DavidM

I guess that we have enough talent within this Forum to devise our own formula that we could apply to all cars. DavidM, Naishou - would you like to have a crack at devising such a formula? Anyone else interested in a mathematical answer to this issue?

There's many different ways of doing the BFYB and still be 'fair' and consistent. As a matter of fact I have an XLS spreadsheet set up with last years BFYB which uses (what I concider) much better logic. I have not punched the 2003 data in there yet, but if someone is interested in the stpeadsheet then I'm happy to e-mail it to them.

RedRover, my logic is diffrent from what you're suggesting ... partically because I don't agree with 'top speed' being the most imprortant peformance criteria. For me it's the lap time ... all the other performance figures (ie. braking, acceleration and top speed) are just something that comes together to form the lap time. Not only that, but lap time takes grip and handling into account as well. The logic that I used is pretty simple:

1) BFYB = BANG + BUCK (where bang and buck carry exactly the same weight ie. each goes towards 50% of the BFYB).

2) BANG = PERFORMANCE + LAPTIME + VOTES (where each category carries the same weight. ie each goes towards 33.3% of the total 'bang')

3) PERFORMANCE = ACCELERATION + TOP SPEED + <any other measured performance figure>. (where each category carries the same weight)

4) ACCELERATION = 0-100kph + 400m where each category carries the same weight)

Another important thing is, in my XLS all figures are taken by their actual values instead of just order/position that it lands the cars into (ie. as in Motor).

Last of all, dividing the cars into price-categories is something that does not influence the outcome at all as all the cars are measured against the same BANG and same BUCK.

RedRover

On second thoughts I can see some flaws in my first-attempt formula. David's attempt is not bad but I don't like the dependence on the journalists ratings.

Naishou, your turn to have a crack at this.

DavidM

...but I don't like the dependence on the journalists ratings.

hehe, I'm not too fond of their 'ratings' either (and I also made the spresheets give me the BFYB results without the votes in a separate column). Though, I do acknowledge that performance/handling of a car is a lot more then just 'raw' data. MX5 is a good example of that - MX5 returns pretty low numbers in all the 'criterias', but is a brilliant sportscar that is one of the best handlers. How do you include that in the equation without subjective opinios from 'judges'?

Though, Motor determine something like 66% of the BANG on the 'votes' while I'm inclined to give only 33% of BANG to the 'votes'.... afterall, you cannot ignore the hard data. If the car laps fast, accelerates hard and has a lot of grip then that gives it a lot of BANG no matter what your (or mine) opinion of the car maybe.

Ideally I'd like to see each judge 'vote' consist of not ranking (as it is now) but simply a score for each car out of 10 points (where different cars can recenive the same points). What the judges should be scoring is the handling/feel and not the actual raw data (as we have that already).

I think it's silly to use 0-100kph time, the 400m time and top-speed (at the end of the straight) as separate categories which cary the same wight as a lap time (or whatever else they are measuring). Afterall, all those 3 categories are describing exactly the same thing ie. the acceleration. If a car accelerates hard then it will return very good numbers in all 3 categories. If the car is lacking in acceleration then it will perform poorly in all 3 categories. I don't see why it should be penalized (or rewarded) 3x just for the way it accelerates.

ps. Another flaw with the Motor's BFYB is that the 0-100kph and 400m acceleration numebrs are the 'best ever' numbers lifted from the back of the magaizne. A lot of these warp the results as on the same day the cars will fall into a different order as the 'best ever' figures imply. Also the 'best ever' figures favor cars that get tested often and handicap the cars that are tested infrequently as the car tested often is more likely to have it's optimum run extracted.

tafka TMB

A magic Formula ?

(Wakefield time in seconds multiplied by 3)-(cost in dollars)=BFYB

If your answer is the highest you win, if your answer is lower you are too slow or too expensive. If the answer is in negatives you are too slow or too expensive. The figures may have to be adjusted (it doesn't allow for $300k cars) but I like the general idea.

ITR should've won the 1st BFTB that it was in (it was under $40k) and they didn't do lap times at PI (cause it was too wet). Next year it was over $40k so it was handicapped.

RedRover

(Wakefield time in seconds multiplied by 3)-(cost in dollars)=BFYB

tafka, sorry I don't understand your formula. Could you give a few examples to clarify what you mean.

naishou

It's too subjective. How much is a second worth? Depends who you ask. An indicator of how a car performs compared with the rest (all of them, not just its price group) would be to draw a line of best fit (this is called linear regression) on the graph of lap time vs cost. Any car that sticks up above the line is too expensive, and below is good "bang for buck". The car furthest below the line could be called the winner, but there'd still be people who would say the fastest car is automatically the best or whatever. It depends if a second is worth more or less to you than to the average person.

tafka TMB

Sure thing RR

I don

naishou

That's why you've got to do a linear regression

And no I'm not volunteering

Austblue

Wouldn't this data still be biased since it only takes into account the performance from one track? Certain tracks are going to favour certain cars and who is to say that one track in particular is the mean of all tracks? I dont mean to jump in and start asking questions that cant be answered because I am very interested in the discussion and hope it continues........ but I cant help but wonder how valuable the output would be no matter how it was analysed.

There are so many inputs that could be introduced and many of them are irrrelavant to certain audiences but I really think that any analysis that is carried out is going to have a disclaimer at the end of it which makes it only as valuable as the last only more suited to the designer's(of the system) preferences and bias.

What we need is a decathlon style testing system where the car is examined in a number of different fields and then the raw values are submitted. The only formula that needs to be developed is to take a comparative view of the cost against the overall score. This would need to be rationalised to eliminate the impossibility for cars >$XXXXX to receive a competitive score as was realised in tafka tmb's system.

Would you also want to take into account the estimated outgoing cost that would be seen if the vehicle was subjected to this kind of treatment regularly? As many have argued the difference in times that we see for the 0-100kph is directly related to the punishment that the tester is willing to give the car. This opens up another can of worms that would also be futile in development.

Sorry to contribute nothing but doubt and dismissal guys I guess that the last 5 years at uni have made me a little over analytical

tafka TMB

Okay. My answers are screwy. I think that my "destination" was a good idea it's just that I kind of got lost along the way. I don