NexPower V2.5 Lithium-ion Pack 6 Month Review.

I dont care what kind of science or escrow or computer program or app would be used...

No one in their right mind should or would rely on that system for a race with money on the line.

Gotta be same place, same time same track or street.

End of story....

 

That's ok, just as long as the people who figure out how to make MRI machines and rockets and other stuff that matters more know how to do it.

 

To Masculinity and Honesty?

So let's just cancel all racing, and automotive sports altogether then...since you can pull data solo out in the woods on a deserted highway and just compare data instead of actually racing or sporting. You live in a sad, boring, and nonsensical world. And yes, it's still not the way Science and data work accurately or there would be no gathering of vehicles for races or automotive sporting events in person.

None of that matters.

 

That’s not even a question. As soon as the new product is for sale, your team admits the lithium product was deeply flawed. However when it was being sold here, “real world” testing as an argument trumped any engineering concerns.

Especially durability and the lack of proper battery management.

Buyer beware has never been more true. Transparency and integrity are highly suspect.

 

Not sure who said that, it was mostly DIY user error installing them, or severe temperature climates that made a handful of the Lithium packs fail. Were they IDEAL for all situations? Of course not and neither is the entire Car either. These are fair weather cars at BEST..with all of their problems. The overwhelming majority are still working fine on the road. "My Team"...not sure who that is, as I don't "work" for Jack or NexPower Energy.

Wrong, read above response. How many times do people have to emphasize the fact (at least Gen 3) didn't need a BMS to you people?

Transparency is at an all time high, especially now with the Sodium Ion's out for ample time. Integrity? Jack already proved he has it, unlike the internet trolls who have nothing better to do than spew prattle from their fake Ivory towers.

 

It matters plenty to all the people who do actual science, and to all the people who depend on the things the people doing actual science do. Fortunately, the people doing it are not learning the "V Sport Wagon" version of how science works.

It doesn't have to matter to you; you can make your performative $10k bet challenges on whatever terms you want and see what takers you get.

It's interesting to see you both convinced to the tune of $10k of the time difference between one car and another completely different model, and at the same time apparently concerned that difference might not be discernible across time-of-day effects.

 

Chap its time to step back and take a break, you seem to be lost in this convo.

You are saying you would be okay with a race where one car can be at higher elevation and different time of day and wind, weather patern and the other car can be at lower elevation with different time of day and wind, weather pantern...

Long as you have a person you can trust to report the times of both cars in different locations?

How would that even be fair?

Because you have an escrow and a trusty guy taking the times?

Not very scientific of you not to think about all the variables with location, elevation, wind, weather and temperatures.

You surprise me sometimes considering you act all know it all n stuff...

I think you trust too many people and rely on too much tech and programs and lost your logic with reality.

 

People whose job is to know "how science actually works" (as V Sport set about to 'sp᠎lain) contend with complications like that all the time, because they are responsible for getting a reliable answer to a testable question within a budget.

Sometimes it's not in the budget to do the experiment where everything happens at once under the same conditions. Sometimes that's not even possible for the question that needs to be answered.

When that happens, no one imagines the scientists "not to think about all the variables". Far from it; they think about them, measure them, and quantify their effects. They look at whether a proposed experiment will give a discernible answer with those effects taken into account. If it won't, they go back to the drawing board and design one that will.

Part of that design involves knowing the size of the effect you're looking for. If you are racing a Ferrari against a go-kart, you can probably answer the question without figuring wind speed to five decimal places.

If you are racing two identically-matched cars and trying to look for some small effect, say of a red-anodized oil valve, you will need to take other variables into effect very, very carefully, and likely have someone you're paying to do data entry and run ANOVAs for you.

Something like answering whether a souped-up v 1.8 wagon is or isn't faster than a c 1.5 subcompact is gonna fall somewhere between those extremes. Chances are if you've got the elevation and winds anywhere in the same ballpark, you're gonna get a definitive answer.

A person who can start with a realistic assessment of the size of the effect of interest and the sizes of other variable effects is a person who can design a credible experiment.

By contrast, sometimes you'll see a person simultaneously say "arrrh! $10k says this car leaves that one in the dust!" and also "but gee, you might not be able to tell the difference without perfectly matching the time of day."

That person might be serious about something, but not about getting a testable question answered.

 

You have it wrong, the world doesn't do Science the chapman prius chat armchair scientist way. Apparently you know nothing about how motor sports work, at all. Making a bet on a race, calling any takers is how we did it since the first automobiles raced back in the moonshine days. Just step back in your basement and get back to reading that old Toyota manual and let people enjoy life and racing in person for the sake of the sport and real Science will present itself when I cross the finish line faster than the other guy. At the end of day, that's what determines who is taking home the $10k or going home a loser..

 

Apples and bananas. If you want to talk about how motor sports betting historically works, have at. You're more interested in that than I am. If you want to start confusing that with how science works, well nobody can stop you, it's just good that the people doing actual science (including in the labs that design the cars you like to bet on) know better. That's why the cars work.

 

You're confusing betting on motorsports and actually having a race. We'd be doing both, but you're glossing over the facts. Science is not on your side on this one.

 

Science would describe a race as an experiment design inferring a speed difference between two test subjects from a single unrepeated trial, with other variables roughly controlled by holding it at one place and one time but otherwise unquantified, and calling that good enough.

Nothing stops a person designing an experiment that way, and when there's nothing on the line besides $10k and comparative dick sizes it probably is good enough, and that's fine.

Most important results in science, and most of the things we depend on day to day that needed science in their design, came from experiments designed and conducted more carefully than that.

 

White car wins, Red car loses. End of story. Nothing needs to be quantified but the result. That's racing..You simply don't understand much.

You were clearly neglected as a young adult and didn't get out much.

We're talking about a 1/4 mile drag race here, not rocket science. Win/Lose...Done. Easy.

 

And now, the ignore button. Ahhh...

 

Sure, just remember that means you know which car was the winner of one race, under whatever conditions those were that nobody quantified. Which is just fine; as you say, that's racing. Science is different because it often needs to do better than that.

No reason anybody who wants to drag race, and has fun with it, should have to do anything different. It's fun, and at the end you know which car won that race.

Now suppose you're a bookie and you need to set odds for which car will win a race that hasn't happened yet. You can do that any way you want; you can just go by which car won a past one if you like. You'll probably do ok. But if you're not using science you'll have a less prosperous bookie career than one who does.

You presumed back in post #38 to 'sp᠎lain to PriusChat readers "how science actually works". Now, "that's not how racing works" would have been fine, but you mixed up racing and science. Science very often needs to answer questions that have a lot more riding on them, or plain can't be answered with an approach that simple, and the way science actually works is able to answer those kinds of questions. It can even answer simple ones too, and there can be times when that's handy.

For example, science can answer "which car is faster?" questions, in more ways than just the one way drag racers know. If somebody needs to answer that question when the two cars aren't in the same place, science can do that. If somebody needs to infer how likely one car is to win a future race, science can do that.

That's what makes science cool: a more complete, more general, more precise toolbox for answering more kinds of testable questions than just whatever specific simpler practices, like drag racing, people might already know.

That doesn't mean anybody has to stop having fun with practices they know. They can be totally adequate for that. And the more general toolbox remains usable too, for both the simple cases and other harder ones.

Per #54, I'm not really expecting V Sport to read this post, but that's ok, as other folks see PriusChat threads too, and nobody needs to be taking away goofy nonsense about "how science actually works".