| good information, and some street cred to the data y'all have amassed, which I already mentioned. I can soften my stance a bit and change what I said based on the additional info you provided. Instead of saying the results are not valid, I would say the results do not meet the scientific standard of proof. That argument is easy to defend when you use the gold standard for data collection of randomized, placebo controlled, and double-blinded, none of which is present in your data set. You may not have noticed that I also wrote that the sceintific standard is probably not practical for a car Web site and many things automotive. And I also referred to the Einstein quote in my sig, the point there was many of these types of things can never be proven "scientifically" mainly because it is impossible or egregiously impractical and expensive to design the study to do so. But I stand by my original point 100%. Data and info we often accept as fact is usually more dogma and a result of 'group think" bias. But your efforts are good and "valid" and better than doing nothing. Ostee Out.
 "Straight-line acceleration is probably the first aspect of
automotive performance that any intelligent driver gets bored with."
Peter Gregg "We owe a lot to the dragsters.
They always break something,
figure out a way to beef up the part
and then the benefit trickles
down."
Robo "Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that
counts can be counted."
Einstein
|
