Quote:
Originally Posted by ACEV
If we feel that there is something missing in the given test, then it should be pointed out. If we feel that there are other things in the test making the fuel economy better, then they should be pointed out.
|
Several shortcomings of the Mythbuster test have already been pointed out!
A poorly designed/executed test proves nothing.
EG: How do we know the changes in fuel consumption aren't from different speeds during the runs (e.g. no cruise control used)?
EG: How do we know the results seen aren't due to a drivetrain that was gradually warming up and getting more efficient? (This is normal and well understood.)
EG: How do we know the results seen aren't due to the transmission torque converter not being locked during the "before" run because perhaps the drivetrain wasn't up to full operating temperature?
EG: How do we know the effects seen aren't from changing ambient conditions during the day (e.g. hotter out = more efficient, again normal and well understood).
How do we know the effects seen aren't from some combination of any of these things?
The only correct answer is:
we do not know.
So it is a fundamental mistake and a failure to understand the scientific method (a
controlled test was not performed) to say that what you saw on TV
proves that dimples in clay increase fuel economy.
At best, we can say: Hmm! Isn't that interesting! Wouldn't it be nice if they could perform a well-controlled test (see ideas presented above in previous posts) so that we could have confidence in the results?