[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by John Langer

The difference is I always run better then the computers say I should. Not .5 slower. Just sayin'

TRUTH. (That basically says that the 'fudge factors' used in the typical "electron simulation" do not match reality with a well performing car".

Just like using a Dyno Procedure originally designed for a 50 cubic inch engine does not match reality when a 500+ cubic inch engine running on the dyno.

The facts have been posted here before but the "electron simulation" guys want to keep
the flawed procedure spouted by the "simulation guys" or the "take your money at the dyno" guys.

Even the track numbers do not represent reality if you only have a couple of data points (with mine shaft air) atmospheric conditions. At least using the track numbers and a number of passes you get a solid foundation to start with.

I used to run track Test Track Aero Drag tests with very high tech measurement/ recording equipment (with hundreds of thousands of data points each run) 14 runs (7 in each direction on the track) and we called that 'one test on one day'. we would test over several days with different combinations of tires, parts, conditions before we reported a number.

So to PICK one run by Mike Leech and say that run was HIS performance benchmark on the track is a bit weak in the actual data game, even for the "electron simulation" guys.

Just saying.

Tom V.

[Jack Gifford]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

... "electron simulation"...

Although I did electron path simulation while designing electron guns in a GE lab an awfully long time ago, I'm not aware of anyone actually simulating an electron. But, admittedly, I haven't kept pace with modern research work.