to all 85-92 efi racers - Page 12

bill dedman · 10-13-2008, 12:42 AM

Mike,

It's not the fifteen percent of the time that is the problem; it's that TWO TO THREE percent of the cars (turbo cars) are qualifying #1 15+ percent of the time. That's crazy.

If 15 percent of the cars racing HAD turbos on them, that would be the "norm," but they don't

The way I see it, if 2-to-3 percent of the cars running Stock Eliminator have turbos, then they should qualify #1 two to three percent of the time. That is, of course, a ballpark figure.

If that is illogical, show me why.

Frankly, it seems like a very simple exercise in rational logistics, to me. It won't always work out that way, of course, but four straight years of domination of the #1 qualifying by turbo cars (comparitively) would seem to be more than an accidental skewing of the numbers. There's got to be a reason for their unusual performance, but I have given up trying to convince folks that this (un-regulated boost) is not a good thing.

As someone pointed out, I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm going to let it lie; it is what it is.

Thanks for your comments, Mike!

bill dedman · 10-13-2008, 12:44 AM

Mike,

It's not the fifteen percent of the time that is the problem; it's that TWO TO THREE percent of the cars (turbo cars) are qualifying #1 15+ percent of the time. That's crazy.

If 15 percent of the cars racing HAD turbos on them, that would be the "norm," but they don't

The way I see it, if 2-to-3 percent of the cars running Stock Eliminator have turbos, then they should qualify #1 two to three percent of the time. That is, of course, a ballpark figure.

If that is illogical, show me why.

Frankly, it seems like a very simple exercise in rational logistics, to me. It won't always work out that way, of course, but four straight years of domination of the #1 qualifying by turbo cars (comparatively) would seem to be more than an accidental skewing of the numbers. There's got to be a reason for their unusual performance, but I have given up trying to convince folks that this (un-regulated boost) is not a good thing.

As someone pointed out, I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm going to let it lie; it is what it is. I just thought it was something that needed to be looked at.

Thanks for your comments, Mike!

10-13-2008, 12:42 AM	#111
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: to all 85-92 efi racers Mike, It's not the fifteen percent of the time that is the problem; it's that TWO TO THREE percent of the cars (turbo cars) are qualifying #1 15+ percent of the time. That's crazy. If 15 percent of the cars racing HAD turbos on them, that would be the "norm," but they don't The way I see it, if 2-to-3 percent of the cars running Stock Eliminator have turbos, then they should qualify #1 two to three percent of the time. That is, of course, a ballpark figure. If that is illogical, show me why. Frankly, it seems like a very simple exercise in rational logistics, to me. It won't always work out that way, of course, but four straight years of domination of the #1 qualifying by turbo cars (comparitively) would seem to be more than an accidental skewing of the numbers. There's got to be a reason for their unusual performance, but I have given up trying to convince folks that this (un-regulated boost) is not a good thing. As someone pointed out, I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm going to let it lie; it is what it is. Thanks for your comments, Mike! __________________ Bill

10-13-2008, 12:44 AM	#112
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: to all 85-92 efi racers Mike, It's not the fifteen percent of the time that is the problem; it's that TWO TO THREE percent of the cars (turbo cars) are qualifying #1 15+ percent of the time. That's crazy. If 15 percent of the cars racing HAD turbos on them, that would be the "norm," but they don't The way I see it, if 2-to-3 percent of the cars running Stock Eliminator have turbos, then they should qualify #1 two to three percent of the time. That is, of course, a ballpark figure. If that is illogical, show me why. Frankly, it seems like a very simple exercise in rational logistics, to me. It won't always work out that way, of course, but four straight years of domination of the #1 qualifying by turbo cars (comparatively) would seem to be more than an accidental skewing of the numbers. There's got to be a reason for their unusual performance, but I have given up trying to convince folks that this (un-regulated boost) is not a good thing. As someone pointed out, I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm going to let it lie; it is what it is. I just thought it was something that needed to be looked at. Thanks for your comments, Mike! __________________ Bill