Peter said,
(and Paul replies)
-----Original Message-----
From: Thana, Peter {HTS~Palo Alto} [mailto:PETER.THANA@ROCHE.COM]
Hey Paul,
If you're going to overanalyze the results, at least do it right,
okay?:):):)
Wasn't it Coolidge who said there are liars, damned liars, and overanalyzers
who look at the data differently that you do? :)
-Saturday has to be thrown out. Third runs for heat 2 were *way* wetter
than heat 1.
Well, OK, but wet is different than dry. Way wetter is a smaller increment. I
hear what you're saying though.
Remember STSL doesn't run in the same group as open, so
Katie ran in the afternoon when it was completely dry, except it
probably rained on the last run which makes that totally invalid too.
Oh yeah, forgot that STSL was a different group. But if you just take 3
seconds off of the Saturday times to account roughly for the rain (no, I didn't
run a statistical check on that number) then Katie still whups me, but STS ends
up right near D-Stock and our indexed times move up to roughly where they fall
on SFR events. I'm not saying of course that it's apples to apples, just
comparing in general terms.
-Bret Norgaard ran STX in the McCormick/Elder Civic. That's right, THE
SAME CAR.
Yes, and David Avard ran _his_ STS car in STX, followed by in our group Will
Kalman running "the same car". Will smoked the class by 3/4 second, though it
was a result of his huge margin in the rain, his Sunday time was actually beat
by Kevin and Mark (and Bret) by that margin or more. I'm guessing that these
shenanigans were to keep these Falken-shod cars from having two drivers in one
heat, so as to keep the tires cool.
An amusing point, Charlie "Mr. Tire Temp" Davis looked at the McCormick/Elder
Civic after Saturday's first group and found that its tires immediately after
its run were _cooler_ than the tires of his car which had just been sitting
still for some time! Rain cooling!
-Kevin didn't look too happy with his runs on Saturday, but notice on
Sunday he was *faster* than Ralph in the dry.
I hadn't gotten around to overanalyzing this part, well done.
Now all this is still assuming that both Ralph's M3 and Kevin's Civic
are really maxed out (which they probably aren't, yet) and driven to the
limit. Also doesn't take course dependency into account.
Getting dizzy...must...stop...analyzing....
So who asked that question anyway?
Well, I hope he doesn't mind, it was Ed. But he was merely voicing thoughts
that more than one of us have had, when looking over STX and STS who are
normally running together in SFR.
The bottom line is when you have a
class with a certain set of rules, and then you add an allowance for
bigger tires, LSDs, and cars with hairdryers, you really should get a
faster class. Part of the reason the low hp, speed maintenance cars
like the Civic are in vogue in STS is the tire width limit plus street
tires puts a big penalty on heavy cars. Open diffs take away much of
the advantage of powerful cars.
Now even ignoring all the wonderful car choice possibilities that 245
tires and LSDs open up, can you really say that same Civic with a Quaife
and more theoretical tire (actual available 245s wouldn't fit a civic so
great) wouldn't be faster? This is why you can't base classing on local
results. At a Tour you begin to get a better picture. The most
committed drivers tend to flock to these events from a broader
geographical area. This means a deeper pool of talent and cars set up
closer to the limit of the rules. But for all the reasons already
mentioned (weather, cars not yet ready for nationals) one Tour isn't
good enough either.
OK, a point has been made, and well done. Sure, if I were to go STX to a LSD
and 245's I would have to figure that my car, even without forced induction,
would get a little faster.
Car classing and indexing should be based on a lot of factors, and a lot
of results considered by people with lots of experience in the sport at
all levels. And even then, you can't make everyone happy because you
just can't make everyone happy!
Great quote, that. I may save it for future use! :D
I realize this is all basically what you are saying, so please don't
take this as an argument.
:)Peter
In the words of Monty Python, this isn't an argument, this is abuse! :)
Thanks for your insights.
PaulT
|