O.K. . . . here goes
Inline 300 said:
You have to test things individually, there is no way around it
And I have said:
I also have agreed with T6 that testing one thing at a time is usually the best way to test something . . . just not ALWAYS the best way.
So we are generally in agreement there.
Inline 300 also said:
Its always about the combination
So we are in agreement there also.
Although I beleive you intended it as a slight, you posted this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
claimed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said it, not me.
Which only proves that once again we both agree on something: that Automotivebreaths claims should not be taken totally on his word, hence my intentional use of the word "claim".
We are in agreement on that issue also . . .
You continued by saying:
unless you like spending money. Lets say you build X engine with the fire groove and X engine without, now if it shows no gains by adding the groove, your not gonna go to the time or trouble to do it again.
Here's where I disagree:
Maybe experience is the difference in our thinking.
A closed minded or inexperienced person would deduce that no gain (or negative gain . . . remember the race fuel example?) when tested individually means it's not a worth while modification and abandon further testing.
An experienced or open minded person would continue testing (Yes, at the expense of time and money) in combination with other modifications to thoroughly explore all the variables before rendering judgement . . . .
This is the whole point I have been trying to make throughout this entire thread !
Testing ALWAYS cost time and money so you better be prepared to spend alot of both before you even start. Unfortunately much of testing proves to be a waste of time in regard to positive results. If you're going to test some thing you have to be prepared to give it a fair chance to prove it's worth (at least that's the optimists veiw). I suppose if you're trying to knock something and quickly disprove it, you would give it a cursory test, proclaim it junk and bash it's developer.(this happens quite frequently)
If were not arguing "Combination" then apperently we're arguing for the sake of arguing. Since we seem generally to be in agreement on the issue of testing and I think I have supported and clarified my position on doing additional testing, I wonder what you hope to gain by being argumentative ?
Your veiws are welcome and it's certainly not my forum, that's not my point, but I don't think you've added anything to the thread. The point you made has already been agreed on by all of us including you . . . . .
