> Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 09:50:20 EDT
> From: Smokerbros@aol.com
> Subject: Re: ba-autox-digest V1 #1908
>
> Joe-
> The problem that I see starts with the PAX numbers being imperfect to start
> with.
I agree that PAX is imperfect, as are the basic SCCA Solo car classing
specs. Both are imperfect and guesses. Therefore, the application of a
street-vs-R-compound factor would be following precedent.
> The second problem is that the cars that run in T1 or T2 are typically not
> prepared to the limit of the rules. Look at any class where there are
> Nationally serious drivers that have prepped their cars to the rules, say
>Chris and
> Pilar's SS GT3. Do we have any SS cars prepped to the limits, but on street
> tires, running in T1? No. So, an index that makes that SS car somewhere
> close to equal would really be a tire index, plus a "lack of preparation"
>index.
> How much is tires, how much is lack of preparation?
This argument is irrelevant in the same way as the first it, because it applies
equally to the comparison of any local scores/cars to any national classes or
the application of PAX. However, as posited, that would militate *more* for
adjusting the PAX factor of the T classes. I know my car could lose 300 lbs,
including 40 lbs of unsprung rotating weight if I did all the SP spec
says I can.
> The third problem is how do you factor in driving skill? there are no KNOWN
> Nationally competitive drivers running in T1 or T2. So, how much of the
> defeceit is driving skill? Let's say there's a 5% difference in times. If
>it's
> 2% driver, 2% preparation, and 1% tires, will anyone be happy if we give a
> 1% multiplier to the T1 and T2 times? I certainly don't think it's fair to
> give them all 5%, so that their lack of preparation and driving skill can
>make
> them look like they are competitive...
As above. All application of class or PAX ignores skill. The intent is
to isolate
and expose skill by not considering it, and by considering/compensating for
everything else we can.
> Any "algorithm" you apply is a guess, unless you have actual data to use to
> compare. Without a bunch of consistently fast drivers competing in the exact
> same cars on perfectly designed courses, but with the perfect R tire vs. the
> perfect "Street" tire, you are guessing.
Yes, and Jerry suggests a plausible definition. It would seem to me that
among the many guesses we accept in the current PAX and class structure,
(eg: does this front-engined AWD car with XYZ hp equate overall to this RWD
mid-engined car with ABC hp so we class them in the same stock classs?)
the assumption that there is a significant, objective, and universally non-zero
difference between street tires and R-compound tires, which is the sole basis
for the very existence of the T classes, is among the most solid. To the extent
that we persist in publishing a per-event PAX ordering, it seems logical that
we would try to apply some consideration, statistical pursuit and application
of a best-guess conservative factor to account for the tire difference in the
*very successful and popular* classes that have their very basis in
that difference.
I can't think that anyone would argue that the T class PAX listings are closer
to valid now than they'd be if adjusted up by .001%. So now, just like
the million-dollars-for-sex joke, we all know what our job is, from
here it's just about
bargaining. ;)
Joe
|