Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace
I agree with Julian here, without knowing your margin of error it is impossible to claim that something does or doesn't work.
You need to test your test regime before you test your variables.
If the scatter or variation in the results with no change to what you are testing is large, you have a large margin of error. If the scatter or variation is small you have a low margin of error.
Currently we don't know what the margin of error is.
Also, if the display is averaging doesn't that mean that results are double counted?
Reading one, will be the fuel economy on the journey so far,
Reading two, will be the fuel economy on the journey so far,
same with three, four and five. if you do the reading every km then you are double counting.
The first km and reading will include only the first km, the second will include the first km and the second km, the third will be the first,second, and third km.
|
Yeah, I am a bit puzzled that the first basic of testing - doing multiple runs in the same configuration and ensuring the results vary less than the variation we're trying to measure - wasn't done.
The second basic is to do a test with a known change and then check that the measured change matches expectations based on the tech literature. (That was done but the result doesn't match the tech lit.)
The third basic is well known here - A/B/A testing with and without the modification.
If we could road test with accuracy down to 0.6 per cent drag variation then it would be fantastic - but based on the tech lit and my own testing, I don't think that's possible.