I am not sure what technique for DOE is being discussed but we seem to have
great results the way we are doing it. It all depends on how you set up
your tests and variables, and while you make some good points, our technique
works well.
_____
From: susantoa@pdx.edu [mailto:susantoa@pdx.edu]
Sent: Thu 4/8/2004 4:09 PM
To: Hallman, David M.
Cc: arvind chhikara; mini-baja@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: total reduction
It may be quicker, but it's not that accurate, especially if you're using a
CVT. Theoretical values are helpful, but when the CVT is in place, that
value
can change quite a bit. Even if you're not using a CVT and the torque
values
and top speed values can be calculated, losses, rolling resistance, etc
affect
the actual numbers. I don't know of too many teams who have values for
rolling
resistance, drive train losses, etc for each of their individual cars. For
example, you may have a top speed of 45mph calculated but in reality you're
out
of horsepower before you reach that speed on a flat terrain. That doesn't
get
reflected in DoE unless you have every bit of losses accounted for.
Good idea though,
Andre S
> It is also possible to use Design of Experiments with the components you
> just listed and statistically determine which set-up is the best. It
would
> also probably be quicker as well.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/mini-baja
|