Per this year's Nationals, you only have a 9 second spread from SS to HS. Make
that 4.5 for a single event. That's an average half-second differential per
class. There's no reasonable way to accommodate cars that are significantly
slower than HS without increasing the number of classes (by a LOT,
percentagewise), or making more cars uncompetitive throughout the class
structure by increasing the differential spread. That's just the way it is.
KeS
> I still think that you can come up with a reasonable ladder that will
> promote or demote cars as new models come out. If nobody shows up in a
> particular model, it probably should move down the ladder if future cars
> are significantly faster than previous generations as has been the case
> recently or if the car was too conservatively classed initially. The
> underdog cars would slide down the ladder as less and less people ran
> them until they became overdogs. Then the cycle would start again. I am
> not saying that the top echelon people would like it too much, but they
> usually don't when a revolutionary change is proposed.
>
> But you do have a valid point. This is a sports car club and not that
> many Taurus owners are going to show up in Topeka no matter the size of
> the trophy or contingency. However, ten classes is a lot of classes.
> Even if you use a technique where it was weighted towards the top you
> should be able to give a heck of a lot of people a better chance than
> they currently have.
>
> I also think that faster courses are skewing things again - the Solo II
> classes tend to fall apart because particular cars have a much greater
> advantage.
>
> All IMHO of course,
>
> Paul Foster
>
>
|