[Boss330]

[QUOTE=P1 Motorcars]

Originally Posted by swamp2

1. Chassis dynos, explained, we use Dynojet for CarTest simulations.
2. In-situ, wheel based, Insoric dyno, flawed,
3. Maha whp results, completely misunderstood
4. Trap speeds (and other performance metrics), consistent with simulations
5. BMW stated crank hp, BFD
6. Simulation, matches real-world results
7. Legal requirements, very interesting. SAE isn't a legal requirement, it's a standards body. Makes me wonder if EEC is the same thing. Now that I've read 3 or 4 of those documents, they don't appear to have any teeth in them whatsoever. Like the SAE, they sound like a standards body that if you want to put their stamp on something, you need to comply with their procedures. The later documents posted in this thread all but say it's voluntary. There are ample quotes by Boss330 from the EEC documents themselves that indicate that submission is purely voluntary; but once you submit, you are bound to the agreement. Again, sounds like it has absolutely no teeth in it whatsoever. But I'm also going to hedge my bets by saying I'm not an expert in anything regarding the EU.

I can categorically say that you are 100% wrong in your assumption that EU type approval standards are voluntary. Those are the legal requirements you need to adhere to if you want to market and sell cars in the EU!

You can of course say that it's voluntary to sell cars in the EU market... But as a mass manufacturer (or even low volume, but with less rigid regs) you HAVE to get a EU type approval to be allowed to sell your vehicles throughout the EU market.

I know, I work with this every day of the week...

Article 4, #3 of Directive 2007/46/EC (the framework Directive), clearly states that this isn't voluntary. The notion that it hasn't got any "teeth in them whatsoever" is clearly wrong:

3. Member States shall register or permit the sale or entry into service only of such vehicles, components and separate technical units as satisfy the requirements of this Directive.

And, this really doesn't matter anyway. The F8x HAS EU-type approval and thereby has to adhere to the various technical Directives required for type approval.

The EU type approval information document for the M3/4 lists that engine power is in accordance with:

40 MOTORLEISTUNG
ENGINE POWER
e24*80/1269*1999/99*0111*00 12.12.2013 alle / all


1.4. Verifications according to Annex V, no. 1.(d), 2007/46/EC
with VO (EU) 65/2012:
The test vehicles comply with the relevant data in the information folders of the approvals of the separate directives named in part III of the information document. The selection of vehicles allowed a proper assessment of the different combinations to be approved, with regard to the criteria according Annex V No.2 2007/46/EC.

1.8. Verifications according to Annex V, no. 2., 2007/46/EC
with VO (EU) 65/2012:
Inspection have been carried out to ensure the proper control of the various combinations of engines, gearboxes, powered axles, steered axles, body styles, number of doors, hand of drive, number of seats and level of equipment to be approved.

US legislation differs from EU in that it relies on self certification from the manufacturer.

From Wikipedia:

Self-certification

Rather than a UN-style system of type approvals, the US and Canadian auto safety regulations operate on the principle of self-certification, wherein the manufacturer or importer of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment certifies — i.e., asserts and promises — that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable Federal or Canada Motor Vehicle Safety, bumper and antitheft standards. No prior verification is required by a governmental agency or authorised testing entity before the vehicle or equipment can be imported, sold, or used. If reason develops to believe the certification was false or improper — i.e., that the vehicle or equipment does not in fact comply — then authorities may conduct tests and, if a noncompliance is found, order a recall and/or other corrective and/or punitive measures. Vehicle and equipment makers are permitted to appeal such penalties by filing petitions for finding of noncompliance inconsequential to safety.

Please also explain what we all got wrong in our understanding of the MAHA whp (this genuinely is something I'd like to know more about, and since you claimed we have gotten it wrong I also assume you know the correct answer here).

The INSORIC at least seems to get very consistent and good results, flawed as you might claim it is... Engine power within the EU allowed tolerances.