HARLEYDEALER Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Well that ended better than I thought it would, I'm glad you two can aggressively debate and still be cool to each other, but I'm beginning to think this topic that I started is cursed... No, I'm cursed, no maye be we were both cursed 68fastback and myself, sorry for raining on your thread! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Hey Bill, we're good. Everyone's different -- thank goodness! ;-) I'm glad we could both express our heart-felt opinions and not have it cause bad feelings. :beerchug: Jay, I just searched for some curse-removal potion -- whew! ...there's some weird stuff out there! :wacko: ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HARLEYDEALER Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Hey Bill, we're good. Everyone's different -- thank goodness! ;-) I'm glad we could both express our heart-felt opinions and not have it cause bad feelings. :beerchug: Jay, I just searched for some curse-removal potion -- whew! ...there's some weird stuff out there! :wacko: ;-) Thanks,Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KBTECH Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 My points stand: I find claims by KBtech and on the KB site to be unsupported by the information provided... simple. -Dan Hi again Dan. First of all, this whole discussion on the Boost-A-Pump is off topic, and we’d like to see it placed somewhere else if it is to continue since it is a topic on its own. Second, we try to state information in as clear and factual a manner as possible, but to be grilled as in your case as to the validity of our statements can’t help but get to us just a little. Nothing wrong with some friendly discussion, but what you are doing seems to be more of a test our credibility the way we see it. Can you honestly sit there and say that after two years of initial development and testing, then 11 years of service of a product where we find absolutely no failures "unsubstantiated"? Again, maybe you are tired of me stating this, but after literally thousands of these are on the market, not only being used by our customers in their cars/trucks for years with zero (let’s use your description - “reported”) issues - again, unless an installation problem, but also being used exclusively in leu of adding pumps by some of the top tuners in the world, AND chosen for the Super Snake, Koenigsegg, Panoz just to name a few. You must be kidding. Are you kidding? Who could deny anyone who purchases a product in the two-hundred dollar plus range would be reluctant to send it back to the manufacturer if it failed, or did not live up to the manufacturer’s claims? Of course they would send them back. I know I certainly would. But, the fact is, they do not come back to us unless it is a question of installation, not failures, with either the units or any failed pumps. It would be a huge mistake for us to make this claim if it were not true. I have worked here for over 13 years and have been totally involved with every project we have embarked upon since that first day (I’ve known and done business with Jim Bell for over thirty years), and I was heavily involved with the testing and development of the Boost-A-Pump. It is a rock-solid, extremely reliable product, hands down, and as far as us supplying it in virtually all our supercharger kits, we will continue to do that just like we have been for years. We know for a fact it does not reduce the reliability of the factory pumps. You have asserted we could not possibly output 50% more fuel from any given pump when you have never tested this product. You are incorrect about this and some other of your statements as we HAVE tested them, many times over. It is you who are providing unsubstantiated comments, not us. Why don't you test the product yourself if you are so adamant about its pitfalls? We just don't get it. Why you seem bent on proving the BAP will not do what we say it will and question its reliability, when you have no data to back up your own comments. So why not test it yourself? I hope you have two years to do your initial testing and another 11 years after that to prove us wrong. Dan, I hope we’re not coming off too harsh here, but enough is enough. We are finished with this discussion about reliability and performance of the Boost-A-Pump. If anyone has any other questions as to its application, we will be happy to answer those questions. Regards, Ken BTW: Jim Bell wanted to put in a few comments relative to this also: “I owned a flathead in 1953. Everyone said new OHV engines were too complicated and unreliable - even though they made more horsepower. Just like now, people were reluctant to change when a revolutionary new idea came along. I’m sure glad I didn’t listen to those people. I bought a Buick OHV engine and never looked back. No one in the aftermarket to our knowledge tests more than Kenne Bell. So we disagree with you when you refer to our claims as baseless. Find another aftermarket product with as much testing. Every claim we make can be backed up by actual documented tests. There is no ‘interpretation’. ‘Overstated capacity’? If our BAP only increases flow 19% I will personally throw our entire stock into the dumpster. Your statements are based on opinions. One good test is worth 1000 opinions.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 Hi again Dan. First of all, this whole discussion on the Boost-A-Pump is off topic, and we’d like to see it placed somewhere else if it is to continue since it is a topic on its own. Second, we try to state information in as clear and factual a manner as possible, but to be grilled as in your case as to the validity of our statements can’t help but get to us just a little. Nothing wrong with some friendly discussion, but what you are doing seems to be more of a test our credibility the way we see it. Can you honestly sit there and say that after two years of initial development and testing, then 11 years of service of a product where we find absolutely no failures "unsubstantiated"? Again, maybe you are tired of me stating this, but after literally thousands of these are on the market, not only being used by our customers in their cars/trucks for years with zero (let’s use your description - “reported”) issues - again, unless an installation problem, but also being used exclusively in leu of adding pumps by some of the top tuners in the world, AND chosen for the Super Snake, Koenigsegg, Panoz just to name a few. You must be kidding. Are you kidding? Who could deny anyone who purchases a product in the two-hundred dollar plus range would be reluctant to send it back to the manufacturer if it failed, or did not live up to the manufacturer’s claims? Of course they would send them back. I know I certainly would. But, the fact is, they do not come back to us unless it is a question of installation, not failures, with either the units or any failed pumps. It would be a huge mistake for us to make this claim if it were not true. I have worked here for over 13 years and have been totally involved with every project we have embarked upon since that first day (I’ve known and done business with Jim Bell for over thirty years), and I was heavily involved with the testing and development of the Boost-A-Pump. It is a rock-solid, extremely reliable product, hands down, and as far as us supplying it in virtually all our supercharger kits, we will continue to do that just like we have been for years. We know for a fact it does not reduce the reliability of the factory pumps. You have asserted we could not possibly output 50% more fuel from any given pump when you have never tested this product. You are incorrect about this and some other of your statements as we HAVE tested them, many times over. It is you who are providing unsubstantiated comments, not us. Why don't you test the product yourself if you are so adamant about its pitfalls? We just don't get it. Why you seem bent on proving the BAP will not do what we say it will and question its reliability, when you have no data to back up your own comments. So why not test it yourself? I hope you have two years to do your initial testing and another 11 years after that to prove us wrong. Dan, I hope we’re not coming off too harsh here, but enough is enough. We are finished with this discussion about reliability and performance of the Boost-A-Pump. If anyone has any other questions as to its application, we will be happy to answer those questions. Regards, Ken BTW: Jim Bell wanted to put in a few comments relative to this also: “I owned a flathead in 1953. Everyone said new OHV engines were too complicated and unreliable - even though they made more horsepower. Just like now, people were reluctant to change when a revolutionary new idea came along. I’m sure glad I didn’t listen to those people. I bought a Buick OHV engine and never looked back. No one in the aftermarket to our knowledge tests more than Kenne Bell. So we disagree with you when you refer to our claims as baseless. Find another aftermarket product with as much testing. Every claim we make can be backed up by actual documented tests. There is no ‘interpretation’. ‘Overstated capacity’? If our BAP only increases flow 19% I will personally throw our entire stock into the dumpster. Your statements are based on opinions. One good test is worth 1000 opinions.” First off, if you feel this is off-topic, why have you posted again on this subject? I think it's fine here, but it's WP64's thread, so he can decide if he wants this discussion here or not, or you certainly can start another thread elsewhere if you like -- it's all good. Ken, no, I don't think you're being too harsh but, with all due respect, it appears you've both missed my point. The point *isn't* the reliability of the boost-a-pump as an *isolated* unit. It's an electronic piece and should be *very* reliable ...and I've not said nor implied the BAP unit is not relaible. Nor was that my point. My point is that from all the anecdotal info here and on the KB site there's no way to tell. The point is you are arbitrarily choosing to isolate that component (BAP) in what you consider 'reliability' rather than considering total system reliability -- the only reliability that matters. Incorrect installations aside, I see some fundamental shortcomings in your approach to both characterizing and testing reliability based on what you've said in this thread and what is stated on the KB site: 1) BAP + pump testing: To state that pump+BAP is more reliable than pump alone, specific testing would seem necessary: for example, under controlled lab conditions that simulate hi-stress usage: temperature, flow, outlet presures, etc (you guys know how to do this). For argument sake, let's use 90% duty cycle (pick a meaningful number), temp=T, and pressure=P. Then both configurations need to be tested to failure at those values, i.e. until they actually do fail. Both configurations = stock pump and stock pump+BAP. This needs to be done with a statistically valid number of configurqation pairs. Then failure rates of the two configurations can be validly analyzed/compared. Lacking such comparative testing-to-failure, stating one configuration is more reliable than the other would seem baseless (whether true or not). If you read my posts you'll see I am not saying what the comparative result *will* be because only such testing can reveal that. And that's the point. You can run pumps for 200 hours with a BAP and have no failures -- means nothing, except it didn't fail in that anecdote. Comparative statements are only possible with valid comparative testing/analysis. If you're comparing failure rates, then each configuration must be tested to failure else all you can validly state is someting like: in multiple tests of pump+BAP it consistently ran for 200 hours at 90% duty-cycle, temp=T, and pressure=P with no failures. Surely you don't disagree with this. If so, I don't know what to say (actually, I do know what to say but would choose not to). 2) Isolated component rate vs actual system failure rates: You have repeatedly used BAP return rates as proof of 100% reliability. That's defective logic at best. I won't even attempt to discuss it in the context of a valid comparative analysis except to point out that such 'logic' misses the whole point of comparative evaluation. If you add a component into an existing configuration the reliability of the new configuration is not the same as the component that was added (and the testing discussion above would enable discovering the actual difference). This is axiomatic because the original configuration is already composed of physical and electonic components and the relibility implications of the addition of more physical and/or electrical components into that configuration cannot be represented by any one component. I'm sure you know this. So the repeated argument of no BAP returns being indicative of KB stage-3 BAP configuration reliability is meaningless. Again, nice anecdotal insight, but thoroughly meaningless as far as comparative reliability of stock vs KB stage-3 BAP configuration. If you don't see that, I don't know what to say (actually, I do know what to say, but would choose not to). 3) Flow capacity with the BAP: I don't doubt the BAP significantly increases flow. It's a clever surrogate for higher capacity in-tank pumps which largely don't exist (I say "in tank" beacuse external pumps can be prone to cavitation bubbles, etc, with potentially problematic results). However, the site uses examples of how BAP voltage increase affects flow and when I apply those anecdotal examples it doesn't calculate to 50%. In the discussion on the KB site it talks about 12v vs 17.2-17.5v producing a 50% increase in flow due to the increased voltage. I have no problem with the premise of voltage increasing flow of a DC motor pump. Is voltage and flow directly related for the BAP? If not, why is it mentioned? If it is directly related as anecdotally implied/explained on the site, I have this math problem: 17.5/12 = 46% increase or 17.2/12 = 43% increase (no problem), but normal operating voltage of a '12v' system is typically 13.2 at the battery (no alternator running) and 14.7 or more (15v?) with the alternator running. Maybe for an racecar that runs with no alternator the math would more realistically be 17.5/13.2 = 33% increase or 17.2/13.2 = 30% increase. For a street ride with an alternator it might be more like 17.5/14.7 = 19% increase or 17.2/14.7 = 17% increase or 17.2/15 = 15% increase. I'm not saing that's what the BAP *will* flow. I'm saying when I apply the anecdotal information on the website to some actual numbers, that's what I get. If there's a better calculation, great! I realize outlet pressure affects this and outlet pressure is in turn affected by injector flow. So maybe you're assuming larger injectors that at the same pressure will flow more and present less flow resistance to the pump. Fine. Please say that rather than causing the reader to necessarily attribute the flow increase to the BAP alone -- as the anecdotal examples imply. Would that not be clearer to the reader and potential customer? Would that not better foster a climate of honesty and trust? Is that not what businesses strives for? Surely you agree, if not I don't what to say (actually, I do know what to say, but would choose not to). It's also good to know that some exotic cars use the BAP -- nice anecdotal information that would seem to have no intersect with the points raised above. Similarly, the relative complexity and/or reliability of a flathead vs an OHV engine would also seem unrelated. I'd bet GM thought the 350cid-based diesel in the '80s was a great idea too, even though it wasn't. How about the Edsel? The VW thing? Ok, I'm kidding, but anecdotal examples are just that -- and that's the point. I will say (as I have in the above posts) that the BAP's voltage regulation is an significant and important feature, imo. I also asked if a BAP is installed in a vehicle not requiring the increased flow, is the voltage regulation benefit applicable even when the additional flow capacity is unused? Or is voltage regulation only on when the "switch" (vacuum for NA or boost for S/C) kicks the 17.2-17.v BAP output "on?" That wasn't clear to me on the website or in above posts so I'd still appreciate your insight on that. In summary, I think the BAP is a usefull product that has been critical to the success of the Kenne Bell S/C kits, and many builders and tuners have in turn adopted it in various applications for a variety of reasons. I suspect the most dominant of which is that it's a cost-effective product that fills a real need. It may be very reliable as an individual unit (I assume so). It *may* even be very reliable as a total system solution -- as compared to stock. You just can't tell from the anecdotal information provided here and on the website. That's *the* point I was making. I hope you don't feel I'm being too harsh either. I have no gripe with you/KB and maybe I'm just expecting too much. If so, just say so and we're good but, please, spare me the anecdotes. ;-) All the best, Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WP64 Posted April 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 Absolutly NO offense to anyone involved, but why don't we start another topic on this? I think the negativity, and I take my part of the blame for it, of this topics first few posts needs to drift way into the archieves of the TS forum. Beware, this topic is cursed and you may want to cut-n-paste the BAP posts to your new topic so you don't have to come back here to read through them as I have way too many times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 Absolutly NO offense to anyone involved, but why don't we start another topic on this? I think the negativity, and I take my part of the blame for it, of this topics first few posts needs to drift way into the archieves of the TS forum. Beware, this topic is cursed and you may want to cut-n-paste the BAP posts to your new topic so you don't have to come back here to read through them. I think you're right, Jay ...it's all your fault :shades: ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Morris Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 I think this thread has gotten WAY off the orginal Topic, If WP wants me to I will close it and Yall can take the BAP discussion to a new thread! Its your thread WP, just let me know and I agree this thread is CURSED!!!! michael morris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WP64 Posted April 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 I think you're right, Jay ...it's all your fault :shades: ;-) Yep, in several ways Dan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharabi Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 http://forums.focaljet.com/forced-inductio...-must-read.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WP64 Posted April 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 Considering that this BAP discussion seems to not want to die here and has not moved to a new topic, I feel it best to close it to new posts. I have talked to a moderator to make sure that the information above will stay up and not disappear because I realize that there is a lot of good information above, less my and KBTECH's first few posts, that should be accessible to further our understanding of the Kenny Bell BAP's. I'm sorry if my decision rubs you the wrong way but I feel it's the best decision for the Team Shelby forum. WP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 Considering that this BAP discussion seems to not want to die here and has not moved to a new topic, I feel it best to close it to new posts. I have talked to a moderator to make sure that the information above will stay up and not disappear because I realize that there is a lot of good information above, less my and KBTECH's first few posts, that should be accessible to further our understanding of the Kenny Bell BAP's. I'm sorry if my decision rubs you the wrong way but I feel it's the best decision for the Team Shelby forum. WP +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.