his sole objection as to its worth was that it was impossible to measure in any way of consistence.
That is correct. My sole objection is that since apparently this effect is too small to measure whether or not it exists at all, let alone even which way the spark plug should be oriented, it is a matter of belief. However, like all such beliefs, there is no way to argue with someone who insists on holding it. I am sure there are people who genuinely believe a rabbit's foot will make them faster. I'm equally sure there is nothing I could say to affect such a belief.
While arguing with someone convinced of their beliefs is pointless, there are many people who might not have thought about the problem and simply accepted those beliefs as facts. The reason it is worthwhile to discuss things like this isn't to change the mind of true believers, it is to help the latter question whether or not something they had previously accepted was founded on something real, or was only a belief that had been repeated enough times that it had been incorrectly assumed to be fact.
Those people that think out of the box, thought it may be possible to improve the aerodynamics of a Golf Ball. It was found that hexagon shaped dimples provide a more aerodynamic surface and the golf would travel a few feet further
The issue of spark plug indexing has nothing to do with thinking out of the box. With golf balls, the effect on the aerodynamics is quite measurable. That they travel farther is a real, measurable effect, not a belief.
if the advantage is slight, and the nitpicker is not a peer in the pursuit of minute gains , he may nitpick and poopoo , refer to it as voodoo
As I've said several times before, if there actually were a 1% improvement that gain definitely would be worthwhile. In no way am I arguing against pursuing minute gains. However, if an effect is too small to be detected, and therefore it only exists as a belief, it is voodoo, not science.
I believe a more relevant analogy than golf balls is the porting of heads. Prior to the introduction of flow benches practices were developed through trial and error that certainly gave measurable improvements on dynos. Port shapes, polishing, etc. practices were established that became the norm. However, aerodynamics is tricky, and shapes that "look aerodynamic" very often are not. Once flow benches came on the scene some of those porting practices were found to actually
decrease the flow. Although gains had been made before flow benches, it was because one alteration might have given a 10% improvement, while another a 5% loss. So, while overall there was a gain it wasn't as large as it could be.
The point is, especially when working at the margins to try to pick up minute gains, only if you can measure something can you hope to make systematic improvements. Otherwise, you're operating at a huge handicap compared to someone else who bases their modifications on science, not belief.
