be in the order of UKP 750 fitted and mapped ? Somehow I don't think he'de thank you for that. The fact remains it is a more capable and, rightly so, more expensive option. It's not in the same sector of the market, so it's not going to have a significant impact on PowerFC sales. I also raised the issue of software and mapper availability, which I have been told is not an issue, and will happily retract once the software has been provided, and I shall make a statement to that effect as and when it does arrive.

There were no "bits" to ignore. Read my posts again. You will see that I have not ignored any on-topic and relevant bits whatsoever. You, on the other hand have yet to answer the vast majority of my questions. So please, can we have a reality check ? I asked you last post to show me where I have told lies and thus far you have not presented anything tangible, just more accusations of the same nature. When am I going to be told what you consider to be lies ?

On the contrary, I have addressed every issue that is of relevance, it is you that is ignoring things that are uncomfortable to you because you might be wrong. If you can show otherwise then I would welcome the opportunity to rectify the error of my ways. Please show me where I have made such errors!

If I am then I will humbly apologise. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

It has never, ever, been stated, suggested or implied that he developped the ECU. His is merely an example of the first known running Epsilon One in a car. The pertinent factor here is that his is/was a rally car. This is contrary to the "facts" that you have been told. You were told that the first ones were fitted to road cars, whereas in reality the very first one was fitted to a rally car. Your "facts" are in error. You cannot ignore this or try to distort it, or spin it, or whatever. The first ECU was categorically not in a road car. Even you are conceding that the fact that the ECU was in his rally car is not in dispute, how can you then possibly suggest that "yes, I agree it was in his car" and then suggest that the origin was in a road car ? You're contradicting yourself.

Why on earth would someone have lied to me about the nature of the product before it was in any way contentious ? What purpose would it serve ? That I might try to take someone to task on some minor details several years later, only to be proven wrong. That's a bit far fetched. We're talking about information dating back to 2003 here! To hatch a plan of such ingenuity such as to try to dicredit me that required such a lengthy gestation period is surely beyond the wit of those who you might accuse of having hatched such plan (and I do not mean to insult their intelligence, just illustrate the point that it would take such incredible planning as to be, to all intents and purposes, impossible. Noone can predict the future).

If it dates back to 2003 then it may well do. I await enlightenment. Until then I shall rely on my own recollections and of those who were actually present and should therefore have a much better understanding than you or I.

I very much look forward to seeing this documentation, and if indeed it does show, that back in 2003 when the ECU was beginning to transition from concept to reality, it does indeed show that the origin was as a road car ECU then I shall humbly apologise.

I might be. And if I am then I will humbly apologise. The "problem" here is that my own recollections from way back, actually tally with what is being said now, things that you say are "mischievous". Do you not think that if someone were to try to distort the truth at this point, the story would not tally with recollections ? While it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a) my recollections are wrong and b) by conincidence they tally with what others are saying now, I find it somehow less likely than you simply being il-informed. It's a basic application of Occam's Razor... in simple words, the simplest explanation is usually correct. Yours is not the simple explanation. You suggest there is a web of deception going on here contiving to jeopardise your Group Buy.

What has this thread got to do with your Group Buy. Is it somehow linked so all that read that thread automatically read this one? You chose to take me to task on a few simple comments that I made regarding possible impediments to the widespread adoption of the ECU and have blown it out of all proportion by incessantly and vehemently asserting your version of the "truth", all the while conveniently ignoring other information that is contrary to your own. You have yet to show us one single piece of irrefutable information that supports your assertions.

Quite frankly, it really does not matter whether it started life as a rally ECU or a road ECU. The important thing as far as it is concerned right now is that it is a road ECU, and that can only be a good thing. Perhaps it has escaped your attention that I have not, at any point, suggested that it is not a good product.... I called its development into question in response to your suggested that "It would be a good idea if you guys attacking the Sigma/Steve Simpson/my Group Buy, stuck to the facts". I suggested that you were not in possession of the full facts, something that has now been shown time and time again to be true, and that it would be wise for you to acquaint yourself with them before lecturing others on something you were not entirely in a position of authority to do.

At no point have I said it is not a good piece of kit. At no point have I suggested that you haven't been running it. I questioned just how long, and you have now addressed that. It clearly shows you were not involved early on, something that I have maintained from the outset. My issue is with you, not with Steve Simpson, not the Sigma ECU, or even your Group Buy.

I am sure that other readers would like to see a resolution to this some time soon, so if you are going to do so then please do so quickly, or lose any credibility that you have. You've laid down the gauntlet, now stand by your convictions and do what you have said, not just continue to make, thus far hollow, threats.

Cheers,

Pat.

 

Well I have sold the car.
But I did not claim to develop the ECU, Although during 2003 I dismantled several STi2 Engines at TEG Sport so Andrew Leech/Proteus/Sigma ECU could obtain the relevant timing information etc to build the Ecu. Then at the point where the ecu was a development board grafted to a JECS board, spent many a night with Andrew in my garage trying to get it to work, doing some small experiments 'to linearise air temp sensors etc'. So I like to think i helped