Andy,

That paragraph also mentioned that 'other factors', that were not enumerated, were used. But it didn't say that all factors were weighted the same for all cars, that's the issue. Without that, it's really nothing more than a SWAG.

In modeling and regression analysis, there can be many factors. However, through the analysis, you can determine which ones have a significant impact on the outcome and which ones don't. For example, I'd be willing to bet that solid vs. vented rotors (same diameter) plays a pretty small part (if even discernable from the 'noise' of driver skill and prep level) in the performance factor of a car. And maybe that's where the rub lies. You talk about all these factors that are 'moving targets', but I contend that most of them get burried due to the background noise (skill and prep).

And, if you look back in the archives, I never advocated a one-shot deal w/ a formula. I advocate a published, simple, evenly applied formula,, and subsequent weight adjustments based on how close the formula was. Look at the formula as a first apporoximation.

/edit/ I know people have argued against a moving weight target w/ the above proposal, but how is that any different than the current PCA proposal? They're talking about potentially changing the weight after the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year, and maybe yet again in the future.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 21, 2003).]