Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1s
Doesn't seem like they want to include CSF in the testing or planning. They went ahead without talking to them so each agreed on the process. I wouldn't if I was CSF. Was a dick move showing VSRF rather hurt reputations than do things together. And not agreeing on the process beforehand just leaves it open for disagreements in unfair testing, which invalidates everything.
|
Maybe they were worried or knew their thick race cores may drop IAT's but sacrifice so much airflow to the radiator it was unsuitable for long track use, hence they only wanted to do iat tests. Maybe on the track the CSF intercooler with it's tube design was able to shed heat quicker after slow low air flow turns which cause heat soak, and the vrsf couldn't idk.
But it would beneficial to test both coolers under the widest range of circumstances now while testers are available to do so, than do one test and claim one product is better in all circumstances due to one variable and have that circulate on the forum forever.
I don't even understand why doing different tests would be more expensive, like does it cost more to do additional pulls? I understand track testing would cost money and repetive Dyno pulls would as well but that's what vendor collab would be for right? (Plus did the wager include something about same power level but lower temps? So wouldn't a Dyno be required anyways? So one pull on the street + logs wouldn't satisfy it right?)