In a message dated 7/11/00 3:46:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bthatch@juno.com
writes:
>> If your system eventually gets Miatas and Camaros in the same class
>> as a result of their times at Topeka, for instance, would they still be a
>> good match somewhere else in the country in a postage-stamp parking lot?
>
>Well, that opens up a whole 'nother can o' worms, then. Solo II crowns a
>national champion for each class based on one event run in Topeka on
>concrete. However, the SEB is classing cars for all different types of
>courses around the country? But those cars are STILL classed together for
>a relatively open concrete course. HMMMM. I don't want to go there in
>this thread, but I think you see the contradiction in there. Your
>argument against my classing system itself suggests that the SEB should
>base a national championship on other types of courses than found on
>concrete in Topeka. But that is another discussion.
The Solo II Rulebook is written to be used in conducting the Solo II National
Championships. That's why only certain sections of it are mandatory for
regional events, including the classing system. But we also know nearly all
SCCA regions and many independent clubs use the class groupings in the
rulebook, so there's some sense to putting similar cars in the same class to
try to reduce course-dependency problems at the regional level, too. What's
so contradictory about that?
>> The fallacy in using the PAX index for classing cars is that the index is
>> weighted toward Nationals results and consequently toward a
>> particular type of course design.
>
> And actually, the PAX factor is based on the WINNING car at Topeka, NOT
> on the performance of the whole class. Therein lies the contention that
> some cars are not competitive in their class.
>>The further you get away from the size, type, and relative
>> speed of those courses, the less meaningful the index becomes.
>
>Please tell us how much weight the performance of a car with a top level
>driver in it has from Topeka results compared to results from other types
>of courses. Since, national championships are won and lost at only one
>event, I suspect that classing decisions are more heavily weighted toward
>Topeka. If so, then there wouldn't be much difference with my system.
Then explain to me again how your system is any better than what we have
now?
There's nothing to stop you from using your system in Atlanta, why don't you
try it and see how it works? And see how many competitors prefer it over
what you're using now?
GH
|