No... that's correct, NJB... I was not even SLIGHTLY trying to suggest that you are alone in that method! If you note, I was actually COMPLIMENTING you on it!
However, there ARE other methods! You MAY have worked with Top teams and they MAY do that but it's MY experoence that many teams also use a more 'scientific' approach of looking at the theory, too!
You really CANNOT be suggesting that Mclaren (to give just ONE example) don't START from the 'theory' and THEN do tests on the results.
If that were NOT the case, then it would make a mockery of the motor-racing 'degree' course stuff! You'd only need 'apprenticeship' courses and NO theory and there is now HELL of a lot of theory being taught!
Your method WORKS... there is NO doubt about that.... BUT..... I would argue that you would get the results QUICKER if you did the theory, FIRST!
The mag wheels are an example. You find that the wheels worked for you and you attributed the results to the Magnesium doing XYZ with the temperature(on this site). However, the THEORY suggests that you have the reasons BACKWARD!
Does that STOP you from making Mag wheels WORK for you? No it doesn't!
BUT.... if someone creates a wheel out of a new material that heats up in the REVERSE way to the mag, then you will be unlikely to try THOSE if you wanted 'more' of what the mag wheels give you....
Again, I'll finish with a compliment!
Your method has given you better results than MY method has given me! However, I'm not certain that I would have done BETTER with your method than with mine!
Each to his own!
Ian
|
|