[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
The "tests" & the "knowledge" don't match the actual applications & experiences. I'm guessing you've never run tests on equipment & then observed the same equipment in operation by the end-user. The environments are worlds apart. The tests are designed to simulate operating conditions within a context of repeatability. This Scientific Method is the only way results can be compared between changes. These changes can be as subtle as humidity & air pressure differences, or as gross as completely different equipment. The problem is, you can never, *NEVER* anticipate every use or operating variable. (And in fact, many times that's not even part of the test criteria!)
Perhaps I should've said the tests & the "theory," within the context of laboratory conditions, are right (we'll get to your EPA example in a minute). Again, the problem is nobody operates their vehicles under those conditions. The "human component" has been removed in the lab environment, making the theory invalid when applied to real operating conditions. Human emotions (& emotional response) are the biggest variables in any product application. And, I suggest, the greatest reason why your "theory" falls flat. Your argument assumes, "IF premium gas is used, THEN the driver will always use more of it." It's an invalid argument because it assumes all drivers will respond to one extreme.
Let's look at another poor example, your EPA tests. Have you EVER had a vehicle which gets the mileage listed by the EPA? Man, if I ever had a car which did, I'd know something was wrong with it! These tests are universally known to be so far off the mark from real-world applications that they're useful ONLY for comparisons to other vehicles. But that's their reason for being, isn't it? Comparison only. The results are derived under laboratory conditions using the Scientific Method. "Your mileage may vary." You might as well say, "Does not apply to actual conditions of use."
Look at the responses in this thread. Real users. Real applications. Real experiences. THIS is the kind of data manufacturers kill for if they're improving product viability. Labs are good for establishing baselines & determining reasons for failure. But a "bench mark" is only that: a point of reference.
The problem I have with your continually quoting ghost sources is that none of it can be verified. We'd all love to have your friends enlighten us with their tests & theories, along with their actual applications & experiences. Rather than simply "forward it to them," why don't you invite them to join our discussions? Or better yet, why not simply provide links to resources & test data? "A neighbor who's certified," "an engineer I met at a convention," or "I've been saying this for X years" is no proof of validity, regardless of what you believe.
No, everything's not a conspiracy to me. But I'll more readily believe the real-world experiences of a relevant test group (that'd be the respondents to this poll) than the unsubstantiated claims of an individual who believes he's beyond reproach.
posted by 216.160.177...
, Tue, 6 May 2003 18:36:48
, Tue, 6 May 2003 05:14:54
, Sun, 4 May 2003 09:45:09
, Sun, 4 May 2003 09:19:09, Sun, 4 May 2003 13:38:03, Tue, 6 May 2003 11:57:28, Tue, 6 May 2003 05:05:18, Mon, 5 May 2003 14:52:47, Sun, 4 May 2003 18:08:48
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
