For me, the biggest coincern is, how do you measure the change in performance with the chan ge in variables?
Let's take a simple variable: Tyre pressure.
The 'proper' method would be to test the tyre below the optimum pressure and then repeatedly test it while changing the pressure right up through a range of pressures until you arrivce at an 'excessive' pressure.
Do you know MANY drivers who manage to deliver identical lap times from identical conditions and thus would show NO errors in their driving.
Can you find a track where there are NO other karts getting in your driver's way?
Where will you find a track where the conditions (humidity, air temp, track temp, air pressure, etc. etc.,) remain unchanged throughout you extended series of tests? It would be nice toi think you could simply add an adjustment factor while those conditions change..... but..... how do you calculate the 'adjustment factor' until you've sone all the tests?
How will you allow for the changing 'age/wear' of the tyre during the series of tests?
Do you know for certain that a tyre that has been tested BELOW it's ideal pressure is not damaged (or simply 'changed') than a tyre that has NOT been run below optimum. You could get around this by using a new set of tyres at each pressure that you want to test..... errrr.... cost?
And so on.....
My point would be that there are simply too many uncontrollable variables to do a proper analysis of any one of the variables.
It's not like testing 'jetting software' as the 'base line' can be tested in controlled conditions (or MORE controlled conditions) on a Dyno. The costs of an equivalent 'dyno' for tyres would be ...... substantial!
Ian
|
|