BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > M3 vs....
 
Mporium BMW
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-08-2008, 01:12 PM   #155
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Colonel
99
Rep
2,000
Posts

Drives: 2017 C63
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
A very good question. Often the shortest simplest quetion will get the longest answer . I will discuss, pose further questions and almost answer your question. There are multiple pieces of evidence that point to the actual power "the" car is producing. There is ample evidence that there is no "the" car in fact, this is one central problem. We have the widely varying 1/4 mi trap speeds to consider as well as the N'Ring times and other lap times. One key problem with the N'ring time comparisons and lucids previous regression analysis is that these GT-R times are all "factory best" as opposed to a Sportauto time. IIRC most of the data in lucid's regression analysis were all (or almost all) Sportauto times. As you know the preliminary Sportauto time for the GT-R (with the caveat of a "partially wet track") is a mere 7:50.

Your guess about what the trap speeds mean is every bit as good as mine but those numbers indicate a very wide range of power outputs from roughly the claimed value to much much greater than claimed, perhaps as much as 550 hp. Inconsistency and huge variations are the key issues here which you yourself have very appropriately emphasized in the past. Some results are consistent with the cars stated power output, others are clearly not. The next things to consider are the following key questions.

1. How much power do I suspect the car that did the 7:29 is putting out or what do the regression models say about the likely power output? Different questons of course. Perhaps my big new insight here is that it is NOT appropriate to compare "factory ace" times to lucids regression model. The point seems obvious, but it also seems all of us missed this one thus far. You could roll the effect of driver into the model better and allow all drivers in the model as well and simply consider them another part of the variation.

2. What time will Host/SA obtain under more fair and ideal conditions? The regression model using the 95% confidence best case fit (most amount of an over performer) predicts a 7:50 time, purely conincidental with the thus far achieved time of 7:50. My strong suspicion is that he will obtain a time of 7:4X. Why is the car faster than even the 95% best case predictions from the appropriate regression model? Again a combination of great tires, great chassis, great AWD system, great traction control, etc. all doing a very good job especially in the corners where P/W is less important.

3. What we really need to have is a separate regression analysis for "factory ace" times. We are still running up against (myself included) the inappropriate comparison of Nissan's factory ace times vs. Sportauto times. Clearly a factory ace with ample factory support and tweaking will be able to cut 5+ seconds off of the SA time. A few data points that justify this are: Walter vs. Horst in the Carrera GT, 7:28 vs. 7:32, only a 4 second gap; Motortrend being only 2 seconds behind Porsche figures for the 997 Turbo and finally the Z06 with a 6 second difference between SA and factory driver. These differences mean than Horst should be capable of obtaining a time in the 7:3X range instead of the 7:4X range if piloting a car equivalent to the one that did the 7:29.

"Conclusions": If the official Sportauto time is 7:4X I will be content that that particular car meets quoted specifications and that Nissan has done a pretty brilliant job with the systems in the car I mentioned above. However, if they get a 7:3X time, I will strongly suspect the car does not meet published specifications, most likely in the power category. Breaking the 7:30 time with 480 hp and a 3800 lb curb weight is still, despite how well the car behaves and performs on the track and despite being piloted by a factory ace is IMO not possible. This is a lb/hp ratio of 7.9. Consider again these cars (which have also been highly designed and engineered for incredible lap times as well). I know I am probably beating a dead horse but consider the numbers. We are not talking minor differences here, we are talking about almost a 2:1 factor in some cases, 2:1 and minimally 1.4:1.

Car, time, lb/hp
Enzo, 7:25, 4.6
ZR1, 7:26, 5.5
Carrera GT, 7:28, 5.0
Zonda F Clubsport, 7:32, 4.2
Koenigsegg CCX, 7:33, 3.50

Even if the GT-R out corners some of these cars, when in the straights or near straights and under good traction and WOT or near WOT, these cars will be accelerating SO MUCH harder than the GT-R.
Good post - and given our history, that's not empty praise.

When you and I last went around about this, you were convinced that the GT-R was quite noticeably underrated, and I took the position that the jury was still out. Now, with full U.S. data available, it's pretty clear that the car is rated about 10% low, based on quarter mile trap speeds and chassis dyno data. There's also the tidbit that, as far as I know, the power for the GT-R isn't SAE Certified, in spite of Nissan's previously stated policy of certifiying all of their U.S. cars.

A note on quarter mile trap speeds: If you throw out the obvious sick cars (or, as Nissan stated to C & D, those in less-than-final states of tune), and attribute the 124+ trap speed example to inappropriate meteorological adjustment, then the U.S. spec cars seem to be coming in at around 120 mph, which is consistent with a rating around 10% low.

So I'm pretty well satisfied that the U.S.-spec cars are rated low, except I'd like to reintroduce a tantalizing (though perhaps far-fetched) possibility that we lightly discussed before.

We know that Nissan has an indistinguishable-from-magic launch control algorithm. We also know that it is doing equally fascinating things in terms of power apportioning while cornering at speed.

What if it's doing equally cool stuff down the straights?

I've read that the car can apply up to 98% of full torque to the rear wheels, so what if it does that under full acceleration (assuming near-zero wheelslip) whenever it's not pulling lateral Gs? If that is the case, the car's roughly 410-420 HP dyno numbers come up closer to the factory number when corrected for a normal 2wd factor of 85%. It would also be quicker down any and all straights than one would otherwise suppose - including the drag strip. That, combined with the ability to mat the throttle at or before each apex, would help explain those extraordinary track times.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2008, 05:11 PM   #156
T Bone
Brigadier General
T Bone's Avatar
529
Rep
4,021
Posts

Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

iTrader: (0)

Nissan Responds

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/03/n...t-r-ring-time/

Kudos to Nissan for taking the highroad and not responding to Porsche's whining.

Earth to Porsche - build a better 911
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2008, 05:13 PM   #157
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
1072
Rep
8,008
Posts

Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Bruce,

As always........ well almost always, we are in total agreement about the GTR and it's incredible achievements, both on the dragstrip and around the track.

The figure of 10% under rated is roughly my estimates as I see it as 480PS and my 525hp (not PS) is roughly about this percentage.

On the ability of the awd system to shift it's power about, normally what happens is the system looks to shift as much as 45% over the front wheels (where most of the weight is) for the for the briefest of times (a tenth or two), to help get the ball rolling and then steadily shifting more towards to the rear as the weight tranfers rearward due the effects caused by the acceleration, whether it's able to shift the entire amount to the rear is something I know little about, usually this only happens when total grip is lost at either axle (i.e. ICE).
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2008, 07:21 PM   #158
M3WC
Brigadier General
3639
Rep
3,241
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: ...location...location

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Bruce,

As always........ well almost always, we are in total agreement about the GTR and it's incredible achievements, both on the dragstrip and around the track.
Honestly there is nothing special about the GT-R on a dragstrip. A stock Z06 beats it from a roll and dig. Around the track is a different story.
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2008, 09:06 PM   #159
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Colonel
99
Rep
2,000
Posts

Drives: 2017 C63
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JetBlack5OC View Post
Honestly there is nothing special about the GT-R on a dragstrip. A stock Z06 beats it from a roll and dig. Around the track is a different story.
Oh but there is. The GT-R runs roughly even with the Z06 over a quarter mile, but the Z06 is playing catch up all the way. The GT-R destroys the Vette off the line.

From a dig, the Z06's superior power to weight means it'll pull on the GT-R, and of course that's also why the Z06 has better trap speeds.

Makes better noises, too.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2008, 09:25 PM   #160
Garissimo
Captain
Garissimo's Avatar
15
Rep
645
Posts

Drives: 4 doors, 6 gears, 8 cylinders
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hippie Town, USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Oh but there is. The GT-R runs roughly even with the Z06 over a quarter mile, but the Z06 is playing catch up all the way. The GT-R destroys the Vette off the line.
And destroys its own transmission in the process, it would seem If the GT-R forgoes using the warranty-voiding LC feature, I'm willing to wager the Z06 would launch just as hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
From a dig, the Z06's superior power to weight means it'll pull on the GT-R, and of course that's also why the Z06 has better trap speeds.

Makes better noises, too.

Bruce
I want to see a GT-R throw down with an M6 from a roll. That should be a good race.
__________________
2013 Audi S6, Ibis White
2008 E90 M3, Jerez Black, Black Nappa, Brushed Aluminium, 6-speed, Premium, Tech, Cold Weather *sold*
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2008, 09:57 PM   #161
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Colonel
99
Rep
2,000
Posts

Drives: 2017 C63
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garissimo View Post
And destroys its own transmission in the process, it would seem If the GT-R forgoes using the warranty-voiding LC feature, I'm willing to wager the Z06 would launch just as hard...
Personally, I wouldn't be putting a lot of stock into an anecdote about what seems to be actual abuse (reading between the lines) and then turning that into major corporate strategy, even though a bunch of fanboys on this thread are buying it.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2008, 10:28 PM   #162
Dascamel
Lieutenant Colonel
Dascamel's Avatar
48
Rep
1,664
Posts

Drives: 2008 e92 M3, 2010 e91 328i
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bakersfield, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garissimo View Post
I want to see a GT-R throw down with an M6 from a roll. That should be a good race.
Just wait until the new M6 rolls out...
__________________
2008 E92 M3 Jerez Black,DCT,Fox Red ext,Prem,Tech,19", ipod/usb, CF roof and trim
2010 E91 328i Space Gray,Black int, M sport, most options
2007 Montego Blue 335i (retired)
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2008, 10:36 PM   #163
Garissimo
Captain
Garissimo's Avatar
15
Rep
645
Posts

Drives: 4 doors, 6 gears, 8 cylinders
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hippie Town, USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Personally, I wouldn't be putting a lot of stock into an anecdote about what seems to be actual abuse (reading between the lines) and then turning that into major corporate strategy, even though a bunch of fanboys on this thread are buying it.

Bruce
There is nothing anecdotal about the fact that Nissan can void the transmission warranty if it detects VDC has been shut off. That is stated quite clearly in the GT-R manual. And VDC does need to be off to enable launch control.

So put yourself in the shoes of a GT-R owner. You've just plunked down at least $80K of your hard earned dollars for your twin turbo terror. Do you risk voiding your warranty to out launch that Z06? Remember, if anything goes wrong down the road with your trick DCT transmission, you stand the risk of paying out of pocket.
__________________
2013 Audi S6, Ibis White
2008 E90 M3, Jerez Black, Black Nappa, Brushed Aluminium, 6-speed, Premium, Tech, Cold Weather *sold*
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2008, 11:23 PM   #164
Garissimo
Captain
Garissimo's Avatar
15
Rep
645
Posts

Drives: 4 doors, 6 gears, 8 cylinders
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hippie Town, USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dascamel View Post
Just wait until the new M6 rolls out...
What powerplant are they cookin' up for the new beastie? Something with forced induction?
__________________
2013 Audi S6, Ibis White
2008 E90 M3, Jerez Black, Black Nappa, Brushed Aluminium, 6-speed, Premium, Tech, Cold Weather *sold*
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2008, 11:32 PM   #165
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Good post - and given our history, that's not empty praise.

.....

What if it's doing equally cool stuff down the straights?

I've read that the car can apply up to 98% of full torque to the rear wheels, so what if it does that under full acceleration (assuming near-zero wheelslip) whenever it's not pulling lateral Gs? If that is the case, the car's roughly 410-420 HP dyno numbers come up closer to the factory number when corrected for a normal 2wd factor of 85%. It would also be quicker down any and all straights than one would otherwise suppose - including the drag strip. That, combined with the ability to mat the throttle at or before each apex, would help explain those extraordinary track times.

Bruce
Thanks Bruce.

I not only think it could do this fairly simple thing on the straights but I suspect it is likely that it is doing so.

I don't know much about the pre face lifted AWD Porsches. Before the 2008 variant the AWD system was an in house designed twin wet clutch system. It is certainly capable of shifting power F to R and L to R but the devil is in the details as to how much power can go where, how quickly it can be adjusted and how often it is adjusted. There were rumors that they would be switching to a Haldex AWD system, perhaps to improve one or more of these specific features. Either way the AWD Porsches certainly can send more power rearwards as can most modern AWD systems from Audi to Subaru and from BMW to Mitsubishi.

Such a system that can essentially make the car into a RWD system would certainly give you some advantage in that it would exhibit less drivetrain losses than a antiquated system with a constant 50:50 F:R power split. However, 5% (roughly 20%-15%) of 480 does not come very close to the 1.4:1 or 2:1 power to weight (weight/power technically) advantage that I brought up, nowhere close.
Appreciate 0
      10-09-2008, 03:22 AM   #166
M3WC
Brigadier General
3639
Rep
3,241
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: ...location...location

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Oh but there is. The GT-R runs roughly even with the Z06 over a quarter mile, but the Z06 is playing catch up all the way. The GT-R destroys the Vette off the line.

From a dig, the Z06's superior power to weight means it'll pull on the GT-R, and of course that's also why the Z06 has better trap speeds.

Makes better noises, too.

Bruce
You must have not seen the videos out there.

The Z06 killed the GTR from roll and dig, multiple runs. Both fully stock vehicles. And the ZR-1 that kills both vehicles in a straight line.

The GTR is nothing special in a straight line.
Appreciate 0
      10-09-2008, 07:29 AM   #167
devo
Colonel
United_States
755
Rep
2,736
Posts

Drives: Bimmers & Porsches
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Atlanta

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garissimo View Post
There is nothing anecdotal about the fact that Nissan can void the transmission warranty if it detects VDC has been shut off. That is stated quite clearly in the GT-R manual. And VDC does need to be off to enable launch control.

So put yourself in the shoes of a GT-R owner. You've just plunked down at least $80K of your hard earned dollars for your twin turbo terror. Do you risk voiding your warranty to out launch that Z06? Remember, if anything goes wrong down the road with your trick DCT transmission, you stand the risk of paying out of pocket.
I agree with what you are saying and don't have an ounce of empathy for the guy who launches his car 20+ times over a very brief period. (He likely did so before or just past break in too) Where I have a problem is when Nissan makes claim to a specific timed run with the use of LC and sans VDC, and if the owner attempts to replicate that advertised run even once their warranty is null and void.

Secondly, Nissan must not have much faith in their transmission if they don't offer at least a limited number of launches within a timed period; let alone even one.

It appears to me that Nissan wants to be king of the 911tt, Z06, Lambo, F-car hill so badly that they have resorted to exaggerating tmies and offering a basically useless option.

If you can't use it once without risking blowing something and voiding your warranty, it should not be offered nor advertised.
Appreciate 0
      10-09-2008, 07:33 AM   #168
devo
Colonel
United_States
755
Rep
2,736
Posts

Drives: Bimmers & Porsches
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Atlanta

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JetBlack5OC View Post
You must have not seen the videos out there.

The Z06 killed the GTR from roll and dig, multiple runs. Both fully stock vehicles. And the ZR-1 that kills both vehicles in a straight line.

The GTR is nothing special in a straight line.
Ain't that the truth.

I love how the media has focuses so much on track times, yet basically ignores that 997tts, Z06s, etc, will just walk the GTR in any straight line run. Put all the data out there and let the consumer decide.
Appreciate 0
      10-09-2008, 04:45 PM   #169
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Colonel
99
Rep
2,000
Posts

Drives: 2017 C63
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garissimo View Post
There is nothing anecdotal about the fact that Nissan can void the transmission warranty if it detects VDC has been shut off. That is stated quite clearly in the GT-R manual. And VDC does need to be off to enable launch control.

So put yourself in the shoes of a GT-R owner. You've just plunked down at least $80K of your hard earned dollars for your twin turbo terror. Do you risk voiding your warranty to out launch that Z06? Remember, if anything goes wrong down the road with your trick DCT transmission, you stand the risk of paying out of pocket.
Well hell, I just read the manuals and you are completely correct. Would not have believed it.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      10-09-2008, 05:49 PM   #170
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
1072
Rep
8,008
Posts

Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
We will have to wait until the car is sold in Europe before we will know if this is solely a US problem. Memories of the American M5 SMG cars spring to mind, maybe it's the warranty claims expected or the lengthy warranties given in the US that has sparked Nissan's reasoning.

Though I would reckon it was be a hard case to win for the manufacturer is it went to court. The judge would argue and rightly so that to offer it means it was there to be used.
Appreciate 0
      10-09-2008, 07:08 PM   #171
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Colonel
99
Rep
2,000
Posts

Drives: 2017 C63
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JetBlack5OC View Post
You must have not seen the videos out there.

The Z06 killed the GTR from roll and dig, multiple runs. Both fully stock vehicles. And the ZR-1 that kills both vehicles in a straight line.

The GTR is nothing special in a straight line.
Well, of course now that launch control is pretty much a no-no, warranty-wise, you're right. I'll tell you that if an owner is willing to sacrifice his tranny on the altar of a drag race win, though, the GT-R really is a rocket off the line.

Too bad about the LC nonsense, though, and I don't know what the hell Nissan was thinking when they let all those magazine testers run in the 11.6 - 11.8 range with launch control when just folks can only do that at their peril.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      10-09-2008, 08:03 PM   #172
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Colonel
99
Rep
2,000
Posts

Drives: 2017 C63
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
...Such a system that can essentially make the car into a RWD system would certainly give you some advantage in that it would exhibit less drivetrain losses than a antiquated system with a constant 50:50 F:R power split. However, 5% (roughly 20%-15%) of 480 does not come very close to the 1.4:1 or 2:1 power to weight (weight/power technically) advantage that I brought up, nowhere close.
Pretty much everybody on the planet seems to believe that the GT-R is under-rated, and using the latest quarter mile and chassis dyno data on U.S. - spec cars, something on the order of 10% seems likely.

Having said that, however, and assuming I'm not screwing it up, lucid's formula predicts that the GT-R needs about 1,000 HP to get under a 7:30 at the 'Ring, and even the Porsche Turbo needs about 700 HP to get that 7:38.

So for me, that formula falls down, at least when attempting to predict 'Ring times for cars at this level of performance.

Bottom line: I believe the 7:29 was done with a bone stock, roughly 525 HP GT-R.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      10-10-2008, 01:25 AM   #173
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Pretty much everybody on the planet seems to believe that the GT-R is under-rated, and using the latest quarter mile and chassis dyno data on U.S. - spec cars, something on the order of 10% seems likely.

Having said that, however, and assuming I'm not screwing it up, lucid's formula predicts that the GT-R needs about 1,000 HP to get under a 7:30 at the 'Ring, and even the Porsche Turbo needs about 700 HP to get that 7:38.

So for me, that formula falls down, at least when attempting to predict 'Ring times for cars at this level of performance.

Bottom line: I believe the 7:29 was done with a bone stock, roughly 525 HP GT-R.

Bruce
You are forgetting my new key "insight" above. The regression and curve fit tells you how much hp it would take for car DRIVEN by Horst to obtain a certain time. As well, as you can see from the scatter plot, there is a fairly large variation of the data around the regression. You can't use the mean values for the slope and intercept you should use something like the 3 sigma (98% confidence values) values for both slope and intercept and then allow about 5 seconds difference to account for the factory driver vs. Horst difference. I have not run this calculation but I'd be willing to bet it still will show the GT-R as a large outlier Hence I disagree with your bottom line. In fact I strongly disagree with it.

What makes sense about cars with a 1.4-2.0 times better power to weight achieving lap times in the same neighborhood? We keep seem to be going back to the point that the car is somehow "magic" and can defy the laws of physics. It is good but not that good.
Appreciate 0
      10-10-2008, 04:46 AM   #174
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
1072
Rep
8,008
Posts

Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
By the way Horst originally tested the R8 on the ring and got a time of 8:04, recently he retested one and got that down to 7:56~58 (not sure which).

That is one hell of a drop for basically the same car. The bottom line is the ring can't use this type of formula.
Appreciate 0
      10-10-2008, 11:30 AM   #175
T Bone
Brigadier General
T Bone's Avatar
529
Rep
4,021
Posts

Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

iTrader: (0)

Have fun reading the bullshit that Nissan is trying to pull off with warranties....

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177088

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176138

Anyone know if there is any truth to the rumor that in Japan, the GTR uses the GPS system to see if the car went to a race track. If it did and was driven at the track, you had to bring it in for mandatory service for about $4,000 or your warranty would be voided?

Anyone hear of this?
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
Appreciate 0
      10-10-2008, 11:58 AM   #176
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
By the way Horst originally tested the R8 on the ring and got a time of 8:04, recently he retested one and got that down to 7:56~58 (not sure which).

That is one hell of a drop for basically the same car. The bottom line is the ring can't use this type of formula.
Have you been reading??? I discussed these points fairly carefully just above. No matter whether it is Horst or a factory ace "the formula", with proper application and understanding of error and variability predicts a range of values at a particular confidence level.

The bottom line is any metric subject to a large pool of systematic and random effects can use regression for prediction, almost all will demonstrate the obvious trends based on simple physics. There will always be variability and the models will cover that.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST