The MS261 is here!!

Wesspur
Shop deals on ebay
Rugged made
Advertise with us
Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
edisto said:
So...if you want me to run some cursory analysis, just send the data or post them. From the sounds of it, I'm guessing you suspect I'll try to do something evil with them. Believe it or not, it is easier to mislead without an analysis. Even if you are not suspicious, I'd see nothing suspicious about you not providing the data. They are, after all, your data.

As I said before, I appreciate the effort that went into doing the comparison.
Click to expand...

Ed I don't think you're a liar, I would trust your findings. However I highly doubt you'll go out and buy two new saws, than port and test them. Can you port saws at all? If you can port saw and do buy a new 346/261 than test them, more power to you.

I've read every post in this thread BTW, and your arrogant thoughts and assumptions persists. Your error was not minor! it was quite large, and you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing. Anyone that's ever tested a saw know you have to put the saw under different loads, sometimes the saw will cut faster sometimes slower.

Anyway I'm done, as it's pointless to debate with a brick wall.
 
Last edited:
Andyshine77 said:
Ed I don't think you're a liar, I would trust your findings. However I highly doubt you'll go out and buy two new saws, than port and test them. Can you port saws at all? If you can port saw and do buy a new 346/261 than test them, more power to you.

I've read every post in this thread BTW, and your arrogant thoughts and assumptions persists. Your error was not minor! it was quite large, and you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing. Anyone that's ever tested a saw know you have to put the saw under different loads, sometimes the saw will cut faster sometimes slower.

Anyway I'm done, as it's pointless to debate with a brick wall.
Click to expand...

What error? The first comparison was a cockup, but I caught that, and it had nothing to do with the muffler mods. It's the second set of graphs Brad was complaining about, not the first.

More importantly, I never claimed they were anything more than times from the videos. I didn't post the videos, I only timed what was offered. I received assurances that the mm saw shown was one of the slow runs. Fine.

Different loads are fine, varying conditions are fine. I know how much variation there is, which is why a number like "10%" doesn't mean squat without an error term.

Given all the confounding factors you described because you were certain I didn't understand them, do you really think a 2% difference like Brad reported after the first 261 mod is even measurable?

That's the point I'm trying to make. Saying "it's not scientific" and then tossing out percentages is having your cake and eating it too.

261 is stronger? I'm sure it is. If you want to toss out numbers though, there are steps you can take to make those numbers meaningful

Like I said, I'll be glad to run them.
 
edisto said:
So...if you want me to run some cursory analyses, just send the data or post them. From the sounds of it, I'm guessing you suspect I'll try to do something evil with them. Believe it or not, it is easier to mislead without an analysis. Even if you are not suspicious, I'd see nothing suspicious about you not providing the data. They are, after all, your data.
Click to expand...

Not at all, Ed. It's just that I simply don't care to take it to that level, just like most don't care enough about a 50cc saw to do what I have here. I don't think most of us saw nuts care about scientific data analysis in a saw comparison. You do, that's fine. All I cared about was finding out what was in the 261, what I could get out of it, and how it compares to a 346. I did exactly that. That's all I care about.

The problem with all of this, is that the assumptions were wrong that you made to prove how inaccurate the data is. You assumed that all cuts shown were to demonstrate the fastest cuts the saw is capable of. That simply wasn't the case. Therefore your proof that the testing is wrong, was built on a bad foundation.
 
edisto said:
Given all the confounding factors you described because you were certain I didn't understand them, do you really think a 2% difference like Brad reported after the first 261 mod is even measurable?

That's the point I'm trying to make. Saying "it's not scientific" and then tossing out percentages is having your cake and eating it too.

261 is stronger? I'm sure it is. If you want to toss out numbers though, there are steps you can take to make those numbers meaningful

Like I said, I'll be glad to run them.
Click to expand...

Ed, what you don't know is how many cuts were made and how I came to my conclusions. You're making a lot of assumptions without knowing the facts. The bottom line is, I'm not interested in posting all my data and proving to you, or anyone, that my findings are scientifically accurate. You can either take my findings, or leave them. It's a TON of work to do what I did, and I'm simply not interested in proving my findings to anyone. It is what it is, plain and simple. Take it or leave it.
 
Would you please help me time this and come up with some meaningful numbers that will help me understand.

attachment.php


watch him squeeze all the fun out of this
 
I have been watching for hours, and she just keeps doing it over and over again. She doesn't even get tired. My eyes hurt and I am so sore, I just don't understand.
 
blsnelling said:
Not at all, Ed. It's just that I simply don't care to take it to that level, just like most don't care enough about a 50cc saw to do what I have here. I don't think most of us saw nuts care about scientific data analysis in a saw comparison. You do, that's fine. All I cared about was finding out what was in the 261, what I could get out of it, and how it compares to a 346. I did exactly that. That's all I care about.
Click to expand...

All I was interested in was the comparison as well. I just hoped the numbers you worked so hard to collect could be used quantitatively instead of qualitatively.

blsnelling said:
The problem with all of this, is that the assumptions were wrong that you made to prove how inaccurate the data is. You assumed that all cuts shown were to demonstrate the fastest cuts the saw is capable of. That simply wasn't the case. Therefore your proof that the testing is wrong, was built on a bad foundation.
Click to expand...

Lost me here. I wasn't trying to show how inaccurate the data were. Can't do that without accurate numbers. What I showed was not proof of anything, but certainly in no way addressed the testing. It was a comparison of average cut times. The only assumption I made was that you were showing representative cuts. In other words, if you were showing "under heavy load" and "under light load" as demonstrations for one saw, you'd show the same comparisons for both saws. If that were the case, the comparisons would have been valid.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE TESTING. It is about the comparison. The error I'm interested in testing isn't experimental error, it's just math speak for variation from cut to cut due to uncontrollable factors.


blsnelling said:
Ed, what you don't know is how many cuts were made and how I came to my conclusions. You're making a lot of assumptions without knowing the facts.
Click to expand...

I've asked repeatedly how many cuts were made. My not knowing the answe isn't due to a lack of effort on my part. The only assumption I made was that the videos you posted were representative of the saws being shown.

blsnelling said:
The bottom line is, I'm not interested in posting all my data and proving to you, or anyone, that my findings are scientifically accurate. You can either take my findings, or leave them. It's a TON of work to do what I did, and I'm simply not interested in proving my findings to anyone. It is what it is, plain and simple. Take it or leave it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Like I said before, they are your data. But for the record, it has nothing to do with scientific accuracy. Just a proper comparison of the numbers you did a ton of work to generate.
 

Similar threads

S
Ms 261 won’t idle
Replies
3
Views
499
singinwoodwackr
singinwoodwackr
F
Most reliable Stihl chainsaw of all time?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
5K
Wehr
W
T
New Saw -- What Would You Do ? 346xpg, 550xpM2, 562xp, 390xp
Replies
7
Views
422
Brushwacker
Brushwacker
O
Wanting decent small cheap saw.
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
diver64
D
R
Fun story: Stihl 026 won't run with wrong carb
Replies
4
Views
964
Chevboy0167
Chevboy0167

Latest posts

Back
Top