Thread: Power Losses
View Single Post
      06-20-2007, 01:33 PM   #33
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
2. haha usually you won't see all those variables....Are you able to find all these variables? You can assume it's the optimal condition because BMW is trying to optimize their result....You don't seem to get that....

3. let me get this straight...car magazine will not try to produce the fastest time, but manufacture will. So you believe SportAuto's time should be slower than the manufacture official time....that means if SportAuto drive the new M3 it won't even reach 8:12
I donno what you trying to say here...but applying "A car mag will most likely not go the full distance to do whatever it can to get the fastest time for a car, but the manufacturer will." make comparison valid....Since we are comparing not optimize time to optimized time and the optimized one is disappointing.

4. you are saying 10-15 sec of difference won't matter....So given that condition M3 might run a 7:50...why not short another 5 sec since it doesn't matter anyway....
Even if it ran a 7:58...I bet you won't say "10-15sec won't matter" haha

5. Same to you
2. It's not that hard to record track temp, driver name, what part of track used, wind strength, fuel load, tires and non-stock parts, etc.

3. I don't know what SportAuto woud get if they drove the M3 BMW was testing since I do not know what BMW was trying to achieve out there at this time (therefore it is not clear if the 8:12 is indeed the optimized official time). When BMW comes out and says we've posted the following fastest time with a production M3, yes, I'd say it is extremely unlikely any car mag can beat that time.

4. I'm not saying 10-15 seconds wouldn't matter. If the data on all cars were somewhat comparable, then that simply would mean that one was faster than the other by 10-15 seconds, which is probably a good deal. However, I am saying that if the data aren't comparable--if there is too much uncertainty in the actual performance measurement--then the difference could simply be attributed to the variance in the uncontrolled variables. I am talking signal to noise ratio.

5. I'll laugh along since we are finally saying the same thing...

P.S. ILC32 just posted on the lap time thread that BMW Canada took down the 8:12 number, which reminds me that we are way off topic here...
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote