znod

Below is an analysis related to one of my quests--reconciling my Pro RR all-loss RWHP (rear-wheel horsepower) readings with a theoretical RWHP loss calculation and both with BMW's claimed 545i FWHP (flywheel horsepower) of 325. While working on the reconciliation project, I got sidetracked. What follows is the result.

The current project considers how Pro RR horsepower values can be used in explaining the ET effects related to SAE J1349 density-altitude (DA) adjusted FWHP differences. Some background, including a discussion of J1349, is needed before beginning the analysis.

The graphs I posted in post #108 of this thread show maximum all-loss RWHP of about 250 in third gear (with about 90 MPH implied). My Pro-RR-indicated average maximum all-loss RWHP over 48 passes, for example, is 239 at an approximate average of 90 MPH. This value implies an overall average percentage loss of .26462 = 1 - .73538 (239/325) given BMW?s claimed 545i FWHP. In this regard, five types of loss are possible, engine mechanical inefficiency, power train, or parasitic, inefficiencies (all mechanical inefficiencies occurring between the flywheel and the road), aerodynamic drag, altitude, and weather. For now, note that I have no reason to change the following value: 35 FWHP = Aerodynamic-Drag FWHP-Loss (see earlier ?snapshot? of aerodynamic-drag loss calculator).

The current protocol for power measurement is SAE J1349 (i.e., SAE net) (revised 8/04 and effective after 1/1/05). J1349 assumes an average 15% loss from mechanical engine inefficiency and the following standard atmospheric/altitude conditions: 77F (or 25C), 0% relative humidity, barometric pressure of 29.235 inches-Hg (or 990 mb), and altitude = sea level (0). These assumptions imply a DA of 1962' and produce FWHP values that are as though related tests were performed at this altitude.

J1349 is meant to ensure that manufacturers? FWHP claims are comparable and accurate. Thus, it applies directly to engines tested using engine dynos. To obtain comparable results for engines tested using chassis dynos, the dyno output must be adjusted. For example, dyno output may not be adjusted even for the assumed mechanical engine inefficiency of 15%. Additionally, even if such results are adjusted for this factor, they generally are not adjusted for the parasitic inefficiencies, and are not affected by aerodynamic drag as are G-meters. Finally, note that J1349 requires corrections be less than 7% (+ or -) to be certifiable.

Probably the clearest way of showing how Pro RR horsepower values can be used in explaining the ET effects related to SAE J1349 density-altitude (DA) adjusted FWHP differences is to convert ?everything? to the J1349 DA of 1962?. I proceed in this fashion below in determining whether, and to what extent, my Pro RR maximum average all-loss RWHP values (238.729 versus 241.114) can be used in explaining the difference in the average weather and altitude adjusted ETs (see below) related to the 14 DAs (average = 1890?) encompassing my best 5 weather and altitude adjusted passes and my 14 lowest DAs (average = 910?). I am counting on averaging to wash out any confounding effects of differences in starting procedures, wheel spin, and etc. I proceed using the steps given below.

1. Calculate the weather and altitude adjusted average ETs using standard adjustment procedures and the difference to be explained.

Unadjusted Higher DAs? Average ET: 13.749
Unadjusted Lower DAs? Average ET: 13.710
Difference = Unadjusted Weather Effect = .039 = 13.749 ? 13.710.

Higher DAs? Average ET of 13.749 Adjusted from Average DA of 1890? to J1349 DA of
.....1962? = 13.762
Lower DAs? Average ET of 13.710 Adjusted from Average DA of 910? to J1349 DA of
.....1962? = 13.892
ET ?Swing? to be Explained = Weather Effect Difference Adjusted for DA
.....= .13 = 13.762 ? 13.892 = Unadjusted Weather Difference (.039) ? Effect of
.....Adjusting the Unadjusted Weather Difference for DA (-.169)

The altitude effect is zero since all of my passes were made at the same actual altitude of 1600?. Regardless, DA adjustment produces an interesting and appropriate result; the higher DAs produce the lower average ET?a reversal from what is shown by the unadjusted data. An implication of the existence of any significant difference in DA-adjusted ET values (e.g., -.13) is that the 545i?s advanced engine-management system cannot adjust perfectly for changing weather conditions.

Note that the CF for the higher DAs should be larger than the one for the lower DAs since, other things equal, FWHP is greater the lower the DA. As shown below in 3a, the Pro RR implies higher uncorrected FWHP for the lower DAs, specifically, 2.89 = 327.259 - 324.369. But, as shown later in 3d, J1349 correction predictably reverses the FWHP rankings similarly to the ET reversal noted above. Thus, the higher DAs end up with the higher FWHP by 3.963.

2. Determine the J1349 CFs using average weather data (or known DAs).

Higher DAs: CF = 1.023
Lower DAs: Cf = 1.005

The correction factor for the lower DAs is much smaller because 910? is much closer to sea level than 1890?. Recall that J1349 assumes zero sea level.

3. Under J1349, the CF is applied to an adjusted FWHP reading?where the FWHP reading ideally is obtained from an engine dyno. To use a CF with the all-loss RWHP values obtained from a Pro RR, one must eliminate the effects of the parasitic inefficiencies and aerodynamic drag. To use a CF with the results from a chassis dyno, one must eliminate only the parasitic effects. In my case, the CFs of 1.023 and 1.005 and related calculations, are applied/made as follows:

3a. Estimate engine-dyno FWHP reading by eliminating the effects of parasitic inefficiencies and aerodynamic drag from Pro RR all-loss RWHP values:

Higher DAs:

238.729* + {[238.729 / (1 ? (.175 (estimated parasitic inefficiency percentage)) ? 238.729]} + 35 (aerodynamic drag from above)))]
= 238.729 + (289.369 ? 238.729) + 35)
= 238.729 + 50.64 + 35
= 324.369 (which, for all practical purposes, equals BMW?s FWHP claim of 325)

*Pro RR all-loss RWHP value

Lower DAs:

241.114* + {[241.114 / (1 ? (.175 (estimated parasitic inefficiency percentage)) ? 241.114]} + 35 (aerodynamic drag from above)))]
= 241.114 + (292.259 ? 241.114) + 35)
= 241.114 + 51.145 + 35
= 327.259 (which exceeds BMW?s FWHP claim of 325)

*Pro RR all-loss RWHP value

Original Difference* = 2.385 = 241.114 (lower DAs) ? 238.729 (higher DAs)
Difference Given the Above Adjustments = 2.89 = 327.259 (lower DAs) - 324.369 (higher DAs)

3b. Calculate the constant HP values needed to overcome the engine mechanical inefficiencies and the related adjusted-for-engine-mechanical-efficiency HP values:

Higher DAs:

324.369 / (1 - .15 (J1349 engine mechanical inefficiency percentage)) ? 324.369 = 381.611 ? 324.369 = 57.24

Adjusted HP value = 381.610 = 324.369 + 57.24

Lower DAs:

327.259 / (1 - .15 (J1349 engine mechanical inefficiency percentage)) ? 327.259 = 385.011 ? 327.259 = 57.752

Adjusted HP value = 385.011 = 327.259 + 57.752

3c. Apply CFs of 1.023 and 1.005 to the adjusted-for-engine-mechanical-efficiency HP values from 3a:

Higher DAs: 1.023(381.610) = 390.387

Lower DAs: 1.005(385.011) = 386.936

3d. Subtract the constant HP values calculated in 3b from the results of 3c to obtain the adjusted for altitude and weather J1349 FWHP value:

Higher DAs: 390.387 ? 57.24 = 333.147

Lower DAs: 386.936 ? 57.752 = 329.184

Difference = 3.963 = 333.147 (higher altitudes) ? 329.184 (lower altitudes)

One of the implications of these calculations, which reveal the FWHP ?reversal? noted earlier, is that my car produces disproportionately more FWHP, on a corrected basis (i.e., performs disproportionately better), the less favorable the relative weather conditions--at least over the range of weather conditions I have encountered (i.e., no real extremes). I draw this conclusion very tentatively since the values I am working with are based on numerous estimates. My conclusions necessarily are restricted to the effects of weather since, as mentioned, all of my passes were made at the same altitude (1600?).

3e. Determine the J1349 DA-related corrections in FWHP and the related Pro RR FWHP difference:

Higher DAs:

333.147 ? 324.369 = 8.778 FWHP correction

Lower DAs:

329.184 ? 327.259 = 1.925 FWHP correction

Pro RR FWHP Difference = RWHP ?Swing? Pertinent in Assessing the Pro RR Data
.....= 6.853 = 8.778 ? 1.925

4. Now, we can see if the Pro RR maximum average all-loss RWHP values (238.729 versus 241.114) at least partially explain the difference in the average weather and altitude adjusted ETs related to the 14 DAs (average = 1890?) encompassing my best 5 weather and altitude adjusted passes and my 14 lowest DAs (average = 910?). Recall that the difference is: -.13 = 13.762 (higher DAs) ? 13.892 (lower DAs).

The Pro RR FWHP difference is 6.853. Using the ?standard? heuristic that a 10 FWHP increase produces a .1 second improvement (i.e., decrease) in ET, the Pro RR value implies an ET swing of -.06853 = -.01(6.853). The implication of this calculation is that the Pro RR maximum average all-loss RWHP values explain about 53% (i.e., -.06853 / -.13) of the swing in the average adjusted ETs.

I also used a variety of online calculators to estimate the FWHP difference it would take to produce the swing in ? mile terminal velocities related to the adjusted ETs of 13.762 and 13.892. The average value produced by the calculators is approximately 12 FWHP. Using this value, Pro RR maximum average all-loss RWHP values explain about 57% (i.e., 6.853 / 12) of the swing in the average adjusted ETs.

The above conclusions also are tentative because of the inherent estimates. Nevertheless, it appears that the Pro RR data are able to explain a large percent of the average adjusted ET swing. From an overall perspective, I find it somewhat surprising that my analysis is completely consistent and has this much explanatory power. For example, all signs, reversals, calculations, and implications are logically related according to theory. Nevertheless, one issue remains?whether (a) theory fails to account for all pertinent explanatory factors, (b) the numerous estimates involved interfere with a proper determination of the Pro RR?s explanatory power, or ? averaging fails to wash out any confounding effects of differences in starting procedures, wheel spin, and etc. as I assume.

znod

Here is possibly the final installment of my attempt to reconcile my Pro RR all-loss RWHP (rear-wheel horsepower) readings with a theoretical percentage RWHP loss and both with BMW's claimed 545i FWHP (flywheel horsepower) of 325. Having learned new things, I am "restarting" my analysis in order to refine it.

The graphs I posted in post #108 of this thread show maximum all-loss RWHP of about 250 in third gear at about 90 MPH. My Pro-RR-indicated average maximum all-loss RWHP over 48 passes is 239 at about the same average speed. This value implies an overall average percentage loss of .26462 = 1 - .73538 (i.e., 239 / 325) given BMW?s claimed 325 FWHP. This percentage is one of the ones I will use in reconciling my Pro RR all-loss RWHP value of 239 with the theoretical RWHP percentage loss.

Before proceeding, I need to be assured that 325 FWHP claim is consistent with the SAE J1349 standard. Car and Driver (4/06) reports that BMW currently converts its ratings from PS to HP using the standard transformation of .9863. However, it is unclear if BMW?s 545i rating is consistent with J1349 since the 545i was rated prior to the 1/1/05 effective date of J1349. Using the .9863 transformation, the 545i would be rated roughly at 328 FWHP given its 333 PS rating [i.e., 328 = .9863(333)]. Using 328 FWHP, my Pro RR overall average percentage loss of .26462 becomes .27134 = 1- .72866 (i.e., 239 / 328). I will also consider this value in my reconciliation given my uncertainty about which value is the more accurate. Keep in mind that BMW?s 325 FWHP value might be conservatively stated for several reasons.

Probably the clearest way of using Pro RR horsepower values in the reconciliation is to convert ?everything? to the J1349 density altitude (DA) of 1692?. Again, I am counting on averaging to wash out any confounding effects of differences in starting procedures, wheel spin, and etc. I proceed using the following steps.

1. Calculate the weather and altitude adjusted average ET and terminal velocity using standard adjustment procedures simply to provide a frame of reference and future use.

Unadjusted Average ET: 13.744
Unadjusted Average TV: 102.853

Average ET of 13.744 Adjusted from Average DA of 1532? to J1349 DA of 1962?
= 13.818

The above conversions imply a reduction in my FWHP value. That is, my average ET, for example, increases from 13.744 to 13.81. Thus, in principle, I would have had less FWHP if my passes had been made at the higher DA of 1962?. For comparison, note that the above value becomes 13.579 when adjusted to our standard reporting DA of 500?. Thus, I would have had more FWHP if my passes at been made at the lower DA of 500?.

The ET ?swing? calculated from the above values is: .074 = 13.818 ? 13.744 (to be explained later using my calculations).

2. Determine the J1349 CF.

CF = 1.18[(990 / Pd)*SQRT(Tk/298)] - .18

Where: Pd = Dry air pressure in milibars
............Tk = Temperature in Kelvin

= 1.01756

3. Under J1349, the CF is applied to an adjusted FWHP reading?where the FWHP reading ideally is obtained from an engine dyno. To use a CF with the all-loss RWHP values obtained from a Pro RR, one must eliminate the effects of the parasitic inefficiencies and aerodynamic drag. In my case, the CF of 1.01647 and related calculations, are applied/made as follows:

3a. Estimate engine-dyno FWHP reading by eliminating the effects of parasitic inefficiencies and aerodynamic drag from Pro RR all-loss RWHP using the parasitic-loss percentages which is most likely to be pertinent to a Steptronic--.175:

Using Adjusted Standard Parasitic-Loss Percentage of .175 Given Possible Superior Efficiency of the Steptronic:

239* + {[239 / (1 ? (.175 (estimated parasitic inefficiency percentage)) ? 238.729]} + 35 (aerodynamic drag from above)))]
= 239 + (289.697 ? 239) + 35)
= 239 + 50.697 + 35
= 324.697 (which, for all practical purposes, equals BMW?s FWHP claim of 325)

*Pro RR all-loss RWHP value

3b. Calculate the constant HP values needed to overcome engine mechanical inefficiencies and the related adjusted-for-engine-mechanical-efficiency HP values:

324.697 / (1 - .15 (J1349 engine mechanical-inefficiency percentage)) ? 324.697 = 382 ? 324.697 = 57.3

Adjusted HP value = 381.997 = 324.697 + 57.3

3c. Apply CF of 1.01756 to the adjusted-for-engine-mechanical-efficiency HP values from 3b:

1.01756(381.997) = 388.705

3d. Subtract the constant HP values calculated in 3b from the results of 3c to obtain the adjusted for altitude and weather J1349 FWHP value:

388.705 ? 57.3 = 331.405

3e. Determine the J1349 DA-related corrections in FWHP and the related Loss Percentages:

331.405 ? 324.697 = 6.708 FWHP Correction

6.708 / 331.405 = .02024 Loss Percentage

Given all the above, my reconciliation attempt is as follows.

(i)

.15298 = Revised Parasitic Inefficiency FWHP Percentage Loss (50.697 / 331.405)
.10561 = Average Aerodynamic-Drag Percentage FWHP Loss (35 / 331.405)
.02024 = Average Altitude and Weather Percentage FWHP Loss (3e above)
.27883 = Calculated Average Percentage Max FWHP loss

(ii)

First Pro RR Average Percentage Max FWHP Loss:

.26462 = Average Percentage Max FWHP Loss as indicated by Pro RR = 1 - .73538 (i.e., 239 / 325) given BMW?s claimed 545i FWHP value of 325

This value is very close to .27883. So, the .175 parasitic-inefficiency loss percentage assumption in (i) is highly consistent with the implications of the Pro RR. The similarity of these values implies that my reconciliation is highly successful.

Second Pro RR Average Percentage Max FWHP Loss:

.27134 = Average Percentage Max FWHP Loss as indicated by Pro RR = 1 - .72866 (i.e., 239 / 328) given the possibly ?true? FWHP value of 328 for the 545i

This value is even closer to .27792. Thus, this similarity implies even more strongly that my reconciliation is highly successful. Also, I believe that this comparison is the more appropriate one since .27134 is based and a FWHP value of 328 which is closer to my Pro RR value of 331.405 than is BMW?s claimed 325 FWHP.

From an overall perspective, the above calculations provide a strong recommendation for the ?on average? accuracy of, and what can be accomplished with, the Pro RR.

(iii)

On a related matter, my calculations do an excellent job of explaining the ET ?swing? of .074 noted in 1. In this regard, my average FWHP correction is 6.708 from 3e. Using the ?standard? rule of thumb, this correction implies an ET reduction of .067 = .01(6.708). Dividing .06708 / .074 yields .9065--90.65 % of the ET swing. This average explanatory power also provides a strong recommendation for the ?on average? accuracy of, and what can be accomplished with, the Pro RR.

swajames

Znod, the amount of time and effort you put into this is just amazing. Not that I can claim to understand half of it, but I just wanted to note some appreciation for the efforts that you and others (grogan, realtyman, cobradav to name just a few, sorry if I missed any other significant contributors) put into this thread and topic for the benefit of others.
Keep up the good work guys.

znod

Thank you for the nice comment swaja. I am the only one that has enough passes to do the sorts of analyses that I have been doing, and most testing has been put off until cooler weather sets in. Also, not many are using meters. So, there is not much incentive to keep up with my postings. But, I like doing the analyses for my own purposes. So, I'll keep posting them for anyone who may end up being interested.

I keep trying to interest others in meter testing. It would be especially great, from the perspective of those of us who have been testing, if some 550iers, new 545iers, and some 545i/550i moders would do some testing. I know that quite a few have the Dinan mod set. Hey, guys, in general, let's see what your cars can do. Everyone talks performance, and many do mods, but no one seems to want to know what their cars can do.

Are the mods as good as claimed by Dinan? I'd like to know. I might go back to them to my originals and continue with my intake plan. But, as some of you know, my B&B muffler and my Dinan throttle body did nothing for my car, and may actually have hurt its performance. I didn't expect much from either, but I certainly did not expect performance to be hurt. If interested, then go here.

znod

Hi All:

Let's congratulate grogan545 for his "world record" adjusted for weather and altitude to 500' pass made on 6/22/06. Check this run's adjusted results out on mssg #1 ot this thread.

And, check out the relationships between my results and his. First, note that his unadjusted results are much better than mine. This overall result is to be expected since I run in a warmer climate at 1600', while his climate is much cooler, and he runs at 400'. The interesting thing is how closely our cars appear to be matched, especially on average, when each of our best 5 results are adjusted for weather and altitude to 500'. Here are our adjusted averages.

.....................Average--Best 5 Passes
grogan545i........13.464 @ 104.896
Znod.................13.469 @ 105.323

While the g-man holds the individual pass ET and TV records, our best five passes can be matched up so that either I win 4 races (and he wins one) or I win 3 races (and he wins 2). And, I need to get out and do some early morning 100 degree passes to see if weather adjustment will give me the world records (see why this outcome conceivable could occur below).

Note that I have a potentially unfair advantage over the g-man--in terms of possibilities for superior passes. Our results, and some of my analyses, suggest that our cars perform disproportionately well given relatively, but not extremely, adverse weather conditions. If this conclusion is valid, then it attests to the quality of the BMW engine management system. My advantage arises because I have had many more passes such that my density altitute exceeds my actual altitude than has g-man. As I recall, the only time g-man's density altitude has exceeded his actual altitude is on his latest pass--the record pass of 6/22/06 noted above. To clarify, note that density altitude above actual altitude implies relatively unfavorable weather conditions.

grogan545

I made two more runs recently but had to abort both before the full 1/4 mile due to oncoming traffic.I think I have reached my tipping point as far as weather is concerned.Weather condiitons as follows:
temp.......82F
barometer..30.10
dew point...70F
humidity...65%
altitude...400'
.............run 1..........run2
60'.........5.40...........5.43
330'........5.85...........5.85
1/8 time...8.95...........8.98
1/8 speed.80.1...........79.8
There was nothing to influence the performance except the weather.The starts were good with no bog or wheelspin.These 1/8 times indicate 1/4 times of about 13.8 and 102.5 mph.It appears that I have a tremendous drop off in performance after 75F and dew ponts over 65F.Just recently I had a run of 13.35 at 106.0 with the weather at 68F and dew point of 57F.This doesn't look like a large enough difference in weather for such a large drop in performance.It appears my car maintains its performance within very close tolerances until a certain point in weather conditions then drops off rapidly.Even more than the published correction factors would indicate.
Zman do you have any thoughts on this matter?Have you tried some runs in the hot weather?Of course in Phoenix you probably don't have high humidity or dew points to contend with.
Also Zman The recent super run I had the 0-60 was 4.94 and the 0-100 was 11.63.

grogan545

Zman have you read my post #129 yet?

znod

Hi g:

I just saw your posts. I agree. You have had a great drop off in performance for seemingly small changes in weather conditions. I took a quick look at the changes in my times given differences in both temperatures and dewpoints of about 8 degrees F. The differences I found were much less than the differences implied by your recent passes. And, note that my highest temperature was 70 degrees--with the vast majorty of my passes being at 10 or more degrees cooler. So, perhaps you really have found your tipping point. I keep thinking that I'll do some hot weather passes, but I have not been sufficiently motivated--to see the bad raw times even thought they could be quite good after adjustment. I'll post back, of course, if I ever get around to the hot weather passes. Maybe I'll start again when the weather is more like 75 or 80 in the wee hours. Later.

znod

Hi All:

An issue that comes up from time to time is "magazine racing"--using, for example, the test data provided by the "Big 3" auto magazines--the USbig3). The apparent problem in trying to use such results to assess the relative performance abilities of different cars is the formidable numbers of both intra-magazine and inter-magazine uncontrolled factors. I have done some work that suggests that averages can be used to do some pretty effective mag racing.

I have the following data for 31 different "fast cars" (fcs) from tests based on each of the USbig3: 0-60, 1/4 ET, and 1/4 TV. I won't provide the detail of my matching criteria, but I think they are pretty good.

Using these data, I performed matched pairs t tests for: (1) the mean difference in 0-60 for the 31 fcs for CD vs MT, CD vs RT, and MT vs RT. I did the same thing for 1/4 ET and 1/4 TV. One need not be concerned about my parametric test choice. The central limit theorem implies that the pertinent sampling distriblution of the mean is approximately normal given a sample size of approximately 30 or more. Thus, the results from my matched pairs t tests should be robust.

My results are:

.................................................. .......CD vs MT..........CD vs RT..........MT vs RT
One-tailed probability value: 0 to 60:
.................................................. .............23....................42............. .......28
One-tailed probability value: 1/4 ET:
.................................................. .............02....................09............. .......37
One-tailed probability value: 1/4 TV:
.................................................. .............36....................29............. .......42

So, the point to this point is that the mean differences for paired USbig3's usually are insignificant. In this regard, using standard statistical reasoning, the one significant difference is .02. Thus, it looks like there is a significant difference in the average 1/4 ET reported for the 31 fcs for CD and MT.

These finding suggest to me that the effects of the formidable uncontrolled for factors tend to cancel out across the USbig3. Thus, at the extreme, it often may not be too bad to decide tentatively that the IS350 is faster in the 1/4 than the 545i on the basis of only two tests--with one appearing in one USbig3 mag and the other appearing in another USbig3 mag. However, I would apply this approach with great skepticism if the two mags involved are CD and MT. Additionally, since .09 is consistent with less frequently used rejection level of .10, I also would be extra skeptical if mags involved are CD and RT. I'll emphasize the obvious caveat that the two-test approach to mag racing will result in, I think, significantly mores erroneous conculusions than if averages are used.

But, the main point, following from the large number of insignificant differences, is that mag racing is likely to be highly valid once USbig3 averages for the various fsc's begin to be used. So, for example, I would be very confident in deciding that the C6 Z06 is "faster" in the 1/4 than the 911 Turbo (480 hp) if the USbig3 average ET of the former is less than that of the latter. And, putting the two ideas together, the less and less I rely on averages the more I woul doubt the implications. Also, for example, I would be especially skeptical of the implications of 1/4 ET averages where, for example one average of 2 included CD and the other included MT (similarly with CD and RT).

Now, from an overall perspective, I have done nothing but provide something of an analytical foundation for the ways most of us would use mag tests in doing mag racing intuitively--use averages when possible. Two of my real contributions are finding that (1) we should be extra skeptical of the apparent implications of 1/4 ET comparisons if the mags involved are CD and MT or CD and RT and (2) mag racing is likely to be highly valid once USbig3 averages for the various fsc's begin to be used--especially if "problems" with CD vs MT and CD vs RT are avoided in the 1/4 ET arena. Another contribution not yet mentioned is the implication that USbig3 averages may come closer to "truth" than might have been expected since most of the differences tested are insignificant. I'll be doing at least one follow up "study" on the above ideas.



Any thoughts anyone or am I ?

Come on some one. At least make a comment that leads me to think that your read what I wrote.

grogan545

Hi Zman .Just now read your post.I will need some time to digest all that you are saying.Sounds like you are back to your very analytical normal self.After I digest this post I will try to give an intelligent reply.