[Lynn A McCarty]

There are rules of engagement that must be followed when doing statistical evaluations. Some are assumptions. Some assumptions are statistically significant, some are not. This is why no system is perfect.

However, you cannot have a valid system that is not mathematically accurate. If NASA did it the AHFS way, they would have missed the moon entirely. It is only the manual joy stick that keeps in on track. (The good people adding some sense to it)

One thing that is perfectly clear, you must correct to sea level or some other standard. Yes there would be some inaccuracies, but a 10.00 run at 5000 feet is not the same as a 9.80 run at sea level. Most racers have the software in their trailers to calculate all of this. It isnt that hard to do.

Yes if a set of numbers are found to be inaccurate, then you gotta throw them out. The statistical method of standard deviation can be found on any Excel Spread Sheet or any high school science book. It is the only right way to do things. It separates the individual outstanding performances from bogus HP and bogus parts acquisition.

Even doing it the right way is difficult, can you imagine the mistakes doing it the wrong way? I would say an engine family that averages 1.15(without sandbagging) under to an engine family that averages 0.7 is an egregious difference. If we have a AHFS, then how does this condition currently exist if it is working?

My guess to equalize these two would be about 70HP?(assuming 15HP a tenth?) How many 3-4HP adders would we do? How long would it take? I assure you there are many engines that fit this category and worse.

Lynn