On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:02:36 EDT Ghsharp@aol.com writes:
>
> You're going to move cars not just between classes but essentially
> from one
> category to another, thus from one set of preparation rules to
> another?
That could happen, especially for ladies classes.
So
> then you have cars prepared to different sets of rules running in
> the same
> class? Let's see, people complain now that newcomers to the sport
> don't
> understand the current class structure or the preparation
> rules...this will
> help?
The way I would see it is that our classes would be simpler because there
are only 16 versus 34 now. The explanation of car prep categories would
have to be explained, just as we have to now. The class structure would
eventually have 3 columns with cars prepared to separate prep rules
listed in the appropriate class.
For example, Joe Autocrosser buys a stock Miata which would be in, say,
class F. He could look on the list and see which class it would run if he
decides to start modifying the car to Street Prepared specs, say, class
C.
If the SEB wanted they could still have separate lists for each
preparation allowance but simply show the one letter (or whatever) class
each car would run in.
>
>
> I don't understand why ranking the_classes_from fastest to slowest
> is the
> highest priority, except for the fact that it lets you move cars
> from one
> class
> to another based purely on their performance against an arbitrary
> index. The
> SEB attempts to class cars by type whenever possible, primarily to
> minimize
> course dependencies over the variety of sites and courses around the
> country.
That is one of the reasons I ranked the classes the way I did. I'm sure
you noticed that I didn't molest the current classes. Those kinds of
situations DO need to be taken into account. The main reason for ranking
classes from fastest to slowest is so there is some reason to the system.
Now, we have relative times from all over stock and street prepared
classes. Ranking by speed simply allows competitors to see where their
car should be in relationship to other cars in the event. An "A" class
car should be considerably faster than "K" class car.
For the local events bumping becomes a lot easier to figure out, it's
intuitive.
> If your system eventually gets Miatas and Camaros in the same class
> as a
> result of their times at Topeka, for instance, would they still be a
> good
> match
> somewhere else in the country in a postage-stamp parking lot?
Well, that opens up a whole 'nother can o' worms, then. Solo II crowns a
national champion for each class based on one event run in Topeka on
concrete. However, the SEB is classing cars for all different types of
courses around the country? But those cars are STILL classed together for
a relatively open concrete course. HMMMM. I don't want to go there in
this thread, but I think you see the contradiction in there. Your
argument against my classing system itself suggests that the SEB should
base a national championship on other types of courses than found on
concrete in Topeka. But that is another discussion.
>
> The fallacy in using the PAX index for classing cars is that the
> index is
> weighted toward Nationals results and consequently toward a
> particular type
> of course design.
And actually, the PAX factor is based on the WINNING car at Topeka, NOT
on the performance of the whole class. Therein lies the contention that
some cars are not competitive in their class.
>The further you get away from the size, type, and
> relative
> speed of those courses, the less meaningful the index becomes.
Please tell us how much weight the performance of a car with a top level
driver in it has from Topeka results compared to results from other types
of courses. Since, national championships are won and lost at only one
event, I suspect that classing decisions are more heavily weighted toward
Topeka. If so, then there wouldn't be much difference with my system.
>
Ben Thatcher
Apex Benefit Services & Motorsports
Stockbridge, GA
Phone 770.474.1402
FAX 770.474.0938
|