I'd tend to agree with Jay here. Looking at the performance of the
folks who trophy at Topeka, who are the statistical outliers of Solo
II _drivers_, is IMHO a less than reliable gauge of the potential of
the _cars_. If you got a population of drivers big enough to draw
statistical inferences from, and could figure out how to correct for
weather, course design, etc. then you might be able to conclude
something. But anyone willing to crunch those numbers is a better man
than I am (and I'm including the ladies in that statement! :)
I don't mean to distract from Mari's point about older cars still
being competitive, which I agree with. It's just that it illustrates
another point, that a lot of the static about which cars belong in
which classes based on the Topeka trophies is just that, static.
Cheers,
Craig Blome
'72, '85, and '96 cars, '69 driver (still getting used to bein' 30...
:-P )
---Jay Mitchell <jemitchell@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> I'd claim further that your statistics establish the choices of
> the trophy winners, not whether a "newer" car is really necessary
> in order to be competitive. It's possible that older cars than
> early '90s can still be competitive in Stock, but that the best
> drivers have simply chosen to compete in newer ones.
>
|