Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezoris
I agree with you aside from peak power, just don't think it matters as much if you have to scale it back to meet goal 1 and 2. It's true we could probably argue the merits of lap over lap logging but the truth is you can easily find the upper limits of stability this way better than any other testing, namely for testing heat issues. If it passes there, you should never have issues with street able performance. (on the 86 platform) The same is not true in reverse.
I had a PM with Mike about this. Two schools of thought, go out and beat the car 10/10ths or just run more laps at 80-90%.
Proving a tune, or durability does not mean the car has to be run 10/10ths at the track for valuable data collection. You have been playing with tuning now you get the concepts if you were going to do tuning for somewhat what data collection would you prefer?
|
I generally (not just in tuning) prefer to collect data that is most representative of the normal use case of the system. Be it a tune or a software design, hard parts, or whatever else. I agree that torture testing is a great way of proving reliability, but reliability is a function of the use case. This is proven out by the design of the stock vehicle. It won't last 2 laps on a track, yet the folks who designed it found it reliable enough to warranty for many miles of use within its normal intended use case.
Not saying it's not good to have, just that it's not the common use case for this car, or most others. For that reason, the absence of such testing or data shouldn't be a deal breaker for someone with a much less aggressive use case.