Defence of Hartech's non disclosure policy

Because I cannot now respond on the original post (because it has been closed) - I would like to clear up and defend our Non-disclosure position (recently attacked along with personal accusations in the post entitled �NEW� Mahle piston availability) and referring to the availability of our report on �THE 4 MAIN WEAKNESSES IN THE 996/7 Gen 1 engine range� and our �OVERSIZED ENGINE CONVERSIONS�. There is a lot of miss information posted on forums and a lot is presented so well the less capable among the readership can easily be convinced by the conclusions (usually linked to products and services supplied) and in the UK this leads to expensive work being carried out that often fails as a result � damaging the reputation of the marque and having serious financial consequences for the owners. Being in possession of valuable information that could help owners make more informed decisions we decided to make our finding available to those interested. However - these reports are lengthy and detailed and cover many different specialised subjects and lengthy research and development programmes to test out theories to find the right answers. They are our own intellectual property but we make them available to those who request them for their own personal use (and not to be used to communicate to third parties or to be claimed as �their own�). Our agreement is intended to prevent what we have already experienced as (for example) competitors copying our content (even translating it into other languages) and presenting it (or parts of it) as their own work for their own benefit. It does not exclude disclosing anything that is �common knowledge� from being discussed and does not therefore prevent anyone from discussing our solutions to these common problems (that are fully available on our web site www.hartech.org ) � nor providing arguments against our conclusions or provisions. It does not prevent anyone else from reporting in a similar technical way or with similar research to back up their contradictory claims on alternatives or where they may think our conclusions are wrong. Despite our reports covering many scientific and technical disciplines (for which there must be thousands of specialists with more specific knowledge on each individual topic) what we have managed to do pull together all those different topics to deliver reliable conclusions that are backed up by our work on quite probably more of these engines than anyone else Worldwide. This exposes us to criticism from those specialists with much more intimate knowledge on minority subject but despite this - so far there has been no response to discredit anything technical we have reported on. We would welcome discussions on forums that defend alternative conclusions, different solutions or products, but it is revealing that so far nothing has materialised. Our long reports can be shortened into readable advice but that would not convince readers of the value of their conclusions as well as our more comprehensive versions for those really interested. It has been interesting to see how competitors with alternative offerings have responded by shifting the subjects away to new areas where they are quite correct, cutting short responses or using a common defence to turn the posts round to personal attacks about the motives behind them. It is logical that anyone sufficiently qualified, experienced and who has invested hugely in researching these weaknesses and solutions can easily be accused of elitism or self-promotion but this is simply a consequence of being among the best at anything and there is nothing whatever an individual can do to avoid it. We hope the public are not fooled by these diversions and realise that anyone prepared to provide such valuable free information with such extensive explanations, must both know what they are talking about and be confident in their authenticity. If the contents could be faulted they would provide ample opportunity and ammunition to discredit them in detail and this alone together with the lack of such responses says a lot about their accuracy and reliability. Furthermore it provides the public with access to help them make good decisions they might otherwise be struggling to do, make mistakes and regret it. It also helps other Porsche specialists and competitors to avoid mistakes themselves and improve their own knowledge base and choose their own products and services better for the benefit of their own customers. Where they have a legitimate difference of opinion about any conclusion they can be forewarned by our reports and prepare their own responses. This obviously helps them more than us. Sharing knowledge and expertise with anyone interested can only benefit everyone. Those that previously enjoyed high status as experts (that some of this research might damage) will understandably launch off into various diversions to discredit the reports, their content, the writer or the motives behind them (or even try to block them or remove them from public scrutiny or try to persuade potential readers not to apply for a copy) and we hope that there are sufficient mature and worldly-wise owners to see through all those attempts to maintain their position without strongly researched competition. Please feel free to attack this post, its principles, our ethics and my personal motivation (if it makes you feel better) � I feel it is worth putting up with that if it helps owners make better decisions and trust the public overall to see through whatever follows. I have personally gone out of my way to express the view that there are competitors of ours that obviously are providing good services to their customers and that it is not necessary for them to do things the same as us or that they are wrong if they don�t. I have taken the trouble to explain that even if they don�t have the technical background to explain their own alternatives � as long as they work reliably that doesn�t matter either and I have declared that we have no desire to make claims as to our own superiority or personal elevated status. WE JUST SIMPY ARE SHARING WHAT WE KNOW AND FOUND OUT WITH ANYONE GENUINELY INTERESTED IN USING THAT KNOWLEDGE TO ADD TO WHATEVER ELSE THEY ALREADY KNOW OR CAN FIND OUT AND MAKE THEIR OWN ENTIRELY INDEPENDNENT DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT TO DO NEXT IF AND WHEN THEIR ENGINES FAIL (OR TO TRY TO PREVENT FAILURE OR EXTEND MILEAGE). As is reported independently (on many forums) � we are flat out busy and have no desire to expand. I do not profess to be a good writer (I am an engineer that�s all). An American professional technical journalist helped me with the format of the reports to suit an American market. This is what I sent to him �My problem is that frankly there are some people in the USA posting stuff that is not well researched or thought out and in fact is often down right misleading that it seems most of the readers believe them and therefore the information would be entirely at odds with ours. While I have no desire to be openly criticising other specialists � it is hard not to when they often post such a load of rubbish. He read my first copy and this was his response. 1) First and foremost, establish your credentials (especially for readers outside the UK). You personally have an impressive background that should be in a bio (establish YOUR credibility), and your shop has a vast amount of experience with Porsche and these engines in particular (establish Hartech's credibility). Talk about what you've done for the Porsche community, and what your philosophy is. Make the reason people want to trust you fact based, not "trust us because we say we're experts". Don't hesitate to say how long you've been doing this, now many engines Hartech has worked on, how many innovative solutions you've brought to market, and how many engines you've worked on are still on the road or the track, etc. Build credibility for those that don't know you, and the rest will follow. 2) Second, identify the purpose of the paper - is it to educate people who just want to know more, to dispel myths that are in the marketplace, to influence people to make better decisions, to help people spend more wisely, to sell services or products? Be transparent (as transparent as you can without attacking competing firms). 3) Identify the type of reader that this is targeted in positive terms - saying that this initial brief is targeted at 996/997 enthusiast owners that are looking to (insert that here - build more reliable engines, avoid destroying their engine, preventatively address failure modes, or whatever your goal is). This is how I responded. Just received while out shopping and initial reaction is a huge thank you for taking the time to be so thorough. You are of course absolutely right in everything you point out and I will have a re- think over style and presentation. I am typically British modest and find blowing my own trumpet cringing difficult but you are right if that�s what it takes for people to read and believe - why shouldn�t I? I hope this puts to bed typical accusations posted on this forum - that follow �I've worked in the academic world all my life and personally, your technical article wouldn't conjure up an ounce of merit within a Research 1 institution. Why? Because you're biased Barry. Simply put, you're biased. This article reads more like promotional material for "Hartech Automotive" than anything else. The fact that you start a technical article with a self gratifying statement about your company proves that point�. Well the �self gratifying statement� was what I was advised to do (although I found it difficult to do and so agree with that myself but being unaccustomed to American ideology and marketing - complied). As for Bias � this is �to prejudice against a person or group unfairly� � you would need to identify to whom and what is unfair about the content of the reports to justify that claim. Anyway who could write about something they believe in without being accused of bias if others disagree? I don't have a problem with you personally or your desire to share your knowledge, but when you present yourself as a "King of the Porsche World" requiring that everyone bow to your approval and kiss your hartech ring just to write a critique or summary of your findings, is wrong. It seems to me that you like to write long responses to impress more than educate. Mind you, I understand the need for an exhaustive explanation of a serious problem, but it seems you have to maintain a sense of respect through circuitousness which is common trait among many of my colleagues that like have power over their students. No need to pound the gavel of respect and validity through unnecessary control tactics. Getting back to the topic of this post - hopefully readers will identify with the motivation behind these comments. I did not ask for anyone to write a summary nor require it to be approved (that was freely offered) and I did not know what the content of the summary would be (or the motivation behind it which turned out to be entirely innocent and supportive) and there was no reason it could not have been posted anyway (regardless of our non-disclosure policy) although I appreciate the respect implied in checking first. If forum members are only interested in the content of our reports then they have no reason not to sign our non-disclosure agreement and I am sure they will learn something useful. If they want to disagree with the content they are free to do so (hopefully concentrating on the technical points and not the writing style or personal motivations). If they have other intentions then I can understand them wanting us to remove that condition and their anger and frustration when we will not � that is what it is there for! There is nothing to stop anyone disagreeing with our report content or discussing any alternatives they have in open forum. I was trying to avoid that descending into commercial rivalry and just hoped to pass on to those interested some valuable hard-earned information for their own personal future benefit. For those now champing at the bit to respond about how long this post has been � when accused - everyone should have a right to reply that was denied! Baz

I thank you for your contribution to the Porsche community, regards -MIKE-

Properly clear Baz. So many people get their knickers in a twist too easily. The interweb provides the 10 percent of the populace that always wants to burn a house down, even if they’re in it, a medium where vitriol supplants fact. I greatly enjoy doing a deep dive into all the tech knowledge you and others like Charles, Lake and Jake provide our 996 community gratis. They all get potshots taken at them. If you and your staff decide this forum is not a good audience and decide to not post anymore, I’d completely understand. However, I also know I can contact Hartech anytime and get the answers I need. For that I am grateful. I very sure the vast majority are too. For the haters, read the posts about Baz, his work and Hartech’s reputation on 911uk. Cheers! Mike

Just a observation,,, I've been a motor guy all my life,, and I've worked with lots of engine builders, One thing that's a common denominator about the creative ones is loyalty their own solutions,, it makes sense they have a lot vested in their solutions. The trick is to acknowledge that there are multiple valid solutions to most problems. I appreciate the sharing of information by those with the experience that our obvious sources provide. They provide a lot of great info, as well as services that are not available in house to the average shop. Its not done,, there are still areas to improve,, be interesting to see where it goes. I suspect among other technologies,, 3d printing is about to change the whole game..

Quotes source post: 16291179

Hi, Baz. My comments weren't meant to be hurtful in any way, but to provide a different point of view behind your intent in requiring that forum users get approval BEFORE they can post a summary (e.g. CliffNotes) or opinions on your technical articles. I'm not an enemy of your work. In fact, I've defended your technical comments here on Rennlist many times at the expense of being labeled a fan-boi. I've also done this for people like Charles Navarro, Jake Raby, Porschetech3, Ahsai, and others. I've learned a tremendous amount of information from them. To me, I'm a life-time learner and do not wear my education or degrees on my sleeves. I'm also a open education proponent that encourages the free exchange of knowledge; however, I fully understand why you must charge for a book or literature copies you consider intellectual property. Even academics need to pay the bills! That brings me to another point. If most of your technical articles that you refer people to a lot have strong promotional content for Hartech Automotive, wouldn't be fair to say that you must be a sponsor here on Rennlist? Isn't that part of the rules? Seems like others that have businesses (e.g. LN Engineer, Pelican Parts, Flat 6 Innovations, etc.), have to "Pay to Play" here on this forum. Maybe you should become a sponsor and post articles for a small fee to compensate you for your time and then there would be no conflict of interests in promoting Hartech within those articles? Best of luck to you!

I guess I missed more M96 sky falling drama. It�s sad but these are all the reasons I both admire and feel bad for our vendors. I�m not sure the grief received is worth it. I�m gonna go drive my M96s hard this week and if anything ever happens, I can address it then.

Baz seems to be doing great work across the pond! I for one appreciate the information even if the chances of me using his services are between nil and 0 given his geographic location... Judging by what I've read on the website they're building great engines and have developed their own products and strategies along similar lines as FSI and LNE. Wouldn't life be boring of all cars/engines were exactly the same?