Calculating PAX

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cliffy:

PAX = (Scratch time X index) + penalties
<hr></blockquote>

Yup. that's what it says on the pre-reg sheet I'm holding in my hand. Sounds fair.

Les

[Audi200tq]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mike-L:
Driver A's time should be 46.86.

--Mike<hr></blockquote>

My bad. But it still works.

[Mike-L]

Driver A's time should be 46.86, but that doesn't change the outcome. I guess you could consider it a bonus for a clean run.

--Mike

[Audi200tq]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by HedgeHog:
I would think rankings within a class would be affected also. <hr></blockquote>

Only in the post-pax calculations. This could potentially end up with a situation where, in division, one driver is ahead on another, but in indexing, their standings are reversed.

For example, 2 drivers in H-stock (pax=.781)

Driver A: 60.0 seconds, clean run
Driver B: 57.7 seconds, +1 cone
- in the division Driver B wins

(Scratch+penalty)* pax
Driver A: 46.68 pax time
Driver B: 46.62 pax time
- driver B still wins

(scratch*pax)+ penalty
Driver A: 46.68
Driver B: 47.06
- with proper pax, Driver A finishes ahead

Things that make you go hmmm......

No, you never pax cones, since a cone is a cone no matter what you drive. The speed you hit it is irrelevant (H/S 40mph or A/M 60mph)- it's still a penalty. Always PAX*scratch times, then add cones.

[HedgeHog]

I would think rankings within a class would be affected also. Cuz a clean run would not have the cones X 2sec advantage (unless you're A-Mod) that it normally has.

eg. if PAX is 0.8 and both drivers gets 30s but one hits 1 cone. (time + cone penalty) * PAX -&gt; 24s vs 25.6s while (time * PAX) + cone penalty -&gt; 24s vs 26.0s.

[thatVWguy]

Lawrence,

PAX = (Scratch time X index) + penalties

All cones displaced count for 2 sec. for everyone. Although some people might disagree, you shouldn't get a discount on your cone penalties just because you drive in H-Stock (sorry Les).

Regular class standings shouldn't be affected but any ranking based on the index, like the Rookie and 'Top Gun' standings will need to be adjusted.

-c.

this would be better for ppl in the higher class such as SP and MOD, because our cones counts way more. Which kinda makes sense.

You get PAX time b/c of the way your car is. But you hit cones b/c of the way you drive. So number of cones shouldn't matter with different classes.

[Audi200tq]

This also affects novice standings since we're all in different classes.

[Law C]

actually, the "error" will only affect Index time listing but not class points. Class points calculation is done by 1st in Class Corrected Time(not PAX) / Best Corrected Time (not Pax) * 100

However, PAX Class's corrected time is actually PAXed. Uh-oh. gotta discuss this with the rule's commitee. I believe they'll have a meeting this Friday.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Law C ]</p>

[Law C]

Mike, you free?

[Mike-L]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Law C:
But please don't tell me I have to re-do all the result again <hr></blockquote>

No, it's simple. You just plug in a new formula.


--Mike

[Law C]

very good point Mike.
But please don't tell me I have to re-do all the result again

[Mike-L]

I don't think the PAX times are being calculated correctly, but there's nothing in the CACC rule book (at least I couldn't find anything) that says how they should be figured.

Current practice is to take the best total time, including penalties, and multiply by the PAX index for the class, using the formula: (Time + Penalty) x Index = PAX Time

The problem with that method is that penalties are discounted, depending on the index value of the class. One cone penalty costs Joe 2 sec in AM, but one cone only costs Bernie 1.66 sec (2 x .830) in SS and Leslie 1.562 sec (2 x .781) in HS. That's not consistent with the intent of PAX, which is to compare times on an equal footing.

The formula used elsewhere, including NWR/SCCA, is (Time x Index) + Penalty = PAX Time.

Using my time at event #3 as an example, the current method yields:
(58.647 + 2) x .804 = 60.647 x .804 = 48.760

More correct (I believe) would be:
(58.647 x .804) + 2 = 47.152 + 2 = 49.152

While I'd rather have the lower total, I don't think it's correct. (I'd really rather I hadn't tipped over the first cone in the slalom, or had stopped for the displaced cone on my 3rd run. )

I think this should be brought to the CACC Board for clarification, and I think the formula should be included in the rule book, probably in section 5.8.AA. Probably can't be changed for this year, even if the other formula is adopted.

--Mike