----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Hollis" <awhollis@swbell.net>
To: "James Harn" <jamesh220@attbi.com>; "Evolution Discussion"
<evolution-discussions@yahoogroups.com>; <autox@autox.team.net>
> > From: James Harn [mailto:jamesh220@attbi.com]
>
> > There's no logic to car classing as this subject has been discussed in
> > excess. There's no guidleines that govern the placement of cars
> > in classes.
>
> Not true at all. Having been an SAC member twice now in different
decades,
> I can say without a doubt that there are governing principles that are
used
> to help deal with it all. Concepts like Best of Breed, New replaces Old,
> classing similar "ducks" together, etc are all used. Though, the priority
> of each of these has changed over time. These are not in the rulebook
> because they are harder to define than even normal car prep stuff. And we
> all know how bad that can be. But the traditions do exist.
Yes and that's my point. There's no written guidelines or rules concerning
classing which we are bound by. The so called unwritten rulesand concepts
are used as rationale conveniently at the disposal of the committee. The
priority of use is on an as needed basis. You can call it tradition or
whatever but it's still an excuse for a lack of defining rules.
> >
> > > The classing is done by committee and done by opinion. It's all up to
the
> > few instead of by rules.
>
> If you attempt to write rules to class cars by you will end up with an
even
> bigger mess. Those rules would have to be rewritten constantly. But I am
> happy to hear a proposal for such with a clear cut set of definitions that
> meet the core classing values (see rulebook: variety of cars, variety of
> costs, etc.)
The classing rules should be established and rewritten as needed. Afterall,
laws in the US are rewritten everyday. What we need is a starting point and
from there we can amend it to get it better. We already have a rule book,
we simply have to make it more defining for stock classes. If there are
indeed distinct classes as evident by the number of stock classes currently,
someone must be able to identify rational traits that cause the cars to be
in those classes. When a car is classed, there should be documented
rationale by the committee to state why it exists as defined by the rules
established. If there's a mistake, the car can be reclassed. This process
shouln't be set in stone, but rather a continuous evaluation of classing.
If it's done right, car classing should be done annually to reflect the
various changes made. More classes can be added and some can be removed as
needed but the classing process cannot be held stagnant and must be
documented and made public. Personal bias and subjective guessing can be
eliminated by having provisional classing for a new car if it's new and
unproven.
> And its got to be a "few" that make those decisions because you'd never
get
> a concensus otherwise. That's why the SAC/SEB members are supposed to be
> representatives to their respective constituencies. I know I discuss with
> folks in my area and take into consideration their feedback. Same with
> these lists.
Sure, it's like, write your congressman....and about as effective.
> > Unless we can get some defined parameters for
> > each class, car classing is always going to result in creating a
dominant
> > car with the risk of it being moved or relcassed out of
> > competition because
> > of it's dominance. It's always been that way and probably will
> > continue to be.
> This does exist to a fair degree with the committees. Its somewhat fluid,
> but each of the classes does have such a description.
Thanks for agreeing with my point.
> > I for one have given up trying to figure out why cars are classed the
way
> > they are and just look for the dominant car of the day. It's a well
known
> > fact that if you don't have the fastest car in the class, you can't be
> > competitive.
>
> At schools, I used to bring out my tow vehicle (Aerostar minivan) and
> regularly beat up on all the students at our autocross schools. Extreme
> example, sure, but your last statement there is just not true. Unless all
> other things are equal or very close. Sure, at national events where both
> the driving talent and car prep are high and deep, then car selection can
> easily become the determing factor.
My point being illustrated here...
Well yeah Andy, a skilled driver in a Minivan can probably beat times of a
novice, but are you racing a Minivan when you go to Topeka in September?
It's a good illustration of showing my point about the fastest car in class.
It is true that if you don't have a Z06 you can't win SS, etc. My point
being that without the right car for the class, you can't begin to think
that you can actually win given similar conditions against the best prepped
cars and best talent.
But I'm just not buying your statement
> that you cannot be competitive. Was I competitive in my underdog CS Miata
> against the MR2's for two years? Even when it was clearly the slower car?
> Sure, I didn't win all the time, but I *was* competitive.
>
> --Andy
>
That's a good example of cars classed together that are actually competitive
against each other. What other choices of cars were in CS that you chose
not to run? Did anyone even bother to bring out a Porsche 914? Notice that
in the new ES there's really a very small number of cars to choose from.
Have you folks seen the total number of cars that are classed in each class?
There's a lot of cars to choose from in the slower classes, why isn't it
more divided in the realm of the most popular cars?
Why is it that there's an attempt to further subdivide the classes that have
the least number of cars based on smallest performance differences? From
what Andy has stated, the RX-7 TT and Boxster S are not class winning but
are competitive in SS as an example.
Shouldn't the focus of reclassing reside in the areas where there are the
greatest number of cars with the most significant differences in
performance?
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|