Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JamesJ
I dont think that you could have a 100% repeatable test
|
James:
I agree with you. This said though, there are few test like this that have 100% repeatability. Take, "Road & Track", Magazine for example. They are always running new cars through the same test they have run cars through for many years now.
=============================================
The test they run are not 100%, but they can still tell the reader a lot of information about each of the cars, and how they stack up against each other.
=============================================
Because a testing method is not 100% doesn't mean it's worthless information!
As of right now there is very little comparative information at all.
It seems by your answer that unless a testing method is 100% repeatable it has no use.
I don't understand your reasoning.
Please expand on this thought.
Thanks,
Ty