Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com wrote:
> OK, I am learning my lesson Roger, don't get involved...: )
Nahhh, education is a good thing.
I work under the theory that for every person involved in a discussion,
there are 15 lurkers quietly reading along. You may not convince the
argumentative cuss of the moment, but you may help educate the lurkers, for
a net gain.
> For you to ask for the classing
> structure to be "fair to every single competitor" to me means that you
want
> every car to have a *chance* to win. I don't see how that statement
could mean
> anything else.
Yup, that pretty well sums that up.
> It isn't possible to do that, period.
Well, no. It *IS* possible to class cars so that every single class has a
legit chance to win. The core problem that that in order to achieve that
goal, for increasingly thinner slices of "fair" , you need progressively
more classes to pull it off.
Adding preperation allowances serves to help balance things (thus reducing
classes) but then increases the time and money required to develop a given
car to the class standard.
It's the old "Speed. Quality. Cost. Pick two" problem, except that here
it's "Fairness. Number of classes. Stock-ness. Pick two"
- If you want Stock cars and few classes, you lose Fairness
- If you want Stock cars and Fairness, you lose few classes
- If you want Few Classes and Fairness, then you lose "Stock-ness"
As an aside, SM is the embodiment of "Few Classes and Fairness" - but look
what you have to allow in terms of preperation allowences to get it.
DG
|