There are times when I do a test just for the heck of it. It may not grant any significance at the time, but, you never know what the future holds. I find myself sometimes going back over old data of tests to confirm something that was happening back then, that maybe now I'm starting more to understand the significance of.I was going by what you posted. I quoted it below for reference. I was just wondering why you'd find this interesting and what it would prove?
This recent discovery is a perfect example. In the past, I had no idea what these erratic lean spikes were trying to tell me. Now I do.
Plain and simple. I thought it would be interesting to directly compare two totally opposite schools of thought. It really isn't any more complicated than that. The results could show advantages or shortcomings in either example, and could maybe help either side work on those advantages or shortcomings that might be discovered.
Look at it this way. A setup that typically relies on having to pre-spool the turbo before he stages the car, now has to work on a tuneup for a dead stop, idle start. Not saying there is anything to discover here, but what if he did? That would have to help him out in the class that he races the car in. Right?
I'm just asking some fellas to put their thinking cap on and come up with a solution to a problem that they may have never considered.
Think about what went through my head when I discovered that I had 2 weeks to figure out a launch routine for my car in an arm drop scenario. WITHOUT A CHANCE TO TEST IT. It was a little nerve racking, but was actually exciting too. And how do you think I felt when I picked a dial in of 9.50 out of the hat, and then went out and did a 9.56 on the first real pass. How exciting do you think that was.
This is really more for the other guys than for me, if the challenge sparks any interesting in the warriors out there.