"Jay Mitchell" <jemitchell@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Eric Linnhoff's crack notwithstanding, I am not now, nor have I ever
been, opposed to new
> ideas.
*SNORT*
> It appears, however, that I must apologize for my preference for ideas
that actually make
> sense,
...to you, maybe...
Anyway:
> George wrote:
>> There is a period of time defined for practice. Our sessions - when we
were
>> defining the rules and working the bugs out - were an hour (per class).
>> With about 30 competitors in the session, most were able to get 5 or 6
>> practice runs in.
Let's do some quick math. Assuming 30 cars, 6 runs, 1 hour, that works out
to 180 runs/hour, or 20 seconds per run. Given that you run 2 cars at a
time though (ProSolo style) you can have a 40 second course (more likely, a
35 second course with a 5 second setup interval).
This is of the order that ProSolo uses (in time consumed) so so far, we're
OK.
But we also have a 3-run "qualifying" session to get through, plus the
elimination ladder.
Assume 3 60 car classes, so 180 cars for the event. There are 122 runs per
class to run the elimination ladder (366 all told) plus 540 runs for
"qualifying". That's 906 runs just to process the whole field without
practice runs. Using 20 seconds per run, that's 5 hours (5:02, actually)
just to process the entire field.
Adding in a fudge factor of 58 min to account for reruns, timing glitches,
worker shift changes, and the usual friction, that's 6 hours to process the
entire field with no practice runs.
For each practice run, add 1 hour of event time (using 180 cars, 20 sec per
run, no "friction" time). So if the event had 1st car off at 09:00 and
ended at 19:00 (10 hours) you could, at least in theory, get 4 practice
runs, 3 "qualifying" runs, and the elimination ladders in with 180 cars.
Long day, but do-able.
>> This is not out of line, what other motorsport
>> does not have practice runs?
> This statement carries the implicit assumption that Solo II _needs_ to be
"more like" some > other form of motorsport. If you are operating on such
an assumption, maybe you should
> explain to us why we should accept it.
"Steal with pride" is an entirely valid premise Jay. It makes a ton of
sense to look at other motorsports and see what works "over there". Why
re-invent the wheel?
George here has basically applied the exact same formula from bracket
racing to autox, with the only real difference is that he makes you
formally demonstrate your dialin during "qualifying" rather than just
letting you pick your own dialin based off what you did in practice. I am
unsure as to what value this "qualifying" session provides.
George, why "qualify"? Why not just 7 "practice runs" and I pick my own
dialin?
> What prevents "sandbagging" at this stage of the event?
Nothing. Preventing "sandbagging" means that you assume that sandbagging is
somehow bad.
Every bracket racer with any experience sandbags. It's part of the sport.
In ProSolo, the rules (and the fact that the finishes are not side-by-side)
make sandbagging difficult, but not impossible.
>> My rulebook is about a tenth the size of the SCCA rulebook. The car does
not
>> matter, and there is no navigational skill required. My car
classifications
>> are simple, and will not change year to year (with monthly
"clarifications")
>> as does the SCCA classing structure. The winner is the best driver that
day
>> on that course. PERIOD.
> I don't see the above claims borne out by your description of the rules
and the events. If > you truly succeed in making the "car not matter" and
assuring that "the winner is the best > driver that day," you'll have
succeeded where every other form of motorsport has fallen
> short in some way or another.
Hardly. This is bracket racing with the dragstrip traded for an autox
course. It thusly has all the advantages and shortcomings of bracket
racing.
Like bracket racing, it rewards absolute consistancy over all else. It does
NOT reward speed, and if you define "driver skill" as "the ability to
control a car operating at its limits", it doesn't reward skill either -
except for launch skill, and consistancy.
Back when I lived in St Jean, the local bracket champion at the Napierville
dragstrip drove an early-80s Dodge Omni (with the automatic) It ran (if
memory served) 18.80s in the quarter. The trouble was, it ran EXACTLY the
same times, no matter what the weather or track conditions, and the driver
had a ton of experience launching it. He'd cut consistant .505 lights, and
hit his dialin within a hundredth or so *every single damned time*, so
you'd have a 0.020 window or so on him if you wanted to beat him. The car
was the most pathetic example of a drag car I have ever seen, but it was a
bracket racing monster.
Needless to say, it was a real killjoy too. In fact, I think that car
promoted a lot of migration from bracket racing to the (faster and more
expensive) heads-up classes just to get away from that damned car!
The killer car for George's idea is an H-stock car with super-sticky tires,
something where you put your foot on the floor, and drive around the cones
without lifting - because it's not powerful enough to get going fast enough
to where it needs the brakes. So yes, car DOES matter George. You want it
slow and predictable.
This is the biggest problem with this idea. Yes, it's workable. But the
current SCCA rules optimise for the fastest car possible within each class,
where this optimises for the most predictable and repeatable (read:
slowest) car for each class.
In other words, it's deathly boring. And that, I suspect, is its kiss of
death.
DG
|