Select Comp is gone??

[MrMeanGreen]

Originally posted by TurboD:

what about using est hp / weight

I thought about using weight as a factor, but with so many variances available to people after modding their cars, I don't think it could be used as a constant factor.

[Guest stevil]

Originally posted by The_ Eyeball_ Of_ Fury:

Anyone have a good equation I can use to even things up?

 

I'm looking for something along the lines of:

 

(E.T x trap speed) / # of cylinders = score

 

Something that will enable all cars to participate on an even level.

I don't think the number of cylinders should be in the formula (not rotary friendly btw!). If you want to level the field, you should use something like the ET or MPH calculators and compare their times to something like that.

 

((1353/MPH) / ET) x 100 = %score

 

((best predicted ET) / real ET) = %score

 

A Supra that runs a 13.2 @ 120 would score a 85%, while a Honda running 13.5 @ 102 would score a 98%. The closer to (or over) 100% the better.

 

I would like to weight it somehow for being quicker though...

 

((1353/MPH) / ET) - (ET/100) x 100 = %score

 

This way, 2 cars with the same average with the first formula would be different. Now a 14 second car would end up with an 82% while a 12 second car would get an 84%. Another good example would be Anthony's car and mine. Before the weighting, his would score a 97% while mine gets a 98%, and after 85.5% for him, 85.1% for me.

 

[ 25. August 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Hoosier Daddy ]

[Wease]

Psst: There are quite a few guys not on that list that could stomp the shit out of most of those cars...

[SupraGlue]

Steve's formula would just have someone riding the brakes through the traps. Do you really think it's that hard to sandbag a trap speed?

[Devils Advocate]

Just make it so that the fastest car is at the top of the list...

[Guest stevil]

Originally posted by SupraGlue:

Steve's formula would just have someone riding the brakes through the traps. Do you really think it's that hard to sandbag a trap speed?

That's true I guess Mark, but it wouldn't be the first time we've had sandbaggers on the board. If they want to be gay and cheat, let them. Maybe instead of subtracting an ET for the weight, we could add a MPH type number to deter sandbagging?

 

(((1353/MPH) / ET) x 100) + (MPH/100) = %score

[iwishiwascool]

number of cylinders would definitely be a disadvantage to the V8s. I dont think special concessions should be made just cause someone choose less displacement. It's nice to try to get everyone involved but as a 4 cyl myself, Id rather see how I compare to the whole field rather than getting "extra credit" for running with a supposed handicap.

 

Also, if you penalize a car for having more cylinders, do you penalize for boosting or spraying?

 

I think it should be straight ETs or trap speeds... if you want to include the slow cars just make it long enough to include the 15 and 16 second monsters.

[Nitrousbird]

There should be no handicap for people choosing smaller engines or owning slower cars. Period.

 

I say take both trap speed and ET into account equally (higher the trap, better the score in this instance, since why would you want a slow trap speed?). Let's just base this on a 9 flat at 150, with 10 point increments per second, and 1 point per MPH.

 

Car one 14 @ 100

Car two 13 @ 110

 

Car one would be 50 points for ET and 50 for MPH.

Car two would be 60 points for ET and 60 for MPH.

 

Car one wins at 120 points vs. 100 points. A car running 9 flat at 150 would be 200 points. A car running 9 flat at 145 195 points. Make sense?? Weighs both sides equally. An insanely slow car could technically have negative points, and an insane car could have over 200 points.

 

What's nice about this is it is easy to score (1 point less per MPH under 150) and 1 point less per 1/10th slower than 9 flat. Easy to score, easy to add up.