Reply With QuoteThey must have been lost in a warehouse for 10-11 years. (1994 vintage)
http://www.gtechpro.com/prod.html
G-Tech Pro for $26.95 -- Cheap Fun
LInkie.
That's the price of 3 non-matinee movie tickets. Or a new release DVD. Yeah, it's the old model, and God only knows where this guy found a crate of these things, but for a total of $33 shipped, this should be cheap (if questionably-accurate) fun.
S.
They must have been lost in a warehouse for 10-11 years. (1994 vintage)
http://www.gtechpro.com/prod.html
That's just the year they were introduced. They didn't stop selling them in 1994. They've been selling this model quite recently, although it looks like th SS and RR have finally replaced it (the 2001 model was a competition model that sold alongside the basic unit). Besides, how long has Valentine been peddling the V1?
I would never claim that the G-TECH PRO is the classic the V1 is, but I've spent $26.95 on crap that's a whole lot less interesting than this. I don't even really care if it's inaccurate, as long as it is consistently inaccurate in the same way. In other words, if the results are reproducable, then it's useful, because performance mods should influence the numbers, even if the absolute number is wrong.
S.
:POriginally Posted by srivendel
I've got one that's been sitting in my workbench for three years that I'll let you have for $20.
Iain
"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw
That would be called a "high level of precision". Accuracy is a measure of an instrument's ability to produce results that are consistent with a known standard, while precision is a measure of an instrument's ability to reproduce similar results repeatedly. While the two terms are commonly used interchangeably, they do not mean the same thing, at least from a scientific point of view.
You can have an instrument with a high level of accuracy that has horrible precision. You can also have a high level of precision with horrible accuracy. For example, let's say you measure the air pressure of a static vessel at 32psi with two pressure gauges. Gauge #1 give you three readings - one of 28psi, one of 32psi, and one of 36psi. The average of the three readings is 32psi, which is an accurate result. However, gauge #1 offers horrible precision, since it does not produce repeatable readings.
On the other hand, gauge #2 give you three readings, all of which are 37psi. Gauge #2 is inaccurate, but offers a high level of precision. A precise instrument can be used effectively by calibrating it against a known standard (in this example, I know it reads 37psi when measuring 32psi of pressure, so in the future I can reasonably assume that a reading of 37psi corresponds to a real pressure of 32psi). An accurate but imprecise instrument is much harder to make effective observations with.
FWIW, I agree on your assessment that for measurements of change (like the effectiveness of mods), being able to determine an accurate reading isn't as important as being able to produce precise readings. For instance, I've used a crappy little $2 air pressure gauge for years to measure tire pressures. Are the readings it produces accurate - i.e., if it reads 32psi, is there really 32psi in the tires? I don't know, and I don't really care. What does matter to me is that when it reads 32psi, the tire pressure is identical (for practical intents and purposes) to what it was the last time it read 32psi. The repeatability of the readings is more important to me in this instance than the accuracy.
Iain
"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw
What he said. I was having a low blood sugar moment when I wrote that.That would be called a "high level of precision". Accuracy is a measure of an instrument's ability to produce results that are consistent with a known standard, while precision is a measure of an instrument's ability to reproduce similar results repeatedly. While the two terms are commonly used interchangeably, they do not mean the same thing, at least from a scientific point of view.
You can have an instrument with a high level of accuracy that has horrible precision. You can also have a high level of precision with horrible accuracy. For example, let's say you measure the air pressure of a static vessel at 32psi with two pressure gauges. Gauge #1 give you three readings - one of 28psi, one of 32psi, and one of 36psi. The average of the three readings is 32psi, which is an accurate result. However, gauge #1 offers horrible precision, since it does not produce repeatable readings.
On the other hand, gauge #2 give you three readings, all of which are 37psi. Gauge #2 is inaccurate, but offers a high level of precision. A precise instrument can be used effectively by calibrating it against a known standard (in this example, I know it reads 37psi when measuring 32psi of pressure, so in the future I can reasonably assume that a reading of 37psi corresponds to a real pressure of 32psi). An accurate but imprecise instrument is much harder to make effective observations with.
FWIW, I agree on your assessment that for measurements of change (like the effectiveness of mods), being able to determine an accurate reading isn't as important as being able to produce precise readings. For instance, I've used a crappy little $2 air pressure gauge for years to measure tire pressures. Are the readings it produces accurate - I.e., if it reads 32psi, is there really 32psi in the tires? I don't know, and I don't really care. What does matter to me is that when it reads 32psi, the tire pressure is identical (for practical intents and purposes) to what it was the last time it read 32psi. The repeatability of the readings is more important to me in this instance than the accuracy.
I don't care if it's inaccurate so long as it's precise. There.
S.
:P
Got manuals?I've got one that's been sitting in my workbench for three years that I'll let you have for $20.
Nope, but it ain'tt hat hard to figure out.Got manuals?I've got one that's been sitting in my workbench for three years that I'll let you have for $20.
Iain
"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw
But how can he read about it without the manuals!Nope, but it ain'tt hat hard to figure out.Got manuals?I've got one that's been sitting in my workbench for three years that I'll let you have for $20.:P
OK. Don't trust this guy - he thinks he's some shape-shifting wizard from the future:
Iain
"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw
Would you two (POS & altiain) please finish your pissing contest and get back to some good thread drift! :P
AMEN. :P
S.
FOCUS
Where would the fun be in that? :P
I thought we were just joking around. If I'd realized it was a pissing contest, I would have drunk more this afternoon.
Iain
"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw
Yea no ship! Hey Altiain let's try and be more pointy in the future!Where would the fun be in that? :P
I thought we were just joking around. If I'd realized it was a pissing contest, I would have drunk more this afternoon.
Have you loaded the 4.01 software on it? Mine's produced some interesting data during autocross runs - particularly when it's been flown by several pilots in different cars during an event.I have the G-Tech Pro Competition
Fun little toy but that's about it.
A friend used to work for G-Tech and I got a "Christmas Gift" but I wouldn't spend money on it.
Posting Permissions
