Whether the PAX numbers themselves are absurd or not, doesn't really matter. I
think the point should be whether a class offers good competition and lots of
participation. If one class is faster than another due to course dependencies,
who cares? Basing a class "just on performance" can be a real trick.
For instance, I remember when Kevin McCormick used to run his (then BS) Miata
just as fast as the local Corvette SS group (which also included some top notch
drivers). Does that mean the Miata should have been classed the same as the
Corvette? Hopefully I don't have to actually answer that question.
When looking at any classing restructure/proposal, I would hope your looking at
it with the club's interest in mind. Which cars in which class will promote
participation amongst our members? Can you do that with a diverse mix of cars
in the same class? If you can get great participation with alot of potential
winner cars, kudos to you. That's not always realistic or possible.
In response to below, I'd argue your premise on the AS/BS PAX differences. I
really don't see how there was good data for the AS PAX since there were few C4
drivers competing until this year. And *that's* assuming that you think the
PAX numbers are good when there is alot of data.;-)
-Andy M.
--- Jeff Winchell <Jeff@Winchell.Com> wrote:
> Having two classes (AS and BS) with a PAX .001 difference (for the sake of
> the argument, I'm going to assume that these were reasonable PAX numbers to
> use) seems absurd. Then there's a big jump in PAX from BS to CS and a big
> jump from AS to SS. Since SS, AS, BS, and CS are ALL RWD sports cars
> (except for the unproven tuner ponycars), I doubt there's a great reason to
> split up cars by how different they look. Just use performance.
>
> Assuming that premise is correct (I'd definitely entertain contrasting
> opinions)... then it seems to me like the dominating BS cars (S2000 and
> Boxster) need to move up to AS so that what's left in BS will lower it's
> PAX to something more like .820. Then hopefully we'd have something like
> these PAX values amongs the RWD sports cars:
>
> SS .836
> AS .828
> BS .820
> CS .812
> ES .802
>
> The RX-7TT dominated the C4's when they were both in SS, so moving the
> RX-7TT IMHO would violate the SAC's intent. I think the Boxster S has shown
> enough competitiveness to compete heads up with the Z06 so I wouldn't buy
> moving it down. OTOH, if Bob Tunnell can't make a stock car do well (E46
> M3), I don't know who could. That car should be in AS.
>
> So I guess I'm in favor of part of Concept #1, and part of Concept #2 in
> the Fastrack.
>
>
> At 02:19 PM 4/27/2002 -0500, Andy Hollis wrote:
> >http://www.scca.org/news/fastrack/02-06.pdf
> >
> >Please send feedback regarding these proposals in either e-mail or letter
> >form to seb@scca.org
> >
> >Let the debate begin... ;-)
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
/// 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
|