Personally i think your missing the point here.
That's fair enough. It's a forum. We can all express our opinion, and agree, disagree, or agree to disagree
But it may be worth taking this into a separate thread rather than distracting away from the main purpose of this one - the poll.
I don't think I am missing the point that you and a few others are making. Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that some stage-1's have seen bent rods, so it is a risk on stage-1 even, so it would make sense to change the rods.
I'm not disagreeing that there is a risk. If something happens on one S3, then there's a risk that it would happen on another. Simple enough logic. All I am saying is that in order to guage the risk, you need to be able to quantify it. I'm questioning the "it would make sense to change the rods", and the implication being that there is a big risk for people on stage-1 of their rods bending.
Just because 4000 other peoples engines have been fine on stage 2 doesnt mean yours will. It all comes down to quality control.
Just because 4000 people from your town don't get knocked down today on the road, doesn't mean you won't get knocked down, are you going to stay in the house forever?
We can be absolutely sure these rods ARE running near their limits with remapped engines, otherwise there would be no failures.
What are you basing your absolute sureness on that they are running near their limit on a stage-1? All I can see is that you are basing this on one or two failures. One or two failures where you don't know the cause of the failure.
Basing this absolute sureness on one or two failures that you have no information about is simply flawed logic.
If you are basing this on testing that has been carried out on a large enough sample, then it would be useful to post a link so that we can all see this.
Its not really about how many peoples rods stayed in one piece, because that number is in effect irrelevant to your engine.
This too is flawed logic and the number that stay in one piece actually is totally relevant. We are talking about Statistics here, which has been around long before the first S3
. I'm not going to debate the merit of statistical analysis with you. If you don't see the merit in it, then you won't see the point I am making.
Every day someone gets killed on the roads. Therefore there is a risk that every time you go on the road you may get killed - albeit a very very small risk. Do you:
A) Never leave the house.
B) Accept the risk is low, and get on with life.
Most people do (B). What you & others on here are advocating is to do (A) i.e. worrying about an extremely small risk.
In order to determine how big a risk something is, one of the things you need to have is an idea of the probability of it happening. At the moment, we know of one or two failures of rods out of 100's of S3's. On the face of it, that is a very low probability, and thus low risk. But let's see what the poll shows up.