Re: OT: For those who still don't get that the Honda doesn't offer an advantage...

On 10/10/24 4:30 PM, Tom Elam wrote:

On 10/10/2024 12:44 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2024-10-10 03:25, Tom Elam wrote:

On 10/9/2024 11:13 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2024-10-09 19:28, Tom Elam wrote:

On 10/4/2024 7:20 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2024-10-02 11:29, Alan wrote:

...ON THE TRACK:
>
At the SCCA National Runoffs this year at Road America in Wisconsin:
>
Fastest qualifier so far IS an FF Honda at 2:22.552.
>
But second fastest is a FF Ford just .181 behind at 2:22.733.
>
<https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/ downloads/000/073/365/ FF%20Runoffs2024%20Qual%202%20Provisional.pdf>
>
And that's not even remotely a new Formula F chassis! The Swift DB6 chassis dates from 1991...that's 43 years ago!
>
So why is the field mostly Hondas?
>
Because (as I've explained before) time and money spent maintaining a Formula F Kent in top shape can be spent on more profitable things.
>

>
And, gee, what do you know?
>
The "uncompetitive" Kent...
>
...won the 2024 SCCA National Runoffs in Formula F.
>
Who'd have thought it?
>
:-)

>
Really?
>
https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/073/541/ FF%20Runoffs2024%20Race%20Official.pdf
>
The # 5 car, the Kent, finished 8th in the official results, 1st in Provisional Results
>
Position changed per: Car 5 - Moved behind #81 per SOM - GCR 6.11.1.D,
Appendix P.5. Must have cheated to get moved down that far.
>
And the 5 car was the only Kent in the race.

>
What's extra hilarious is that they literally listed the rule infraction involved...
>
...but you just went with, "must have cheated".

>
It was a passing infraction, I looked it up. That is cheating. You said he "won the 2024 SCCA National Runoffs in Formula F" the when confronted with the truth changed it to "could have won", Liarboy. So typical of you.

>
Your implication was clearly that the only reason he could have been leading the race was that he cheated. The SCCA ruled that he moved to aggressively to defend his position, and having seen the video, that's certainly true. But your claim has always been that the Ford can't be competitive with the Honda and there's no way that can be true if a Ford can be in the lead on the last lap of the race.
>
And never said "could have won" anywhere, Liarboy.

 You flat out lied when you said "The "uncompetitive" Kent
won the 2024 SCCA National Runoffs in Formula F"
 If you had said that a single Kent was competitive in this one race I would have agreed. But no, you said the Kent WON the race. That is not true. He broke a rule by aggressively blocking another driver. Had he not done so he might have not placed first in the provisional standings. In other words, he cheated the other driver out of an opportunity to pass and was appropriately penalized. Had he followed the rules he very likely would not have even won a provisional first.

Such rule infractions often have a big old dose of grey.

Now, in a larger sense, is the Kent competitive? No. There have been VERY few Kents entered in the Runoffs for many years. If they were competitive on performance and cost there would be more. If the Kent was a better engine overall on performance and cost the Kent would dominate. Even you agree. After all you bought a Honda-powered car, Liarboy.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter if its one team or a dozen teams that get to the final rounds:  it is as if you're trying to claim that the baseball team that loses in the World Series must "suck" because they didn't win in the final round.  Sorry, but they had to have beaten a lot of other teams before they got to the final rounds.  Point is that the mere presence of a Kent in the finals indicates that the Formula organizers have done a good job in balancing their index of performance.

You stated "Because (as I've explained before) time and money spent
maintaining a Formula F Kent in top shape can be spent on more profitable things." You admit here that the Kent is not competitive when considering the overall metrics. Why spend the money on the Kent when it can't go out and beat the Honda on a consistent basis? YOU said that. THAT is why the Kent is so scarce in the Runoffs.

No, that's trying to incorrectly use a statistical bias to make an invalid claim:  that a Kent requires higher maintenance explains why fewer teams run that combination, not that it isn't just as good of a performer on the track.
In a competitive field which has weeded out the lower performing ones in qualifying rounds, if 90% of the teams have a red car (eg Honda) and the outcome is purely random chance, reversion to the means means that there's a 90% probability that the winning car is going to be red.
Same principle applies here:  if Kents really are objectively inferior performers on the track, then the above 'random chance' doesn't apply and they wouldn't have placed high enough in the prior elimination rounds to even appear as 5% of the field in the finals.
OTOH, when they are objectively even on the track, then their representation in the final playoff field should be similar to what % of the total population of competitive cars are fielded, no matter if that's 10%, 50% or 90%.  Ditto for Honda.

In an even larger sense you show in this instance that you are more than willing to bend facts to make yourself look good. Major traits of a narcissistic hypocrite. Of course, another trait of the narcissistic hypocrite is that you can never admit being wrong, or that the other person who disagrees with you is right. Such people are also totally blind to their disorder.

Speaking of disorders, the above is pretty basic statistics when examining factors within populations:  why did you miss it so badly?
-hh