| Message |
I explicitly mentioned those results (of course, since those were the only ones you mentioned)... don't even try to tell me I'm changing the subject, or that I'm not logical on this. Whether or not you want to admit it, there is a difference between a TT and NA ECU's. The programs are different, for one. Furthermore, many more TT ECU's are purchased and fully utilized than are NA ECU's. Whether or not it was UV corruption (and what do YOU, with all of YOUR expertise, think it was?) the fact remains that the chip in question was not running properly, did not have the specifications which Ash designed into the chip. If your goal is to point out that the original design parameters of Ash's chip are too lean for the average Z, then your link does no service to your claim. Your link could only be used (theoretically) to point out that Ash's chips are prone to data corruption (which, although that seems to be the case with RedZX's chip, is hardly supportable overall). The fact that the chip was an NA, not a TT chip, was only *1* of my 3 points. And not my strongest. Address my other points, please. And while I'm here...I'll apologize for any name-calling. But in my defense I am always a bit tongue-in-cheek with my postings, particularly if I'm being insulting. You are a nice guy in every other aspect of the forum. I just think you should lay off of Z1's products (the products themselves, not the employess- you and others have every right to criticize the actions of some of the employees), let the people that have actually had problems with Z1's products tell their story. RedZX is on this forum all the time. If he had a huge problem with Ash's ECU program (I'm talking in general, not the corrputed chip he got) he'd certainly post here. He doesn't need you and others to talk for him. -Rob
|
 |
