> -----Original Message-----
> 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.
The things that make all of this seem so haphazard are that the committees
must make determinations on new cars and new versions of existing cars with
little to no data. Additionally, the membership can be harsh when trying to
undo inadvertent situations of underclassing a car due to its demonstrated
performance being better than the sum of its parts on paper. And rightly
so, because members that take advantage of that temporary situation have a
vested financial and resource stake in it. And we must serve the membership
at the end of the day. Not some theoretical perfect world.
Add to that the fact that even after years of demonstrated performance the
data is still skewed by varying driver performances, varying course types,
weather conditions, prep levels, equipment availability (tires) etc. A
statistician would give our data something like a 1% level of confidence.
Yet, we all use it to argue classing and the SAC has to use it to guide
their thinking.
> 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.)
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.
> 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. I could blather on
about it, but then we'd just have a big debate on whether it was "right" or
not. So, I'll pass for now. Feel free to discuss with your own SEB/SAC
representative.
> 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. 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
/// 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
|