| Pengarang |
Topik: Testing: Research Priorities |
17 balasan
|
|
|
|
#1 dikirim Jul 14 2020, 01:31:58
|
Sebut
|
|
I would like to suggest the addition of three research priorities for testing that focuses on two characteristics in equal proportion (thus creating a single anti-priority).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 dikirim Jul 14 2020, 01:45:42
|
Sebut
|
That's easy to achieve with current priorities, you can run 50/25+25 laps with a priority that has a strong focus on 1 character and then do the same with a different priority.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Florencia Caro @ July 14th 2020,01:45:42 ) That's easy to achieve with current priorities, you can run 50/25+25 laps with a priority that has a strong focus on 1 character and then do the same with a different priority.
I'm not sure I'm following you.
With even number stints of course it's fine and when that's 50+50 it's great even, but often we need to test 3 stints to make up 100 laps and I don't see how to make that work in equal proportions on two parts without adding excessive wear to the part that you'd like to keep low?
Using 4 stints has other drawbacks.
Perhaps I'm looking for too much precision but it feels like three of the current options have become redundant with somewhat recent changes and could perhaps use perking up in the proposed manner?
Edit: Removed some potential FOBY stuff.
|
|
|
|
Test sessions with even stint counts can already be balanced that way.
Uneven ones as well, but that may require varying in lapcounts.
Tickles my OCDs a bit as well, that we can't 100% balance it that way with every lapcount imaginable, but i think you can always get pretty close.
More options may also increase the learning curve for newcomers, which wouldn't be very desirable i guess ;)
Edit: do agree that three of the somehwat redundant options we have now could be replaced with what Wouter's suggesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 dikirim Jul 14 2020, 02:46:59
|
Sebut
|
Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ July 14th 2020,02:04:24 ) Edit: do agree that three of the somehwat redundant options we have now could be replaced with what Wouter's suggesting.
This was my thinking. Rather than add more, I would say I prefer this suggestion to three priorities that we already have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 dikirim Jul 14 2020, 09:48:39
|
Sebut
|
There's a quite simple way to balance two priorities equaly amongst three stints. Not exactly but pretty much equal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 dikirim Jul 14 2020, 12:10:39
|
Sebut
|
Quote ( Wouter Kirstein @ July 14th 2020,01:59:20 ) With even number stints of course it's fine and when that's 50+50 it's great even, but often we need to test 3 stints to make up 100 laps and I don't see how to make that work in equal proportions on two parts without adding excessive wear to the part that you'd like to keep low?
Well then... maybe you have to make choices...
Could it be that management is about making choices and maybe there shouldn't be an easy optimal way just like happens to suite you but instead a choice between options.
Quote ( Wouter Kirstein @ July 14th 2020,01:59:20 ) Perhaps I'm looking for too much precision but it feels like three of the current options have become redundant with somewhat recent changes and could perhaps use perking up in the proposed manner?
Or maybe the somewhat recent changes have actually brought the current options to life. (made them better)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 dikirim Jul 14 2020, 13:07:33 (terakhir disunting Jul 14 2020, 13:08:13 oleh Andy Dowson)
|
Sebut
|
Quote ( Wouter Kirstein @ July 14th 2020,01:59:20 ) Quote ( Florencia Caro @ July 14th 2020,01:45:42
Perhaps I'm looking for too much precision
@Wouter Kirstein (M2) AKA Mr Decimal looking for more precision, surely not :-). Sorry Wouter couldn't resist.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Mikko Heikkinen @ July 14th 2020,12:10:39 ) Or maybe the somewhat recent changes have actually brought the current options to life. (made them better)
Oh come on Mikko, you know damn well those three testing priorities were hardly useful. And you're likely also well aware that their usefulness hasn't particularly increased since the 'recent changes' you mention :D
Have you used them more since those changes? Has anyone in your team?
Both rhetorical btw, foby and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ July 14th 2020,13:37:06 ) Oh come on Mikko, you know damn well those three testing priorities were hardly useful
And you know that there's a difference between "hardly useful" and "never useful at all".
Also, it's not always about maximized "usefulness", there are also other factors to consider.
Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ July 14th 2020,13:37:06 ) And you're likely also well aware that their usefulness hasn't particularly increased since the 'recent changes' you mention :D
The level of "usefulness" is one thing, and up to the manager in question, as the point I was trying to make (maybe failed there) was that it's a choice for the manager to make, of which the following is one example:
Quote ( Wouter Kirstein @ July 14th 2020,01:59:20 ) often we need to test 3 stints to make up 100 laps and I don't see how to make that work in equal proportions
One could also choose to test only 99 laps if "equality" is an issue
Quote ( Wouter Kirstein @ July 14th 2020,01:59:20 ) [Using 4 stints has other drawbacks
That is also a choice.
Ofcourse the priorities could be crafted in a way that would perfectly fit the wishes of "manager X", but would it be better to the "big picture" or is it better that it's up to the manager to find the balance to fit his/her goals.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Mikko Heikkinen @ July 14th 2020,12:10:39 ) Quote ( Wouter Kirstein @ July 14th 2020,01:59:20 )
With even number stints of course it's fine and when that's 50+50 it's great even, but often we need to test 3 stints to make up 100 laps and I don't see how to make that work in equal proportions on two parts without adding excessive wear to the part that you'd like to keep low?
Well then... maybe you have to make choices...
Could it be that management is about making choices and maybe there shouldn't be an easy optimal way just like happens to suite you but instead a choice between options.
Quote ( Wouter Kirstein @ July 14th 2020,01:59:20 )
Perhaps I'm looking for too much precision but it feels like three of the current options have become redundant with somewhat recent changes and could perhaps use perking up in the proposed manner?
Or maybe the somewhat recent changes have actually brought the current options to life. (made them better)
lol this guy cracks me up with his lectures. I am richer for your passive aggression and sarcasm oh great one, what would we ever do without your perception of superiority? :D
Quote ( Andy Dowson @ July 14th 2020,13:07:33 ) Quote ( Wouter Kirstein @ July 14th 2020,01:59:20 )
Quote ( Florencia Caro @ July 14th 2020,01:45:42
Perhaps I'm looking for too much precision
@Wouter Kirstein (M2) AKA Mr Decimal looking for more precision, surely not :-). Sorry Wouter couldn't resist.
Heh, you know it Andy! ;)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Wouter Kirstein @ July 14th 2020,14:25:13 ) what would we ever do without your perception of superiority? :D
I can't take credit for your perception :)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Mikko Heikkinen @ July 14th 2020,14:18:51 ) Ofcourse the priorities could be crafted in a way that would perfectly fit the wishes of "manager X", but would it be better to the "big picture" or is it better that it's up to the manager to find the balance to fit his/her goals.
Exactly Mikko. We wouldn't want to make changes just because Wouter wants them. So with that bigass pretty ol' picture you mention in mind, and considering the recent PHA changes...
Would it be better to have a choice of:
- three single character focused testing priorities
- three half arsed single character focused testing priorities
Or:
- three single character focused prios
- three dual character focused prios
Hmmm, toughie.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ July 14th 2020,14:42:59 ) We wouldn't want to make changes just because Wouter wants them.
Just to be clear, by "manager X" I wasn't referring to Wouter, but instead any given manager or managers of "some group" (not reference to gpro group/level) but as people in general.
Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ July 14th 2020,14:42:59 ) Hmmm, toughie.
In my view not so much, because the same goals can be achieved by both methods, the difference is that the "or" way would require less mixing and matching, as in less planning and less choices, which translates as easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, anyone playing GPRO can add, subtract, divide and multiply... it wouldn't make things any easier. What it would do is make the set of research priorities much more concise: you can focus on any combination of one, two or three characters.
|
|
|
|
For this season at least, it's possible to run two sessions of 50 laps on certain tires.
It was minor part of the consideration that went into my tire choice.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ July 14th 2020,14:59:00 ) you can focus on any combination of one, two or three characters.
which one can already do with some planning
as you said:
Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ July 14th 2020,02:04:24 ) Test sessions with even stint counts can already be balanced that way.
Uneven ones as well, but that may require varying in lapcounts.
:)
|
|
|
|
This is a big and difficult science.
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Dansk
Pirate
