Ray wrote:
> If you look at the RTP index and calculate some comparative
times
>between ST and STR [where the tires are the only difference] you
find that
>the fellow who created that particular index, presumably from
some data
>gathered from a number of events, thinks something around 4.5%
is about right.
All this is wonderful for local events, but it will never
accurately even out the differences between street and autox
tires. The actual advantage of sticky rubber is course-, car-,
and driver- dependent. If the handicap's statistical base
comprises relatively handling-intensive courses, then street
tires will have a significant advantage on a course with a higher
percentage of straight sections.
My experience with the comparison is that autox tires are good
for 2-3 seconds on a "typical" 60 second course, but that
experience is all with FWD ES cars. The differences in the case
of other types of cars or courses is not likely to be consistent
with that experience.
Regardless of the index used, there'll always be "losers" who
claim that the index puts them at a disadvantage and "winners"
who think everything is just fine. What you apparently want is an
index that perfectly compensates for car/tire performance
differences and guarantees that the "best" driver wins, which is
not possible. What if you get what you're asking for and then
still don't win? Will that prove that the new system is flawed? I
ask because that concept seems to form a large part of the basis
for your present arguments.
Jay
|