Re: [DML] Re: airbox performance

[Peter Lucas <lucas@xxxx>]

I would find this convincing *only* if it were done as a double-blind 
study; i.e., do multiple randomized runs in which neither the driver 
nor the timer knows which box is installed on each run.

This is standard procedure in medical research, and for good reason: 
the human ability to perceive non-existent effects based on the mere 
fact that you changed something is astounding.

My car, for example, *always* runs better after I've spent a lot of 
money on it. :-).

The advantage of the dyno test is that there is no human in the 
loop--neither the dyno nor the car are subject to placebo effects.

--pete lucas
VIN #06703

P.S. -- If you do enough runs, send me the raw data and I would be 
glad to do the appropriate tests of statistical significance that 
will tell us the likelihood of getting your results by random chance.

At 9:25 PM -0500 10/11/01, at88mph wrote:
> Actually,
>
> I suggest some quarter mile runs. The reason why is b/c the difference is
> going to be the air flow, which would be hard to define on a dyno. Now, if
> you take the car and put the stock airbox back on and do a quarter mile run,
> or even a eight mile run, then do the same with the 'new airbox' you would
> get an accurate measurement of what was gained. (and you could calculate
> and correct for the varing 60 foot times as well to be completely accurate)
>
>
> Just a thought,
>
> Duke