Originally Posted By: DragRace
Keep reading Car and Driver,because afterall,their testing is always non bias and factual.
I never said it was. But, at least they have actual engineers in charge of their testing. As I noted already, they caution people not to read too much into the results.
Originally Posted By: DragRace
Read?! No reading here thanks. We do ACTUAL testing with actual cars. No reading required.
We took 4 cars,did back to back testing. We took our race gas,our tires,etc to do the testing. You guys seriously need to step back and look at the time invested as well as money invested.But again,it does not matter.
Okay, good. Then you won't mind providing me the statistical analysis, including the size of your error bars in your results. Right? What systemic errors did you note? How did you account for wind? Was temperature and humidity constant through the test? How did you deal with changes in tire, coolant, and oil temperature? How did you account for tire wear? How did you account for changes in in operational viscosity of the oil? How did you preclude sandbagging?
If you can't answer these questions, then it's the same rubbish promoted by the marketers. Product A gives you X number of extra horsepower and lowers your temperatures by five degrees.
And I do take such things for what their worth - not a hill of beans unless done in a statistically rigorous fashion.
But, what do I know? I suppose Mercedes F1 team got their lead this year from switching to a magical elixir of RP, Red Line, and Lucas products. No wonder they're ahead of McLaren that uses lowly Mobil products.