Jason Saini <speedyj73@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Either that, or the AWD cars should be classes differently within the
> current structure. Put the Eclipse, TT, A4, S4 and into their own
> class...
OK, enough. I've been reading more half-baked ideas, conclusions, and
proposals in the last 6 hours than I think I've read all year. I say "half
baked" because people are drawing conclusions based on incomplete data,
tainted data, misconceptions, hearsay, and a plain ol' stubborn
unwillingness to see anything other than what they wish to see: people
keeping the data that proves their points, while ignoring data that may
counterdict it.
The whole "M3 in ESP" thread has been one great long sparkling example of
this kind of "science", and now you guys have gone and given enough
confidence to someone to start another copy. Fine example to follow.
Jason, I've seen you and your Corrado. You attracted my attention in Peru
when you were doing so well in what is one of the toughest classes in Solo,
especially in CENDIV. But you're making the same mistake that SO many
people keep making over and over and over again.
The performance of a given individual is a combination of the potential of
the car and THE DRIVER, and the performance potential of the DRIVER not
only varies more widely than any other single performance-influencing
variable, but it varies widely from MOMENT TO MOMENT.
More experienced drivers and more talented drivers tend to, on average,
extract more performance from the cars they drive and to do so MORE
CONSISTANTLY. People with promise can have occasional flashes of
brilliance, but sometimes they just plain suck, and on average they perform
somewhere in between. As they gain more experience, they suck less and
less, but anyone can have a bad day - even a Daddio, Ames, or Tunnell.
You absolutely, positively, unrefutably CANNOT compare the performance of
cars without taking the performance of drivers into account. And the
simple, harsh truth of the matter is that the performance of the drivers is
far, FAR more influential than the performance of the car. If you get beat,
95% of the time you get beat because you were outdriven, 4% of the time you
get beat because you were outprepared, and 1% can be attributed to car
(mis)classification issues.
Yes, sometimes there are course dependancies that favour a certain car over
another. Most of the time these come out in the wash, but sometimes a given
car will have a clear advantage in a certain situation. But even then, it
takes a driver to make use of that advantage, and even then (this is
important!) the difference in driver skill levels **at a given point in
time** is almost always an order of magnitude more signifigant than the
car-dependant advantage.
In your case, and in the Tunnell case, you have two very, very good
drivers. I've co-driven with McIver, I know full well what he's capable of,
and on a good day he is easily the equal of a Daddio or Ames. And lately,
he's been having good days. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if you traded
cars at the event, he'd cream you in your own car.
Or, put another way, a McIver, Daddio, Tunnell, or Ames in a Stock car will
almost always beat a lesser driver in the Street Prepared version of the
same car - assuming, of course, that the owner of the Street Prepared car
is a good enough engineer to actually _improve_ the performance of the car
by futzing with it - a case that does not always hold.
And seen yet another way, a McIver et al on a good day can easily beat a
lesser driver (or an equal driver on a bad day, or any permutation of this)
in a "higher classed" car, for a reasonable range of "higher classed".
Yes, that's harsh. But it's the truth.
When you want to get good, signifigant data on car classification, you need
to have examples of each car, similarly prepared, driven by drivers of
similar experience and talent, in similar conditions, on neutral courses,
where the drivers are putting down their best performances. As you can
probably imagine, getting all those particular stars to align is an
exceptionally rare event - usually, the only time that really happens is
Nationals, and even then that's no guarentee.
The more involved I get with car classification issues and performance
analysis, the more amazed I am that it ever happens at all; so difficult is
it to obtain good data to base conclusions on. Similarily, it seems that
the basics - overall weight, size, tire size, suspension type, and
power-to-weight - seem to make the best data points to base car
classification on. Not perfect, but certainly "good enough". And by that
standard, your Corrado is properly classed, the Type R is properly classed,
the DSMs and Soobys are properly classed, and every Lotus I can bring to
mind is properly classed. The M3 in ESP I think deserves some study, and I
can think of what amounts to marketing reasons for bouncing it out of ESP
(ESP being the Mustang/Camaro class) but I have yet to see ***ONE SINGLE
VALID DATA POINT*** on the M3 performance potential issue, there having
always been driver or environmental issues tainting the data so far.
My advice to you is to suck it up, get yourself some seat time, and
practice practice practice. Driver skill level is like a great big Aztec
ziggaraut; a pyramid with lots and lots of little steps on it. Sometimes,
you get to bound up the steps 2 or three at a time; other times, it may
take you _years_ to climb a single step. And most harshly, sometimes you
slip back a few steps. But the ultimate aim of the exercise is climbing the
pyramid, not bitching about the other people on it with you.
Yeesh.
DG
who maybe needs to add an "A" to his initials
|