You had to "bow out" of the other thread where you were peddling this incorrect information and now you post it here? It was carefully explained to you by multiple individuals and by several methods that these tests were irrelevant and the "results" meaningless. Dd you not understand the technical reasons why they are not?
You also need to stop the nonsense that there are "no tests" that back up opinions rather than PF or Rat, you also keep making that incorrect statement when it has been explained that there are tests that indicate oil quality that have actual statistical and procedural validity. Yet you persist in being unable or unwilling to understand that either. Please stop deceiving people with this error.
I don't think I read the other comment but I think that's a bit unkind.
It's not exactly what he just posted.
He said "Personally real tests from Project Farm or Rat carry more weight then opinions with no tests, we ourselves determine if the test is valid enough for us, just as we ourselves determine if ones opinion is valid."
That they carry more weight with him and we are free to accept or reject them isn't really a radical position. Also the fact that opinions with no test data to back it may or may not be valid didn't seem that radical.
I often find certain test data (ie viscosity loss) more distressing than others and some less destressing (NOACK) than others. That doesn't mean I'm right and others are wrong. We just have different priorities. To be honest I haven't looked into Ray's test to see how well it correlates to a Solid Lifter Racing Cam. The last solid I had was 30 years ago (0.636/0.636 310/320 270/280) and it lived just fine on 20W-50 VR1.
I find Project Farm entertaining if not technically informative. I don't feel like I lost as much IQ after watching it as the Kardashians.