PAX VS. Stats - AKA: Why PAX is broken...

[Dean]

I am finally ready to publish these numbers and take the fallout.

Let me start by saying I am neither a mathematician or statistician, just a guy that has looked at these PAX and Nationals numbers year after year while doing T factors and wondered where in the heck PAX came from.

I also spoke to Rick at one point and when asked if he would be willing to share his data and spreadsheets that PAX was based on for my work on T factor and he replied that he did not have any and that PAX was as much based on the theoretical future performance of a class as real data. Please note that is how I interpreted his answer, not his actual words

I also looked at 2007 National tour data, and in my humble opinion (IMHO), there is insufficient data across enough classes from any of them to be remotely considered statistically significant and to be integrated somehow.

This data is also my premise for stating in other threads that any attempt to modify PAX for any reason using local data is a house of cards. Building on a foundation that I can find no numerical basis for using locally prepared cars and drivers which are less than statistically significant just doesn't make any sense to me mathematically.

Am I proposing we replace PAX with one of the columns in this spreadsheet or some average or other manipulation of them, NO!

As mentioned, this began as a personal mental/mathmatical exercise and I am only sharing it to maybe help others understand what I am talking about when I say "PAX is broken". If PAX doesn't reasonably match the best drivers in the best cars at the largest competition, I don't know what it hopes to do.

Please note this is only one year's worth of data, but I did rough stuff in the past that was similar. Also please note that I have attempted to eliminate questionable data due to rain, but have not accounted for any change in course/air temperature in any way.

In the Summary, you will note I made the Top 10 Driver and All drivers(excluding DNF/DNS/DSQ data) red because it is statistically bad as it unfairly weights some really bad drivers, especially in AM which is the basis for the factors.

Speaking of AM, if you look at the data, F125 beat or clobbered AM depending on which data you look at and yet PAX is still 1.0 for AM and something less for F125. :confused:

If I had to create a new handicapping system, I would likely base it on the slowest group as that is far less likely to change year to year IMHO.

OK, enough rambling, here is the data... I am pasting the summary data here and the full nauseating detail is attached. I could have included a whole bunch of differential columns, but it makes it even more cluttered and I think it is pretty clear how different the two PAX columns are from the next three Nationals columns.
http://www.renoscca.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=15&d=1208987786

[S2kreno]

So if PAX was spot on the little red columns would all read 1.0 (no math genius here)? What amount of deviation would be deemed acceptable for PAX to have any credibility? I used to work for a company that did a lot of day trading and moved hundreds of millions each day. We continually adjusted our trading formulas based on how they performed (how good they were at predicting actual market behavior and making us money). It seems that PAX should never be considered a finished product; it should be continually adjusted and fine-tuned and validated. And if it never gets better than maybe the whole system IS fatally flawed....

[Dean]

Sorry, this is a lot of data to digest and I tried to summarize, but it is still a lot.

No, Red columns are bad data due to including too many poor performing car/driver combinations. The trophies one is probably best data/column IMHO as it weights each class based on the number of participants rather than an arbitrary 1,3,10 or include the bad data. If PAX was based on similar math, those numbers from column E to Column H would be near to or identical on a given row, not 1.0

PAX does get adjusted, but the numbers aren't even close and haven't been any better in the past, again, IMHO. The 2008 "adjusted" numbers are on average over 5% off from what the Nationals data shows. Maybe I should have included that column, but there are so many ways to compare them, I though they would be confusing.

As previously mentioned, the fastest class F125 is off by 8%! That may not sound like much, but even the average of 5% is 3 seconds/60 second course which is double the T factor. And somehow, even though F125 was fastest, the 1.0 basis is still AM and F125 gets over a three second handicap to them on a 60 second course. There is just something wrong with that even without my numbers.

I digress. Those are deltas from PAX to my Stats. The interclass deltas all depend on which class you compare to which, but in the order I listed them they average out to about 1.1% or .66 seconds which is just under 1/2 the T factor.

Again, I am not saying my numbers are any better, but at least I can show you the math they are based on. I can't begin to fathom how the 2008 factors which should include any adjustments for the 2007 Nationals can be that far off from the results from that event.

Maybe I'll make a Summary with just PAX and Trophies and some deltas... Hmmm...

[nmhansen]

lies, damned lies and statistics.

[Cody]

Maybe I'll make a Summary with just PAX and Trophies and some deltas...

Dew it.

[Kevin M]

Dean, I'm still a little confused. Are the Top 1/3/Trophies columns what the data suggests PAX is? And it's relative to the AM data-generated PAX? Or to the Rick Ruth AM assumption? Could you crunch it to show what PAX should/would be if F125 were the index class?

[Dean]

Dean, I'm still a little confused. Are the Top 1/3/Trophies columns what the data suggests PAX is? And it's relative to the AM data-generated PAX? Or to the Rick Ruth AM assumption? Could you crunch it to show what PAX should/would be if F125 were the index class?Yes, the 1/3/Trophies are what an AM based "PAX" should be based on the results from Nationals using that number of drivers from each class. (The theoretically statistically significant data from the best of th best prepared cars and best drivers) I did that so you could see the differences relative to 2007 & 2008 PAX numbers, and the > 1.0 numbers for F125, etc...

I did redo it based on F125, but those numbers only made sense from a "Let's use this in place of PAX perspective." which is not what I am proposing. And if we are going to do something different, there are other options on what the basis should be.

[jim.gandy]

Dean,

What's your point?

From a practical viewpoint, this thread leads in perhaps two directions.

One, PAX is so screwed up we should not be using it (I'm solid with that!).

Two, as you state, "any attempt to modify PAX for any reason using local data is a house of cards." I'm NOT hip to that. Follow me: The U.S. Constitution is pretty crappy -- it's got slavery and second-class status for women, among other serious flaws. I guess amending the Constitution to try to make something we can live with would be a "house of cards." Isn't that what you're implying?

PAX may be bad, and we may not see any logic or system behind its numbers, but that is no reason it cannot be amended to produce something that works for us here.

By the way, HAP does not rely on local data (that is, results) to formulate its amended factors. HAP's formulas come from a theoretical approach to high-altitude effects.

Something we all need to keep in mind is, If we condemn PAX for its flaws, we have to replace it with something. I, for one, think the absence of PAX would create a big hole.

[sperry]

The problem with a locally based PAX system is that it becomes personal. If we're going to make up numbers because we think particular people should be winning or losing, we should just skip the PAX factors and just go back to picking the driver of the year by board vote.

Any system should be totally transparent, or it's not sporting, it's just a popularity contest.

[jim.gandy]

1. How transparent is PAX?

2. Scott simply will not believe a locally-created index system can be impartial. I give up.

[Jamin]

Firstly, I am trying to undersand the obsession with PAX. You're racing the other drivers in your class locally, "locally" being defined as "where you're racing that day, wherever it may be, in your neighborhood or at nationals". Who cares if AM runs 10% or 300% faster than you if you're not in AM? What matters to ME is the other two or 13 guys in D-Stock, eh?

Now, if DoY is based on PAX, it matters - but if that's the issue, just base DoY on something else - problem solved! If open-PAX classes are an issue, well - don't enter into an open-PAX class, or go in realizing that it's not an entirely even field, lol.

Now - on to the "regardless of whether it matters or not, this is fun" part. :D

Nationals is NOT a statistically insignificant base. I hear that thrown around a LOT, becuse you need (x) number of values to make a statistically significant contribution, blah blah (not just here, but in any PAX discussion on any SCCA board). See - that's not true if nationals results account for 100% of the data from which the desired value is to be extrapolated. In other words, if one drivers runs on one day is what's being measured, he doesn't need to make 1000 runs to provide a relevent base - his runs ARE the base, however many or few there may be. See how fun this is?

Now - PAX does constitute more than that. There are projections involved, estimates made, and perhaps worst of all, opinions and politics entered into the equation. Which means that until a STRICTLY mathametical base is made, it will ALWAYS be broken [insert oft heard and repeated DS/GS rant here, as it's the most clearly demonstrable example imaginable]. Which begs the question - when is something SO broken that you stop using it? Continually fixing something that continues to be broken implies a replacement is due...

PAX is a GREAT idea. Until cars are classified correctly - and that means *GOD FORBID* using logic and math to classify them, and until PAX becomes a strictly mathimatical exercise (at which point it'll STILL be innaccurate, albiet - hopefully - much less so), it's either use it 'cuz it's what we got or don't use it until it's worth having. :shrug:

[sperry]

1. How transparent is PAX?

2. Scott simply will not believe a locally-created index system can be impartial. I give up.
1. PAX is terrible.

2. A system that attempts to manually correct perceived local injustices cannot be impartial. An impartial system must either be based on valid statistical data (impossible in a small region IMO) or based on scientific theory (such as your HAP system, though for it to be accepted you need to publish your math and somehow get everyone to understand it and agree it's correct).

I guess I'm just at a loss as to why it's hard to understand why attempting to fix things locally is such a slippery slope. If it becomes personal (i.e. "I don't think so and so is placing as high as they should, I think it's the altitude, let's help them out") then no matter how right you may be, it's still unfair. If you can't prove that it was the altitude and not the person's driving, you can't give them a handicap. It's favoritism.

Now you can go down that route if you want, and still remain transparent... if you dream up a system of "winners weight" for autocross that penalizes the people winning. It's not totally fair in the same way PAX is supposed to be, but it's transparent and generates closer competition.

[sperry]

Nationals is NOT a statistically insignificant base. I hear that thrown around a LOT, becuse you need (x) number of values to make a statistically significant contribution, blah blah (not just here, but in any PAX discussion on any SCCA board). See - that's not true if nationals results account for 100% of the data from which the desired value is to be extrapolated. In other words, if one drivers runs on one day is what's being measured, he doesn't need to make 1000 runs to provide a relevent base - his runs ARE the base, however many or few there may be. See how fun this is?

I'm not sure I understand your statement totally, but nationals certainly can be statistically insignificant. If there's only one driver in lets say BP at nationals, and he totally sucks, using that data as a statistical representation of all BP cars everywhere is totally false, as it would result in BP becoming a killer class for anyone that doesn't suck as much as the one guy the number is based upon.

Just because it's all the data you have doesn't imply that it's statistically relevant, it implies you don't have enough data!

[Dean]

I like math, science and transparency, all of which are lacking in PAX from what I can tell.

I do not want to turn this thread into a HAP discussion, there is already a thread for that, but I applaud the logical and mathematical approach it is taking. Unfortunately it is using PAX as a basis which I think is broken.

I'd like to see us dump PAX. I think something like a winner's weight only with the penalty being time rather than weight would be an interesting alternative.

I think Scott's point is not that a locally created system cannot be valid, but that local data is not statistically valid which I would agree with.

[Mark Sipe]

The lowest time to the finish line is the winner

anything else is an illusion ...

[Cody]

No, the yellowest car is the winner.

[Kevin M]

No, the yellowest car is the winner.

No fair, your car has more yellows than any!

[sperry]

No fair, your car has more yellows than any!
His car is orange.

[Jamin]

I'm not sure I understand your statement totally, but nationals certainly can be statistically insignificant. If there's only one driver in lets say BP at nationals, and he totally sucks, using that data as a statistical representation of all BP cars everywhere is totally false, as it would result in BP becoming a killer class for anyone that doesn't suck as much as the one guy the number is based upon.

Just because it's all the data you have doesn't imply that it's statistically relevant, it implies you don't have enough data!

I didn't mean to imply that basing everything on nationals was correct or proper; or that it would even provide the right data. I meant to state that whatever the dataset used, it's statisticaly relavent if it is in fact what's there. It was a statement against the thought that without thouseands of drivers/runs, there's insufficient data to provide statistically relavent data. I never said it would accurate or correct when used against a larger dataset - which is, I think we all agree, why PAX is messed up as it stands.

In order for PAX to actually and accurately do what it's supposed to do with the realistically available data (let's face it; more and more data will always be required to make it closer and closer to perfect), it would

1.) be loosely based on nationals results - where it's generally agreed you get he highest percentage of top-notch drivers in fully prepped, competitive cars - and moddified over time as those results are compared to results from various local events. A sample would be fine; select a "panel" of regions to track various classes, for example.
2.) Car classification would have to be FAR less arbitrary. Like, shake up the whole thing and start over. IMHO, it'd start with drivetrain layout (AWD, RWD, and FWD), then weight to power ratio, and only after all that was used as a base would the subjectives come into play (size oft he car, suspension types, and other factors). This would allow for cars that are in seperate classes initially to be crossed over by experienced and knowledgable people. New cars would get the same treatment, the math giving a baseline and experienced drivers saying "yeah, BUT", which would put the car up or down a spot.
3.) Politics and manufacturer support really shouldn't play into it. That seems to be hard to grasp for the BoD right now, lol, and that's why you get a lower class PAXing higher than the one 'above' it, and cars that should've been dropped a class years ago still stuck where they are, & etc ad infinitum.

Geez - I'm getting long-posted, and not even scratching it, lol. I could write a short book on what PAX is and could/should be. Someone else take the soapbox so I don't have to blush in front of the crowd.

[Dean]

PAX is not intended to be a classing system. I agree that the national classes need a major overhaul, but that is not PAX's role. It is a handicapping/equalizing system and nothing more.

As someone who has looked at about 5 years of national and tour data, IMHO, the only thing close to statistically significant data is from Nationals. You could pick and choose a couple cars/drivers and classes from Tours, but there is too much noise in the data. Any local data is just going to be worse.

The problem is even trophy positions and at times 1st place in class at tours may contain under prepared cars and drivers.

[Dean]

OK, here is another shot at the summary sheet. I updated the master XLS file in the zip file in the first post if you want to see everything. Percentages didn't really communicate the data, so I put in what the deltas represented on a 60 second course instead.

The two blue text columns are what we are comparing. 2008 PAX factors compared to what I am calling the (2007)Nats factors which are done the same way with AM being 1.000. I used the column that is based on the trophy spots in each class because I think that has the best weighting of good data.


Yellow columns are direct comparisons of those two columns. I took the absolute value of them so the average in the last row doesn't get canceled out by the positive and negative deltas.

The green text rows are row to row deltas of the individual PAX and NATs columns. So, for example SS .852 minus A .842 equals .010. I again took absolute values so the average below work.

The Green background rows compare those row to row deltas. So in PAX, SS vs. AS is .010 in Nats it is .070 or a .003 delta which is .208 seconds per 60 second course. (Please note, math is being done to many more decimal places than are displayed, so .003x60 on one line may not match .003x60 2 lines later)

Again, my goal is only to point out that the PAX numbers don't make sense to me as they don't begin to equalize the data from Top National level drivers in Top National level cars. If they don't do that, what good are they and why should we use them?
http://www.renoscca.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20&d=1209077166

[S2kreno]

His car is orange. Cone-colored.

[S2kreno]

Again, my goal is only to point out that the PAX numbers don't make sense to me as they don't begin to equalize the data from Top National level drivers in Top National level cars. If they don't do that, what good are they and why should we use them?



OK, here's a project (since apparently some / most of us don't have to get any work done today) :D

Get the national data for the last 5 years or so (depending on your level of masochism). Run the numbers for year one and use the deltas as a basis to tweak the factors as though you were the King of PAX that year. Apply the new and improved factors to the following year and see if it got any more accurate. And so on. If the system doesn't improve with each iteration (more or less) then I don't see how we can rely on it. On the other hand if we find that it gets tolerably accurate then PAX can be saved.

[Dean]

Unfortunately, the amount of work is huge as cars change classes year to year, and rules change. The biggest rule change was probably SP allowing Forced induction cars to modify boost and the reclassing of all those cars 2 or 3 years ago and that one is probably insurmountable by mere mortals.

And I am not proposing to replace PAX with NATs. NATs is no more than a tool to show that PAX doesn't appear to jive with what I consider to be statistically interesting if not significant data and maybe convince some other folks that PAX is broken.

I think it would be far more interesting to try something like "Winner's Weighed" times as a local handicapping system in place of PAX. Something akin to a 200 handicap bowling league might work as well. Or just get rid of DoY type season trophies. But then, iIam just a bitter old man who lost to a Kart. :)

[Kevin M]

I must say, anything that can be called "victory weight" or anything like it has no business in autocross. It's a tool used by race series with vastly different car specs to create parity. It's not used to sort out who the best driver is by making it increasingly difficult for him to win. There is nothing inherently wrong with the same drivers in the same cars winning year after year if there isn't a significant change in the competitoon- a whole new car like a Solstice or Evo/STi, or just a major upgrade of an existing one like the C5 and C6 corvettes, and new Miata. Ken and Ray can show up and clean our clocks for as long as they are able to, and I don't think they or anyone else should be penalized for it. PAX, HAP or any other attempt to improve or replace them should be intended solely to give driver A in car B a tool for directly comparing himself to driver X in car Y. Not to prevent driver a from winning repeatedly.

[sperry]

I must say, anything that can be called "victory weight" or anything like it has no business in autocross. It's a tool used by race series with vastly different car specs to create parity. It's not used to sort out who the best driver is by making it increasingly difficult for him to win. There is nothing inherently wrong with the same drivers in the same cars winning year after year if there isn't a significant change in the competitoon- a whole new car like a Solstice or Evo/STi, or just a major upgrade of an existing one like the C5 and C6 corvettes, and new Miata. Ken and Ray can show up and clean our clocks for as long as they are able to, and I don't think they or anyone else should be penalized for it. PAX, HAP or any other attempt to improve or replace them should be intended solely to give driver A in car B a tool for directly comparing himself to driver X in car Y. Not to prevent driver a from winning repeatedly.
Well, the original proposal for a victory weight system was not one that creates parity, but one that creates a situation where drivers have to remain consistent throughout the season because the "victory weight" penalty makes it harder for someone with an overdog car and less driving skill to keep winning. i.e. the system would factor out inconsistent drivers over time, leaving the "better" more consistent drivers in the lead even if they were driving underdog or under-prepped or different classes of cars.

But all that hinges on everyone agreeing that driver consistency is a valid indicator of how good a driver is. It would be very difficult to come up with a means to rate drivers aside from their lap times which are affected by things like car choice, car prep, altitude, etc. Driver consistency was the only thing I could think of... it's basically like bracket racing in autocross.

[Jamin]

I think PAX needs to be fixed for the very reason that it IS supposed to be an indicator of driver skill compasrison - that's how I use it; how'd I PAX vs. Brian Coulson or Ryan Johnson or Bridgette Olsen or George Curtis or Brandon Davis or the multitude of other drivers superior to me in skill; and am I catching them.

Acknowledging that it's not intended as a car classification tool, it sure as hell is an indicator; I know I'm kicking a horse here but if I kick it hard enough long enough maybe it'll get back up and people will realize it's THERE, dead or alive, lol. The MCS was not bumped up, and now the GS PAX is higher than the DS PAX. DS has some EXCELLENT drivers and some *****in' cars - it's a 'higher' class and should PAX higher than GS. As a result, the twop classes are screwy, because cars that CLEARLY fit the definition of DS are being put in GS to justify the Mini's continued presence there, and people with older DS cars that aren't getting moved down are penalized for it (i.e., Spec-V and new Si in G, Mazdaspeed Preotege still in D? C'mon.), which will cut into participation as people who want to be competitive but won't buy a new car lose interest. Ryan and I in UT are a perfect example; he modded the MX-6 into STX where it's not real competitive - but it's more so there than it is in GS now (scary...). So tons of GS cars that should be competitive aren't, and DS becomes a lost class.

What's this got to do with PAX? Well, as a result of all this mess, DS drivers are now unfairly advantaged in PAX (hey - that's to my advantage, lol), and anyone in a non Spec-V or Mini in GS is SCREWED for PAXing at local events. So I'm not getting an accurate idea of how I rate; I'll PAX higher than I should, and a good driver in a GS car will PAX lower than they should - even if they're great drivers, nationally competitive evven in terms of skill - if they have a '99 Prelude they're going to PAX .010 slower than they should.

So yeah - classing ands PAX are VERY intertwined if you wan tto use PAX as it's intended, to judge your skill against the other drivers. When taht factors into DoY and open-PAX classes, it's big deal. I shouldn't be competitive in an open PAX class; I'm out of practice and in a new car, merely above average. I could switch to ODS and have a significant mathamatical advantage working for me toward getting a trophy - quite possibly over a more deserving driver. That's even worse than getting beat by ST-PAX, lol! ;)

[Dean]

Acknowledging that it's not intended as a car classification tool, it sure as hell is an indicator; I know I'm kicking a horse here but if I kick it hard enough long enough maybe it'll get back up and people will realize it's THERE, dead or alive, lol...Again, you are describing a classing issue. The SEB is going to make classing decisions by their own methods. No matter what they do, somebody is unhappy. Either the previous killer car(s) in a class, or the new car(s). And there is no way for a handicapping system that for perceived fairness must be frozen before the season starts can accommodate for changes within a class from an untested new car.

Again, I am not trying to fix PAX, only point out that it be broke!

[Jamin]

The rest of the post was explaining why classing and PAX are very closely related, and why that matters!

As for the math - you've put a lot of work into showing on paper what we already suspected/knew but hadn't run the numbers on; and S2Kreno's suggestion actually makes a lot of sense. Maybe whomever wants to tackle this could go back over the years afte the changes in question or something - but it should be a season to season check for sure.

Yeah - it's broken, we all know it's broken, and the questions remaining are can/should it be fixed, or dumped altogether, and should it be used in local events to determine DoY and other points of competitive interest?

[dknv]

If the basis for the stats is the AM class performance, and their performance was less than their norm, would that not skew these results?

Reason I was asking is because 2007 was the first year ever at Nationals that any other class (F125) had FTD.

[Dean]

F125 has been closing for some time as I recall, but what is less than norm? I assume these are the best AM cars and drivers and they lost to carts in top 1,3 and trophies averages.

ALL the data is in the spreadsheet... Top F125 beat top AM. Top 4 F125 beat # 2 AM. All but the slowest of the 25 F125s beat the 3rd and last trophy AM car by 1.5 seconds or more.

If you want to throw out that third place AM, instead of the "trophies" data, look at the Top 1 numbers. They are just as bad when compared to PAX.

Again, one of my biggest complaint about PAX is lack of transparency. As far as I know Rick has never shared any details of how it is created much less any data related to its basis. While faith is a wonderful thing, in has little application in motorsports where rules and times are analyzed to the Nth degree and even if it did, I have no faith in PAX. OK, I have to have faith or is it a belief in physics, skill and preparation, that my tires will stick and that my brakes will work to dive into corners, but that is not quite the same. :)

[daveds50]

F125 has been closing for some time as I recall, but what is less than norm? I assume these are the best AM cars and drivers and they lost to carts in top 1,3 and trophies averages.


from the way the PAX numbers were explained to me from Rick...

you cannot use nationals for pax. there are too many variables involved in a 4 day event. anyone who has been to Topeka in September, knows that you can experience all 4 seasons in one day. heat 1 can be a cold morning, heat 2 can be warm and sunny, heat 3 can rain, etc, etc. you can only compare within a run group. was told that Nat results are not used normally, unless it is the same group.

yes, this is the first time F125 has beaten AM.... Jeremiah is quite the driver, in a great kart. but you also have to remember that the basis for AM is no longer there. ( Milligan/Cheng Phantom sold a few years ago ) so in reality, AM has slowed down. that is evident by almost all the other classes PAX factors slowly going up recently in comparison to AM. i do remember quite the gap from that car, and all other cars in AM.

PAX is factored from the fast guys performance over the past 5 years of national events, divisional, and even some local events when there are multiple top level drivers in different classes at those local events. i was even told that *I* was being watched in F125 in 2000... :confused: some even from our local events when we had top level visitors.

agreed... PAX is broken... but then again, when was it ever perfect ?

yes, i won the LV season PAX last year. but in the level of importance to me, it rates very low. what it is useful for to me, is to gage performance of driving/vehicle prep to see if it is consistently improving or not. from what has been happening with my STS car, it seems that it is almost ready for us to go to Pro Solos, Tours, and Nats, which is the plan for 2009.

want to do good in PAX ? it's easy... choose the right vehicle, and just build your vehicle to the limits of the rule book, set it up well, and drive it like the top level drivers do. i guarantee that you will be somewhere up top in your local region.

dave

[AlexR]

The problem with a locally based PAX system is that it becomes personal. If we're going to make up numbers because we think particular people should be winning or losing, we should just skip the PAX factors and just go back to picking the driver of the year by board vote.

Any system should be totally transparent, or it's not sporting, it's just a popularity contest.


I agree with this! altering our PAX only based upon local data is not very likely to greatly improve PAX, as many of our cars are not prepared all the way and some of us are very not yet consistent (ME).

If we want to create our own reno pax system, Keeping it 100% transparent is Key #1.

It has to be based upon some data, I think we all agree national level drivers and their cars are a better place to look for such data. Finding national level events where the weather was someone consistent will prove a challenge.

I also think if we can base it upon National level drivers @ Denver we would be able to see how the lower powered , lower traction cars did in relation to higher powered higher traction cars

the purpose of PAX is to compare Drivers + Cars who are in different classes with each other. (Sounds simple) we have further used it to hand out trophies .

Perhaps we leave it broken , but only use it as a means of comparison, and then come up with a new system for handing out Trophies. perhaps one of the Victory weight / time systems that has been proposed.

["A" Stocker]

from the way the PAX numbers were explained to me from Rick...

you cannot use nationals for pax. there are too many variables involved in a 4 day event. anyone who has been to Topeka in September, knows that you can experience all 4 seasons in one day. heat 1 can be a cold morning, heat 2 can be warm and sunny, heat 3 can rain, etc, etc. you can only compare within a run group. was told that Nat results are not used normally, unless it is the same group.

yes, this is the first time F125 has beaten AM.... Jeremiah is quite the driver, in a great kart. but you also have to remember that the basis for AM is no longer there. ( Milligan/Cheng Phantom sold a few years ago ) so in reality, AM has slowed down. that is evident by almost all the other classes PAX factors slowly going up recently in comparison to AM. i do remember quite the gap from that car, and all other cars in AM.

This is very true, look back over the last 5 or 6 yrs at the Nationals--True AM Guys are not showing up any more, AM wouldn't even be a class if they didn't keep FSAE tied to them, they would never make the numbers.

PAX is factored from the fast guys performance over the past 5 years of national events, divisional, and even some local events when there are multiple top level drivers in different classes at those local events. i was even told that *I* was being watched in F125 in 2000... :confused: some even from our local events when we had top level visitors.

agreed... PAX is broken... but then again, when was it ever perfect ?

yes, i won the LV season PAX last year. but in the level of importance to me, it rates very low. what it is useful for to me, is to gage performance of driving/vehicle prep to see if it is consistently improving or not. from what has been happening with my STS car, it seems that it is almost ready for us to go to Pro Solos, Tours, and Nats, which is the plan for 2009.

want to do good in PAX ? it's easy... choose the right vehicle, and just build your vehicle to the limits of the rule book, set it up well, and drive it like the top level drivers do. i guarantee that you will be somewhere up top in your local region.

dave

Thats a true statement even if your not running for PAX... It seems we compensate lack of prep or ability by coming up with a number to justify being slow i.e: I was 5 sec. slower than you in my non-prepped,street tire shod pinto, but with my mulipliers for PAX and Street Tire, I kicked your butt by a full sec.

I love how everybody gets riled, by a number(s) that we don't even have to use unless we want too. PAX isn't mandatory, but the way people comment and want to change it almost makes you think it is.

I think to truly have a "PAX" multiplier it would have to be an ever changing number, due to the numerous variables used to come up with the factor.

[S2kreno]

I a not a sufficiently experienced driver to blame a poor showing on the calculator. However, I find what my car is capable of by having good drivers take it out and I compare my times with theirs. It gives me something to shoot for and helps me know when I've done a good job and gotten as much out of my car as I can. That being said, there were many times when I had really good drivers in my S and their times weren't competitive with others in the class. So I know the PAX calcs don't necessarily work for all cars and drivers. So the expedient thing for me and probably others too is to do as Dave said -- get the most advantaged car in your class, set it up right and learn to drive it well. Or I check to see if I've done a good job given my limitations, work toward improving, and don't give a crap about PAX. I grew up racing sail boats and we had similar handicapping systems in the yacht club -- noone ever liked them either.

[Dean]

That being said, there were many times when I had really good drivers in my S and their times weren't competitive with others in the class.The only thing I would change to make your car competitive is tires. The A048s you have are probably significantly less sticky at autocross than the 615s, RE-01s or new Dunlops but don't let you take T factor due to their low treadwear. They are certainly no Hoosier or 710 which is what they have to run against.

Have fun driving your wonderful car and getting better. You will be hunting those ASP ladies down in no time. :)