In my opinion the studies you cited and the studies I found are useless to anything but empirical science. They are merely anecdotal. I don't see how anyone with a science background can see it as anything but. I believe it is entirely believeing one thing vs another. I should not have said the results are "theoretical", I should have described them as not practical. The defined conditions you describe are nowhere to be found in the real world. Show me a car that is prepped like the test cars. You will travel far and wide to find one. The average car that should be tested, more than likely wasn't - making the results moot. It also seems like the studies were done decades ago - again making them moot.
I dont know how your professional trade journals are, but ours are full of conflicting data. And these are very well respected scientists, and peer reviewed, so that pretty well shoots the argument that you can put your faith in them (unless you can believe contradictary information). I dont just read one journal either, I read 7 or 8 a month.
I am not enamored with K and N. I don't give a crap about K and N. But what is more well known in performance than them?
