Originally Posted by Keto
Wow, somebody is misunderstanding the whole point of this exercise.
Swamp is trying to explain the difference in results between what we would expect from the stated specs and what we see in the "real world" tests. If you can't predict performance from the specs then the specs are wrong (EDIT: or the model is), one way or another. Science is based on predicting what will happen and testing those predictions, you know. But please, post more of the "it's close enough, why do you doubt it" stuff.
You can predict performance in the real world, you know. It's the basis for car design. Models. So far the CarTest model has worked for other cars, why not the IS-F?
Exactly, it's only a prediction. So you're saying the prediction should be more valid than the actual results. Swamp is trying to say that his predictions don't add up to the results, therefore the results are invalid base on the specs and his calculations with the spec. And that's where i disagree. Predictions is only a base format of what to excpect but not necessarily what should be or must be expected. The bottom line is, it still comes down to the actual real world test and the results that you get from that test. The "it's close enough, why do you doubt it stuff" that's called consistency.