dynolicious experience with BSR PPC tune

[SKY888]

One of our members here..I think his nick is kipper......mentioned about getting dynolicious tool for his iphone. Dynolicious - Auto Performance Meter for iPhone and iPod

since it's only $12.99, I went ahead and bought it to test it out.

I purchased the dynolicious tool and downloaded it in my profile.

I did a couple of runs at 11pm thursday night to test it out and I believe it is quite accurate

OEM tune:

0-60 = 5.3 sec

I was consistent with 5.3s and had a couple of 5.4-5.5 sec


with BSR PPC tune:

0-60 = my fastest was 4.38 sec

but most of my runs were 4.5-4.6 sec

I'm happy that the BSR PPC tuner shaved off about 1 sec on my 0-60

I still have to go to the real dyno to check the power the BSR PPC tune gives me.....plus of course to visit the strip to get more accurate results for my 1/4 mile and 0-60

[fr0stb1t3]

Dynolicious vs. V-Box and Dynojet - Autoblog

It's actually not that bad accuracy wise. I mean, it's still just a simple accelerometer but it works for comparing gain pretty well.

[SKY888]

Originally Posted by fr0stb1t3

Dynolicious vs. V-Box and Dynojet - Autoblog

It's actually not that bad accuracy wise. I mean, it's still just a simple accelerometer but it works for comparing gain pretty well.

I'm kinda reluctant about the whp readings of dynolicious........

but regarding 0-60 readings......dynolicious is pretty good for a $12.99 tool.

I haven't tested the 1/4 mile readings since I'm performing all these tests at the parking lot of lowes at 11pm at night and I'm just by myself. performing 1/4 mile run at that parking lot is not feasible too short of a strip

[Bogie]

How does it zero out gravity?

[fr0stb1t3]

Originally Posted by Bogie

How does it zero out gravity?

I am assuming it bases it on the reading it takes when you're still sitting still, then compensates for that, but who knows. All I know is it is mildly accurate for $13 :P

[uranium-238]

You calibrate it for all 6 sides, and you have to place it in specific directions when you use it. Between those having it work around gravity would be pretty simple.

[SKY888]

Originally Posted by uranium-238

You calibrate it for all 6 sides, and you have to place it in specific directions when you use it. Between those having it work around gravity would be pretty simple.

yup!

iphone up, down, right side, left side, face up, and face down!

[uranium-238]

Yep, and I went the extra mile to ensure it was perfectly level in both planes. Since I've never had the civic dynoed, and never will, I can't speak for it's accuracy.

But to be honest, I'm more concerned with it's consistency. I haven't used it enough to say anything either way, but if it's pretty consistent then it's only a matter of time before it becomes more accurate.

[klipper]

Originally Posted by SKY888

One of our members here..I think his nick is kipper......mentioned about getting dynolicious tool for his iphone. Dynolicious - Auto Performance Meter for iPhone and iPod

Klipper, actually

Yeah..the HP rating isn't too accurate in my testing. (I wish i was at 523 ) But my 0-60 times are pretty accurate of telling me I need to learn how to shift better

[SKY888]

Originally Posted by klipper

Klipper, actually

Yeah..the HP rating isn't too accurate in my testing. (I wish i was at 523 ) But my 0-60 times are pretty accurate of telling me I need to learn how to shift better

ooops sorry bro! wrong spelling.....my bad!

about shiftig....yeah, I used to be bad in shifting, but practice makes perfect! Power shifting will help too

[sushi]

Sky888, I'm having problem with the calibration. When facing down, it does not do anything. All the other position I have no problem. What am I doing wrong? Any help would be great.Thanks

Originally Posted by SKY888

yup!iphone up, down, right side, left side, face up, and face down!

[SKY888]

Originally Posted by sushi

Sky888, I'm having problem with the calibration. When facing down, it does not do anything. All the other position I have no problem. What am I doing wrong? Any help would be great.Thanks

hi bro..sorry to hear about your problems. I didnt encounter such issue.

hmmm.....is your phone leveled when you are doing it?

if problem still continues...try rebooting your iphone.

hope that helps.

PM the other guy Klipper.......he is a tech guy....he might be able to help you

good luck!

[FaceGarden]

You can also pirate dynolicious (and most app store apps... ) if you have a jailbroken phone... not that i would ever support that...
I won't tell you how, but google might help...
-Taylor

[fr0stb1t3]

Originally Posted by FaceGarden

You can also pirate dynolicious (and most app store apps... ) if you have a jailbroken phone... not that i would ever support that...
I won't tell you how, but google might help...
-Taylor

People put a lot of time and effort into coding those apps. If they choose to release them free that's their choice, but stealing them when they would like a little compensation is wrong. A lot of these products are made in people's free time at home and you're screwing them out of money. It's no different then JPM making you a custom item for your car and then you refusing to pay him.

You can justify it however you like but it's still theft.

[FaceGarden]

Originally Posted by fr0stb1t3

People put a lot of time and effort into coding those apps. If they choose to release them free that's their choice, but stealing them when they would like a little compensation is wrong. A lot of these products are made in people's free time at home and you're screwing them out of money. It's no different then JPM making you a custom item for your car and then you refusing to pay him.

You can justify it however you like but it's still theft.

Ehh... That depends... I don't really need dynolicious so i'd never pay $13 for it. If that's the case, it doesn't matter to them if i pirate it just to try it, they never would have had my money in the first place. It's not as though i walked into their house and stole $13 from them. I knew about the app before i knew they could be pirated, and i thought about buying it but decided not to.

On the other end of the spectrum, i have donated more than a few times to developers who work hard to make useful stuff and then give it away for free, so it depends. If i have no need for something, i'm not going to pay for it, but that doesn't necessarily mean i won't try to get it without paying for it just to see it. Besides, if i pirate dynolicious, my boss or a friend might actually buy it when they might otherwise not have.

So no, if i flat out don't need something (and wouldn't have bought it if that were my only option), i don't see how pirating the app takes anything away from the developer, and don't consider it stealing. Maybe if i mod my car and i actually want some numbers, i'll pay for it. Pirating is annoying anyway because you don't get updates, etc.

But you seem to have your opinion and i don't want this to turn into a flame war, this thread is about dynolicious. Feel free to respond since i may have said some things you want to respond to, but i will probably not respond again just so we don't get off track...
-Taylor

[fr0stb1t3]

Originally Posted by FaceGarden

Ehh... That depends... I don't really need dynolicious so i'd never pay $13 for it. If that's the case, it doesn't matter to them if i pirate it just to try it, they never would have had my money in the first place. It's not as though i walked into their house and stole $13 from them. I knew about the app before i knew they could be pirated, and i thought about buying it but decided not to.

On the other end of the spectrum, i have donated more than a few times to developers who work hard to make useful stuff and then give it away for free, so it depends. If i have no need for something, i'm not going to pay for it, but that doesn't necessarily mean i won't try to get it without paying for it just to see it. Besides, if i pirate dynolicious, my boss or a friend might actually buy it when they might otherwise not have.

So no, if i flat out don't need something (and wouldn't have bought it if that were my only option), i don't see how pirating the app takes anything away from the developer, and don't consider it stealing. Maybe if i mod my car and i actually want some numbers, i'll pay for it. Pirating is annoying anyway because you don't get updates, etc.

But you seem to have your opinion and i don't want this to turn into a flame war, this thread is about dynolicious. Feel free to respond since i may have said some things you want to respond to, but i will probably not respond again just so we don't get off track...
-Taylor

I agree, I don't mean to get off track. But take your example and apply it to any physical object and you'll come to the same conclusion, it's theft.

I do agree that software like this needs a 10 day trial to see if you like it, that's only smart, but it doesn't give you a reason to steal it.

*Extreme Example*
I would never pay $250,000 for a Ferrari and I had decided that long before I found out they could be easily stolen. Then someone told me how to take one really easily without fear of getting caught. So I stole one. Ferrari's not out $250k because I never would have paid that much for it in the first place. Besides, now that I get to drive my friends around in a Ferrari they may buy one and Ferrari may get a customer they never had.

Ferrari's loss comes from the materials and labor, which I'm sure insurance would handle. The programmers loss is just labor which they never get to make back up.

Does the fact that there is no materials involved make it less of a theft?

[FaceGarden]

Originally Posted by fr0stb1t3

Does the fact that there is no materials involved make it less of a theft?

It depends... If i steal some precious manuscript you are working on (even if i make a copy of a digital file), and publish the work, i am depriving you of all the potential sales - the fruits of your labor. And stealing a physical object like a car has a very distinct cost. If ferrari was going to sell that specific car to someone else (a finite resource), they are out the 250k that someone would have paid them (and there is insurance, etc, but that money comes from somewhere too). The fact that YOU weren't going to pay them doesn't change the fact that someone was going to pay them for that particular car, so they are still out that money. A digital copy of a file is not a finite resource, it is infinitely copyable and consumes effectively no resources to duplicate, so making myself a copy in itself doesn't deprive the owner of anything. They will always have another copy to sell to the next buyer at no additional cost to them, unlike the ferrari. Now, if i was going to buy it the software, but i decided to pirate it, i am depriving the producer only of lost sales, not resources. If there was no potential sale, then nothing is lost.

Really, the way economics and supply and demand works, you ideally want to sell your product to each individual person at the maximum dollar amount they are willing to pay.

Surely some of you would have paid $50 for this software, but the company may not have sold enough to make up the lower total volume of sales. Ideally they'd sell a copy at $50 to every person willing to pay that much, $40 to those people, all the way down to $0.01 to all the people with no intention of paying any more than that (though technically $0.99 is the min on the store). If i was only willing to pay $.99, it is better to sell it to me for that than for me not to buy it at all.

Unfortunately, that's basically impossible in our system, which is fine because it has the problem of leaving everyone broke, but the point is that the max price some people are willing to pay is less than the asking price of the product, and the company looses those sales. Some people also would have paid more, and the company looses that extra potential money too when they set a price. I was one of the people who wasn't willing to put $13 or $14 into a program that was going to tell me the car i bought new 3 weeks ago has a certain horsepower when it is already posted online. If that is the case, then i don't consider it morally wrong to make a digital copy of a file when that act deprives the owner of nothing. There are no resources consumed, and there are no lost sales, period.

It sounds really nice and simple and morally responsible to say it's stealing, and the Recording Industries among others have for years been forcing that idea down our throats, but the real economics of it are just not that simple. And this may seem like a moral issue to some, but it shouldn't be - the company is in the business to make money, and if my actions don't deprive them from any money (of course including my potential sale, or in this case, the lack thereof), then there has been no harm done.

Sorry for hijacking this thread again.
-Taylor

[fr0stb1t3]

Originally Posted by FaceGarden

It depends... If i steal some precious manuscript you are working on (even if i make a copy of a digital file), and publish the work, i am depriving you of all the potential sales - the fruits of your labor. And stealing a physical object like a car has a very distinct cost. If ferrari was going to sell that specific car to someone else (a finite resource), they are out the 250k that someone would have paid them (and there is insurance, etc, but that money comes from somewhere too). The fact that YOU weren't going to pay them doesn't change the fact that someone was going to pay them for that particular car, so they are still out that money. A digital copy of a file is not a finite resource, it is infinitely copyable and consumes effectively no resources to duplicate, so making myself a copy in itself doesn't deprive the owner of anything. They will always have another copy to sell to the next buyer at no additional cost to them, unlike the ferrari. Now, if i was going to buy it the software, but i decided to pirate it, i am depriving the producer only of lost sales, not resources. If there was no potential sale, then nothing is lost.

Really, the way economics and supply and demand works, you ideally want to sell your product to each individual person at the maximum dollar amount they are willing to pay.

Surely some of you would have paid $50 for this software, but the company may not have sold enough to make up the lower total volume of sales. Ideally they'd sell a copy at $50 to every person willing to pay that much, $40 to those people, all the way down to $0.01 to all the people with no intention of paying any more than that (though technically $0.99 is the min on the store). If i was only willing to pay $.99, it is better to sell it to me for that than for me not to buy it at all.

Unfortunately, that's basically impossible in our system, which is fine because it has the problem of leaving everyone broke, but the point is that the max price some people are willing to pay is less than the asking price of the product, and the company looses those sales. Some people also would have paid more, and the company looses that extra potential money too when they set a price. I was one of the people who wasn't willing to put $13 or $14 into a program that was going to tell me the car i bought new 3 weeks ago has a certain horsepower when it is already posted online. If that is the case, then i don't consider it morally wrong to make a digital copy of a file when that act deprives the owner of nothing. There are no resources consumed, and there are no lost sales, period.

It sounds really nice and simple and morally responsible to say it's stealing, and the Recording Industries among others have for years been forcing that idea down our throats, but the real economics of it are just not that simple. And this may seem like a moral issue to some, but it shouldn't be - the company is in the business to make money, and if my actions don't deprive them from any money (of course including my potential sale, or in this case, the lack thereof), then there has been no harm done.

Sorry for hijacking this thread again.
-Taylor

[hijacking]

The lack of morality in this argument is disturbing to me. The simple fact is someone created the program with the express intent of selling it. You took it without purchasing it, whether they actually lost something is beside the point.

Stuff like this makes me want to not release my window valet. The coding is not easy and it takes up large amounts of time. I am spending a lot of time with my vendors etc. making it look pretty, but at the end of the day if you wanted to copy it all it would take is a PIC reader and another PIC to flash my stuff too, but since you wouldn't have bought it in the first place I guess there's no loss for me right?

But whatever makes you feel better about it I guess.

[/hijacking]