Quote:
Originally Posted by Vekke
The values in the results are average from start highest and lowest values on the points said on the video. You can see from the results that they are getting closer to each other meaning that they are evening out the differences in values. That comes from the +-1km/h travel car has during the route. Same goes for diesel cars on that route. I have sometimes used 3 times longer distance if the results did not show enough difference on the short run. Like with torsion value testing finding the actual optimal value for each engine.
I am agree more cycles would bring more accuracy, but on the other hand I think the lines follow each other really nicely on the two runs I did with the 2,3 bars at the end of tests on 4.4.2021. I tried to test 3 times 2,5 bars on next morning, but there was too much wind. That why I did not attach also those results to same picture. You can see those results in the video if you like to take a look of those also. If you sum the a+b error in final results 37,6vs37,7 is 0,26%. Tell me if my calculation method has error?
Thats why I have many measurement points along the route.
I would like to see where the 10% differences are in any of the results because I really cannot see them. |
I don't know if it is a language difficulty, but I can't really understand what you've written. (Or if I have understood it correctly, it looks like a terrible test methodology. Why on earth would you want to introduce other variables when you're trying to test just one?)
Perhaps if you just describe your testing methodology? That is, how you actually go about doing your tests? ie step by step.