--- John Kelly <76067.1750@compuserve.com> wrote:
> IMHO, there is NEVER enough data upon which to base a PAX number! The
> differences in course design between what we see here and the other regions
> is significant. Only the Topeka courses are similar to ours.
>
I think you are wrong to say that our courses are similar to Topeka, while
other Regions are not. In fact, one complaint I have had is that ours
(generally) are not enough like Topeka to be good preparation. Of course
(NPI), that is my complaint because I do go to Topeka as well as other National
events. Those who don't go could probably care less.
I will agree that you can never have enough data to make a perfect PAX number.
There are just too many variables involved in course design, course condition,
driver, car preparation, etc.
> Yep! I find certain aspects of the PAX class to be unacceptable. Thus I run
> in my "normal" class even though the handicap is considerable. I do not
> trust anybody who tells me the way to win is to filter the scores through a
> magic black box.
> The PAX concept was invented by Jim McKamey as a device to stage
> Professional Autocross events (PAX being Pro auto-X). It is Dave Beck's
> intention that PAX be used as an informational tool, not as the basis for
> class competition.
> I prefer heads-up competition.
In your specific case competing with PAX is very tough. AP's PAX is based on
what the fastest cars/drivers in the class can do. The fact that your car is
not the fastest one for the class is a result of SCCA classing decisions and
your personal choice. Were I to compete in say, a 1.6 Miata in CS, I wouldn't
expect to do that well on PAX no matter how well I drove because it isn't the
fastest car for the class.
-Andy
|