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

Let's get rid of racing altogether, it's a crazy right wing sport and too many people actually having fun and showing real results of fast cars head to head. You should get your head checked.

 

That's the beautiful thing about numbers though. You can go right ahead and find out if a car in California is faster or slower than a car in Louisiana without having to get the CA car to LA or the LA car to CA. It's like magic.

 

That's not how science actually works. The conditions in person need to be the same (altitude, weather, time of day) also witnesses recording to make sure there is no manipulation of sorts with numbers, a mediator to open the hoods and inspect and identify all power adders. This is how real racing is done, not the keyboard cowboy way.

 

When I win, I will treat you a meal and a handshake like 2 gentlemen doing gentleman things always did in the past.

 

Science actually works very much like that. Even in the simple case of the two cars on the same track at the same time, a scientist would pay attention to the size of the time difference. If one car absolutely smoked the other, one run would be enough. If the margin were narrower, the scientist would call for additional runs to see if the same car won every time, or how many times for each, before drawing a conclusion. How to decide how many runs, based on how wide the differences are, to draw an x% confident conclusion, is part of the math a scientist learns in school.

The more complex case where the runs can't be simultaneous and the conditions can't all be identical, is very much the way a lot of science has to be done. It means you have to list out all the conditions (altitude, weather, time of day, etc.) you can think of mattering, and you make sure each car does a certain number of runs with those conditions being varied. The results you get, you crank into an analysis of variance (ANOVA)—more math a scientist learns in school—and find out about how much of the difference in results to credit to each contributing factor.

From there, you can make the same kind of judgment as in the first case. If the result difference according to which car is way bigger than the differences any of the other factors make, you're pretty much done. If the difference isn't that stark, you collect more data.

Experiment-design courses cover how to do all that, and when you do it right, you get results much more dependable than any single unrepeatable trial. And that's why that's how science actually works.

While the experiment-design part covers how to get dependable results when people are honest, the rest of these matters are all about making sure people aren't dishonest. And sure, that's important too. There really are online betting escrow services where you can write your bet and put up your money, and the service will mediate who gets the disbursement. For sure, anybody with sense using one of those services would be careful to write those kinds of conditions into the bet.

 

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.