I wrote:
> For some reason, there's a segment of the population >that thinks a
mathematical formula can solve any >situation. I'm of the school that
believes they solve >very few of our situations in SCCA.
Bill replied:
<< Come on, Charlie. Physics is used to model vehicle dynamics, and
mathematical formulas are the language of physics. Using height, ground
clearance and track to indicate likelihood of flipping is at least as valid
as using bore, stroke and number of cylinders to indicate likely horsepower
output. >>
Let's see, we have 350's that make 165 hp and others that make 330, so your
formula only nets us a 100% variation in results. I've seen or heard of lots
of cars that have flipped that a formula won't cover, and I'll submit that
any fomula you come up with will knock out a lot of cars we want to encourage
to compete. I seriously doubt that your formula can predict which cars will
bottom out their suspensions, which is the #1 cause of autocross rollovers.
<< In both cases you ignore lots of other relevant variables for the sake of
a simple but useful rule. >>
I think the simple rule is the one that I stated...
Me:
> As SPORTS CAR Club of America official, I think we're >going to make very
small number of people unhappy if >we exclude vans, SUVs, and most pickup
trucks
>(including mine)
Bill:
<< Agreed. Somewhat more would be unhappy if you excluded stock VWs, BMWs,
Focus's [Focii?], etc on sticky rubber. I thought the issue was safety, not
making people unhappy. >>
Making someone unhappy if you exclude their vehicle is a given. The issue IS
safety. Just about every decision in SCCA is about who's going to be happy
or unhappy.
CHD
|