autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Winning and Not being the Fastest

To: Craig Naylor <magazine@pacbell.net>, autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Winning and Not being the Fastest
From: Sam & Greg Scharnberg <samandgreg@netins.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:09:42 -0500
Okay Craig,

For example at a two day event with NO DSQs:
(very simple example so even CP can understand;-)

Car A clocks a 45 the first day
Car B clocks a 50 the first day
Car C clocks a 55 the first day
Car D clocks a 60 the first day

The second Day:
Car A clocks a 60
Car B clocks a 50
Car C clocks a 50
Car D clocks a 45

Totals for the 2 days
Car A = 105
Car B=100
Car C=105
Car D=105

Who is the winner?  Car B according to my math!  Also, Car B was NOT the 
fastest either day.  Car A was the fastest the first day, Car D was the 
fastest the second day, and Car B was consistent.

Grandma Sam (I did not even need a calculator to figure the outcome:-)

PS:  CP will have problems with the calculations because they will run out 
of fingers and toes;-))

At 10:38 AM 8/15/2006 -0700, Craig Naylor wrote:
>Grandma Sam..... how exactly does the "second place or lower win", by 
>definition second place is um... second place.  Now if your inferring 1st 
>was DSQ'ed or something than second place become first place... hence 1st 
>place is still the winner, not the new second place.  If your saying that 
>the second place person on the first day moves up to first on the second 
>day.... well then they are now the fastest.... so fastest does win.
>
>Craig




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Winning and Not being the Fastest, Sam & Greg Scharnberg <=