(John Cochrane) wrote
The big issue is that the difference between 90 and 91 mph on a strong
day becomes much more important than the difference between 30 and 31
mph on a weak day. It's 3 times as important if the tasks are the same
length of time, since you cover 3 times as much distance going from 90
to 91 mph than you do going from 30 to 31 mph. If the fast day is a 4
hour task and the weak day is a 2 hour task, it becomes 6 times more
important to go the extra mph on a strong day.

3 times more important????
91t-90t=t
31t-30t=t
((V+1)*t)-(V*t)=(V+1-V)*t= t

6 times more important????
91*4-90*4=4 91*2-90*2=2
31*4-30*4=4 31*2-30*2=2

Under this type of scoring 1 extra mph is worth the task time whether
it's a 10 or 200mph day. It's the 1000 point scoring which gives the
point difference between 90 and 91 as one third the difference between
30 and 31. And then throws in another effective 50% devaluation of
the good day if it happened to be 4 hours of racing instead of 2.
Anyway, you could look at it that way.

However, on a 4 hr task you waste only 2.64 minutes to get from 91mph
down to 90, but you waste a full 7.74 minutes to get from 31mph down
to 30. How in the world can TET purist Bill Feldbaumer stomach both
differences being worth 4 miles? A minute is a minute, right?

Jonathan Gere


Advocates might say this is good. (Though it could also be achieved by
changing the mind-boggling devaluation formula we currently use to one
based on distance achieved, if that's the only benefit.)

I (for once) don't have a strong opinion, but I'm curious if the
supporters have thought this through, and why they think putting so
much more emphasis on strong days is a good idea.

John Cochrane