|
|
10-29-2008, 11:23 PM | #310 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
And you are not continuing the process yourself? This whole post is nothing but a giant oxymoron and that is funny. As well the misunderstanding and unjustified negativity of others is even more absurd. Keep up the attacking opinions and I will keep replying right back. You can't repeat yourself into being either justified nor correct.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2008, 11:34 PM | #311 |
First Lieutenant
26
Rep 365
Posts |
that is my whole point, no one is going to be correct on this hypothetical issue yet you keep pushing yourself to be. i dont have issue with people stating their opinions whether i agree with them or not, but when they try to convey them as fact that is what bothers me. the whole smug attitude is what spurred me to post in the first place, something i do now realize was a mistake. like you said, you can't repeat yourself into being either justified nor correct.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-30-2008, 08:33 AM | #312 |
Brigadier General
127
Rep 4,144
Posts |
This is a forum for BMW drivers. Whatd'ya expect?
__________________
2017 F80 YMB.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-30-2008, 02:05 PM | #313 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-30-2008, 03:05 PM | #314 | ||
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
I never said your methods were not valid, only some of your data had enough holes to make your assumptions not reliable. Quote:
We all would love to know but without all of the data like telematry we are making guesses which are misleading at best. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
10-30-2008, 05:30 PM | #315 | |||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That is the whole point of the CarTest work and of the regression work. To make it not a guess but an analysis. Every analysis will be subject to some error and uncertainties. See my previous comments to lucid on that topic. Again we will have to agree to disagree. Last edited by swamp2; 10-31-2008 at 02:50 AM.. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
11-03-2008, 05:41 PM | #316 | |
Private
1
Rep 57
Posts |
Quote:
FYI Go back and check your Audi R8 numbers..... All the numbers I quoted come from manufactures websites for 2009 models with dual clutch or auto transmissions. Why did you add the invoice price for the R8 ??? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-08-2009, 05:22 PM | #317 |
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Thread from the Dead
http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...est/index.html
Discuss..... How is a 480 hp car able to get around the ring in under 7:30?
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-08-2009, 05:42 PM | #318 | |
Captain
60
Rep 754
Posts |
Quote:
(on your post) |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-08-2009, 05:45 PM | #319 | |
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
Read the analysis on power regression done by Swamp2 and Lucid. 480 hp & 3800 pounds not the formula for 7:30.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-08-2009, 09:45 PM | #320 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-08-2009, 10:09 PM | #321 |
Captain
60
Rep 754
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-08-2009, 10:11 PM | #322 | ||
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
Quote:
Great argument. You are awesome.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
02-08-2009, 10:52 PM | #323 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
It's either bad reporting by someone who is unfamiliar with dyno testing, or it's a complete con job by the shop in question, and they're looking for ink... Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 12:59 AM | #324 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
And then there are the brilliant engineers who can both drive quite competently and do math far beyond your comprehension. Both these types and the pocket protector wearing ones who can't drive fast at all are largely responsible for the engineering (i.e. SCIENCE) based advance of consumer sporting cars and of the most extreme race cars around F1. Do you have any idea how much engineereing, science, math, test and measurement goes in on F1. Apparently not. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 01:53 AM | #325 |
Lieutenant
13
Rep 458
Posts |
I know that the drivers are the guys making the big bucks. I know that those drivers are typically not engineers, they're gifted athletes with amazing reflexes and vision. But thats a whole n'other can o worms. The never ending debate of what's more important, the car or the driver. Some people say Lewis Hamilton won because of he was in the fastest car, but then why was his teammate so bad? Especially after being considered one of the better drivers when he raced for Renault. My vote is with the driver.
__________________
WAR Hammy/McLaren F1 WDC 2010
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 01:53 AM | #326 | |
S0THPAW
8943
Rep 7,860
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 06:58 AM | #327 | |
Captain
60
Rep 754
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 07:26 AM | #328 |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
T-Bone, where have you been man? This has been debated to death here and elsewhere, so I stopped posting on these threads.
Urbo, there is no nonsense associated with regression analysis. It is what it is. By itself, it identifies correlation, not cause and effect. The rest is interpretation. However, when you have reason to think there is cause and effect, and consider it in conjunction with the regression outcome, you can ask certain questions. The car's performance is governed by physics. If the car is indeed as fast as Nissan claims, there must be a physics-based explanation. I don't understand how "people who drive" have anything to do with that physics-based explanation unless those people are also technically oriented and can offer that physics-based explanation. There is only one type of discussion to be had. The rest is pointless unless you think the driver introduces performance possibilities that can't be explained by physics. Then you'd be living in another world. Power/weight is a pretty good place to start. If you have any other physics-based observation/data that would explain the performance of this car, share it with us. I am pretty sure others have added other parameters into the regression, which did not turn out to be significant. What would be great to include is some way of characterizing this car's ability to find traction in the corners and potentially reaching higher exit speeds. I think somebody tried skidpad numbers, but they didn't make a difference as that doesn't tell the accelerating out of corners story. Based on what we currently have on the table, I think it is "highly likely" that the car that did the run was underrated. We are not talking about how much faster one driver can be from another on the ring, which is also been discussed. I personally think the variation assocaited with that is much higher than what most people have been saying, but that's another story.
__________________
Last edited by lucid; 02-09-2009 at 07:45 AM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 07:39 AM | #329 |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
I agree with Lucid, it has been debate to death with some people on one side and others on the other side. It's a oil and water discussion where the two don't mix.
Though while I agree that the regression is a useful tool it's not exact science in the same way as dyno results don't quite tell the whole story. The assumption that power and weight plus tyre and brake size give an good gauge for the final outcome is not correct, a good point to this is motorsport, take F1 for example the cars on the grip all weigh the same, all produce with 3% of each other and all use basically the same brakes and the exact same rubber but you will find in any race a difference of up to 3~5 seconds between the front runners and the ones at the back and that is not all down to driver input. Always remember that somethings can't always be explained away with facts and figures. |
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 07:50 AM | #330 |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Footie, there is a physics-based explanation as to why the some F1 cars are faster than others. And it has everything to do with which car has the better engine, suspension, downforce, drag, and brakes, and have well the driver can explore their limits. I am not sure what your point is. Also, a 3% difference in power/weight ratio can result in a noticable difference in lap times, but I suspect the actual difference in between the first and last place cars is larger than that although I really don't know the details on that. Where did you get the 3% figure?
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|