>>I cannot imagine how you'd get 99% usage on two runs that
>>are 2+ seconds apart.
>
>I use GEEZ, and I understand it perfectly. 99% usage means you used 99% of
>the cars peak usage value. The systems is all relative on the peaks it saw.
Yeah, but the average driver tends to not just use X% of the car all
the time. It isn't hard to find a car's limits (and go right over
them.) I think it is pretty rare that you'll see someone (who is going
for a fast time and not just trying to generate good GEEZ numbers)
consistently hold the car at X% of it's capabilities.
With regards to the original "same ratings, but runs were 2 seconds
apart" message, here is the original text:
I recorded two runs with just about identical stats. On the
only instrument that matters (the event timer), one was good
enough for #2 PAX and the class win, while the other one was
2 seconds slower and would have been out of the class trophies.
Yup, same score.
Nothing was mentioned about rain, and note the "identical stats" part.
You'll not generate "identical" stats with one run in the rain and the
other in the dry. (Again not if you are going for time ;) So, I'll
still argue that it is very, very unlikely that GEEZ will give you the
same rating on two different runs that are 2 seconds apart (run in the
same conditions). At least I've not seen in in 100's of runs with
GEEZ.
Anyway back to the thread at hand, I agree that GEEZ would not be a good
tool for rating different drivers in different cars. As you mentioned
we could normalize the cars against some standard, but that is the
function of the timing clocks :)
Todd
|