Re: 101

[Dave Eaton <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>]

so, you call travelling around corners experiencing controlled understeer, and
other corners experiencing controlled oversteer, adjusting cornering attitude
with the throttle are statistical non-events to your (of course) true blue,
gods-truth event?

bollocks.

gravel road today.  entry fast, lift off, oversteer, hit apex, power applied,
and here we go, corner exit, awd drift, rear tucks, and we're off...

another data point.

so you can't tell me how to get a spider bite on my cars.  good.  neither can
i.  neither could walter rohrl (in my ur-q).  you can.  fine.  i guess you get
to keep your cars...

we agree on something.

that wasn't so hard was it?

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q

>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:41:04 EDT
>From: QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>
>Subject: 101
>>*****************************************************************************
>>my question remains, forget the bs, and tell me *how* i can reproduce this
>>fabled spider bite in either of my cars...
>>*****************************************************************************
>Haven't driven your car, can't give you the non bs answer.  Come to the states
>or fly me there, I have a high confidence that I can make spiders fly in any
>torsen.  By physics I can show it CAN happen.  By driving your car, I can
>identify the baseline for the model.  Your logic is that physics can't happen
>cuz 'I can't get it to happen'.  No, that's not physics, that's the model.
>Does it affect chassis dynamics?  Your logic and non-event says NO.  My logic,
>physics of the switch, and my BTDT, explains your non event and my event.
>That isn't a two way street.
>
>>btw, in your ramble about statistical non-events, you forget that *every*
>event
>>has statistical significance.  if i have 10 events, and 10,000 non-events,
>then
>>i can derive a distribution, a standard deviation, and figure that,
>>statistically, your *event*, is actually a *non* event (ie. outside the 3rd
>>s.d. of a normal curve).  enough said...
>NOT TRUE.  For statitical nonevents to be true you have to have a correlation
>that your nonevent is statistically significant TO the model and the physical
>properties of the switch.  You have shown neither, the most basic being
>because there is no model.  Doesn't change the physical properties of the
>switch,  nor does it address my EVENT.  For a given set of variables, and the
>hypothesis, and the physical model of the switch, my event is not 3 standard
>deviations from the mean.  A non significant event, with no correlation to the
>model or the physics of the hypothesis, is just a non-significant event.  It
>says nothing of the event, the nonevent or the physics of the switch.  In fact
>we could question your methodology given Tshift CAN happen, with numbers that
>indicate that the deviation may not be so far skewed.
>Null Hypothesis:  A torsen center car will exibit traction behavior with all
>chassis variables.  This will have no effect on chassis dynamics thru a turn. 
>