Oh, you're one of those 'multiple personalities' kind of people, eh

FF should do it without any problems. Try it first to make sure you don't have some other global issue on your computer.

It was an IE workaround that first introduced this problem in vBulletin. But don't worry, they will get around to fixing it some day ()- it's only been more than a DECADE!!! LOL.

Sort of like 'winmail.dat' It became widespread in the AOL hay-days, yet still happens from time to time.

Let me know if FF, or renaming the file works.

Otherwise, here is a discussion about using 'Compatibility View' in IE. I haven't tried it, but here's the link you can read about it if you like: [SOLVED] Attachment downloads are all .php files - Page 2

 

I linked the file to him in a PM. This should be squared away soon.

 

Hilarious! Yes I get winmail.dat on some attachments emailed to me from friends as well. I will have to read ExPACamper's link to the discussion on IE Compatibility View. Tugly, thanks for the link. But because it is a link it comes up only as .mht file for me.

I am now logging off and logging back on with FireFox...

Now in FireFox. Same thing. Apparently I am not supposed to help on this project. My guess is that Google is pissed that I use DuckDuckGo instead of Google as a search engine. Links will simply not get the file for me. So unless someone is willing to lower him/herself to actually email me the .xls file as an email attachment, I won't be able to open it as an Excel file and then convert it to Acrobat fillable fields.

 

PM me your email address and I'll send it to you Not because I'm 'better' just because I'm 'faster' at reading your post. HAHA!

 

That was my problem, I don't have an email address... and PMs just let me send links.

It's good to know the problems with the links, and we need to solve that. So... it wasn't a wasted exercise because we learned something from it.

 

Wowza!!

1) Link works fine for me!
2) I am willing to help in any way I can with this. I wouldn't consider myself an excel expert, but I am definitely proficient. Throwing data around and compiling masters is my specialty. I'm okay with graphing (in excel), but I don't have much experience with anything outside of excel and I am not a big fan of converting files and extensions, etc. as I have a Mac and it's better to just let it do its thing.
3) I don't have huge blocks of time to crunch numbers, but I can definitely commit a couple hours a week to this project.
4) I have AE and Torque.
5) I live right next door to SD Rich and personally have 4 trucks and access to a couple more for bulk data collecting when the time comes.
6) I can see the potential in this project and 100% believe in it if we can get a template set up and requests sent out in an orderly fashion.
7) I could potentially introduce this project to some engineering students at my college who would take it on as an independent study for credits (that would alleviate the need for someone to get paid to crunch numbers, make graphs, and come to conclusions about modifications, conditions, problems, etc.).

I'll message all three of you that are spearheading this as well.

 

I wanted to bring this one back from the dead or did this project die?
Is there a PID 3D link and I missed it?

 

It's alive... just dormant.

 

Let's wake Frakenstein up!

 

The project has been dubbed "PID 3D", and the team has developed a spreadsheet to automatically take data in several formats and build a graph from the data. We even have a a couple of formulas in the spreadsheet to assist with evaluating the condition of key powertrain systems. What's left you ask?

1. Using the list of members I have, submit a questionnaire to each of them - documenting the mods they have that have the ability to alter the data in the logs. "Altering" the data means better 0-60 time than stock, higher ultimate ICP pressure, different boost/EBP ratios, etc....
2. Comb through the collection of logs and mod lists, remove personal info and tune provider references, then save it in a public folder I've made. The individual log folders are renamed to a code, protecting the identity of the member who submitted the data.
3. Once the data is openly available, it's a matter of going through the data with the spreadsheet, and adding files and/or images of graphs in each folder.

 

Why does the tuner have to be "protected"?

How can anyone know what is normal, without also knowing which tune is effecting the parameters?

How is it in the best interests of the FTE membership at large to hide the tuner information?

We compare air filter and airbox performance, and we don't "protect" S&B and AFE and Ford Motor Company, all businesses who ask for our money by claiming their product is the better choice. Where is the harm in proving it?

We compare traction and tread life in truck tires, and have no compunction in identifying, vilifying, or even deifying the names of Michelin, BF Goodrich, Toyo, Bridgestone, etc. What then, is the motivation behind "protecting" tuner businesses from the true light of day, or rather, data?

The effort taken to hide the truth makes an already shady shade tree industry even shadier, IMHO.

 

Very good question.

The tuner topic is a land mine, the third rail, a flame kit, an IED (Instant Enragement Device), etc....

There are many reasons why tunes fail - including stubborn customers that expect more than what is reasonable (can you say 140 HP tune on stock sticks?), unknown issues in the vehicle, communication problems between the non-tech customer and the tuner, and just plain bad tuning are a few of those reasons.

There is also the matter of interpretation. If Joe were to see the data is from a DP-tuned truck, he would either not look at the data, or go racing in there to seek out the slightest hiccup and hold it high like a torch for all to see - proclaiming "See? I told yuh.". Not publishing the tuner will have people looking at the tunes, not the provider.

My goal is to share examples of things going right and things going wrong, and the data will give a comprehensive view of the situation. This is for the sake of root cause analysis - not to lock-and-load for an all-out tuner war. Saying that... I can't stop people from posting "My data looks exactly like that, and I have a chip from XYZ tuner."

What I believe is really going to happen is people will look at the tunes and say "Uh... every tune over ZYX horsepower is falling on its face. When did that start?"

 

Funny, I just got thru reading an older thread...Around Oct last year, where this very subject escalated rapidly just short of Nuclear discussing the pro's and con's of different Tunes. Got ugly rather fast. Just Sayin.

 

I would be happy to help with this project, but Stinky Jr. Only has the AIS, and is bone stock comparatively, but if you want me to help som how let me know

 

Stock data is the most important to start with. Wether troubleshooting or evaluating performance gains it always starts with a stock comparison. The more stock data the better......…