ianacole Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 If the current formula remains, I propose to change the wording of the forumula to reflect the actual calculation for higher torque cars to: WEIGHT/((HP+TQ)*.5) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosm3os Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Um, I was told there wouldn't be any math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianacole Posted September 21, 2009 Author Share Posted September 21, 2009 Um, I was told there wouldn't be any math. Not by me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbit_diesel Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Yes, only make it read: Weight/(HP+TQ)/2 Means the same thing, but in my opinion is easier to read correctly. Will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Smith Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Weight/(HP+TQ)/2 Means the same thing, but in my opinion is easier to read correctly. No it doesn't, WEIGHT/((HP+TQ)/2) means the same thing as WEIGHT/((HP+TQ)*.5). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemming Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Yes, only make it read: Weight/(HP+TQ)/2 Means the same thing, but in my opinion is easier to read correctly. Will Please My Dear Aunt Sally - Says no it is not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbit_diesel Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Given 'computer order of operations', you fellows are correct, it is not the same. I was thinking of fractions on paper, which when reduced would be equivalent. My previous suggestion did not enhance clarity. I should have written: 2*W/(HP+TQ) This is the same, whether with 'computer order of operations', or on paper. Will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSG1901 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Whichever. The problem, which I agree is a problem, is that the current GTS regulations specify the formula thusly: (WEIGHT/WHP + WTQ *.5) Given a 2800 lb car with 200 hp and 210 lb ft of torque, you might do that math along these lines: 2800 / 200 + 210 * .5 14 + 210 * .5 224 * .5 = 112 When, in fact, what is intended is this: 2800 / ((200 + 210) * .5) 2800 / (410 * .5) 2800 / 205 = 13.66 I found this confusing when I wanted to start with GTS and was trying to figure where my car fit into the classes. I think we should absolutely do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew968 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Aside from missing the () and properly appling multiplication before addition, are we also saying that we will use this formula for all cars or only for car that have RWT higher than RWHP as I understand it to currently be? On edit, this way of classing cars significantly improves the "closeness" of the racing far far better than for example PCA does. While I have been "pulled" many time on the back straight at a PCA race I have never been "pulled" while in a GTS race. Any formula will have those that disagree but the current one is pretty damn good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSG1901 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Aside from missing the () and properly appling multiplication before addition, are we also saying that we will use this formula for all cars or only for car that have RWT higher than RWHP as I understand it to currently be? Mike, My understanding of the proposal is simply to fix the typos in the formula which applies to cars with higher torque than horsepower. This would not change the formula for cars with higher horsepower than torque nor, for that matter, what we actually do to compute minimum weights. This just corrects an error in the rules write-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew968 Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 I was trying to state that the current system does a good job of matching cars and that I have not been pulled at a NASA race like I get pulled during a PCA race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSG1901 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts