DavidM

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 don't think it's that complicated. Bottom line is that a fast car will be quick on every track and vica versa. For instance look at the M3 - it returned 1:53.7 at the Island, 1:41.5 at Winton and 1:12 at Wakefield. As you can see it's quick everywhwere. Then let's look at the WRX - 1:59.3 at the Island, 1:46.7 at Winton and 1:12.9 at Wakefield ... it's quick but not as quick as the M3.

Yes, some tracks favour some cars more than others but I'm pretty sure that if you can tell me a lap time of a car at one track, then I can guess pretty closely to what time that car will do on a a different track.

Oops I just realised that if you had a real slug time (120 secs) and a low price you would be okay. With the current times you would need to be a rocket if you cost over $200k

That is exactly why the BANG, performance or BUCK scale cannot be not linear.

If you look at it at an extreme, a push bike will get you around Winton in something like 5 minutes and it costs you $200. Now something like a $20k Hyundai will do it in 2:30 so how can you justify 100x price for 2x the performance (ie. lap time in this case). If you take it to an extreme - for example, if you can do 0-100kph in 4secs. How much is 1sec of that time worth? It's something like 1000x more then 1sec of a 15sec 0-100kph time.

So the scale is not linear at all. To deal with it I applied a relatively simple rule. The best 'available' performance (in any criteria) gives you the maximum number of points while the minimum 'available' performance yelds the minimum number of points. Everything in between is scaled relatively to these two indexes. Then I did the same thing with the price (ie. buck index). The most expensive 'available' car gets the minimum number of points here while the cheapest gets the maximum number of points.

The above works on the principle that:
- BFYB = BANG + BUCK (360 points maximum)
- BANG = 180 points maximum
- BUCK = 180 points maximum (inverse of the price)
- BANG = LAP TIME + PERFORMANCE + VOTES
- Lap time = 60 points maximum
- Perfromance = 60 points maximum
- Votes = 60 points maximum
- PERFROMANCE = ACCELERATION + TOP SPEED
- Top Speed = 30 points maximum
- Acceleration = 30 points maximum
- Acceleration = 0-100kph + 400m
- 0-100kph = 15 points maximum
- 400m = 15 points maximum

The car with the highest BFYB wins. Seems to work pretty well and the results from last year (going by the above rulles were):
1) Subaru Impreza WRX STi = 235.22
2) Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VI = 230.10
3) Nissan 200SX = 224.47
4) Renault Clio Sport = 208.70
5) Mazda MX5 SP = 207.85
6) Honda Integra Type-R = 198.15
7) Ford TE50 = 192.41
8) Mini Cooper S = 189.96
9) Holden Astra SRi = 181.94
10) HSV GTO Coupe = 180.78
11) Holden Barina SRi = 177.75
12) Mazda 323 Prot

RedRover

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Austblue [B] "because I am very interested in the discussion and hope it continues........"

DavidM

DavidM, there are a couple of cars missing from your list. I wonder if you have enough similar data to add them into your spreadsheet to see where they fit into the results. The two I'm interested in are the Honda S2000 and the standard Subaru WRX

When I'll punch in the data from the 2003 BFYB then a standard WRX will be there. For an S2000 to be put in I just need an S2000 lap-time and top speed. We don't have these clocked by a pro at Wakefield. We have one for the Island as well as Winton so we can only quess at it but considering the heavily weighting on lap-times, it is something that should be 100% accurate to get a scientific result. I can punch in the S2000 with an 'estimated' time ... I'm guessing 1:12.00 but I could easilly be off by plus or minus 0.5sec and that differential would infuence the results. Any other guesses? What about top speed? Naishou mentioned around 170kph but again, being 5kph off here will influence the results as that is a significant difference. Any 'accurate' questimates for top speed?

Also my spreadsheet (ie. formula) allows for the BFYB from different years to be mixed as long as they are doing the tests on the same track. '02 and '03 BFYB were both done at Wakefield, but the track was not exaclty the same ... they had an 'extra' corner in '02 and it makes the lap times abot as comaprable as 'short' Winton and 'long' Winton but with lower variation in time. The differential is around 5% but again that is making a 'guestrimate' out if the '02 lap times of I combine them with the '03 lap times and hence not very scientific. I'll probably just punch in the '03 data all by itself see what that returns. I should get a chance to do that tonight or tomorrow.

ps. I have the '01, '02 and '03 PCOTY results punched into a similar spreadsheet (but one where the 'value' is not as significant ie. 1/3 of total score) as all of them have been done at Winton. It's interesting to see how all the cars 'rank' under those criterias. M3 wins that ahead of Boxster S and the S2000 falls in the 33rd position out nof 62 cars ... bellow the Viper and just above the MX5. Here are the '01, '02 and '03 PCOTY combined:
1 BMW M3 '02 114.39
2 Porsche BoxsterS'03 106.58
3 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VI 93.07
4 Nissan 200SX 89.25
5 Subaru Impreza WRX Sti '02 88.19
6 Mazda MX5 SP 86.79
7 BMW 330Ci 84.76
8 Subaru Impreza WRX Sti'03 82.46
9 Porsche 911 Turbo 81.37
10 Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo 78.71
11 HSV GTS'03 77.99
12 Lotus Elise 111S 77.39
13 Porsche 911Carrera '02 75.59
14 Renault Clio Sport 73.23
15 Audi RS4 72.15
16 Merceses CLK55 AMG 71.44
17 Mazda6 Luxuy Sports 71.42
18 Audi S3 71.34
19 Holden Monaro CV8'03 70.17
20 HSV GTS 69.45
21 Mercedes E55 AMG 69.19
22 Lotus Elise '02 68.28
23 Ford Falcon TE50 '02 68.21
24 Subaru Impreza WRX 66.86
25 Ford Falcon XR8 '02 66.46
26 CSV Veloce 330 '02 66.12
27 HSV GTS Coupe 64.25
28 Holden Commodore SV8 61.92
29 CSV Veloce 330 61.31
30 Chrisler Viper RT/10 60.24
31 HSV Mallo R8 59.22
32 Ford Falcon TE50 56.27
33 Honda S2000 55.49
34 Mazda MX5 55.14
35 Mini Cooper S 55.05
36 Mitsubishi Raliant Magna 53.89
37 HSV Clubsport R8 53.86
38 Holden Commodore SS 53.63
39 Mercedes SL55 AMG 53.55
40 Mercedes C32 AMG 52.52
41 BMW Z3 3.0 Auto 51.35
42 Jaguar X-Type Sport 3.0 51.13
43 Alfa Romeo 156 GTA 50.31
44 Mitsubishi Magna VR-X 49.99
45 Honda Integra Type-R '02 49.72
46 Merceses SLK230 48.79
47 Toyota MR2 Spyder 47.79
48 Holden Monaro CV8 46.81
49 Toyota Camry Sportivo 46.11
50 Jaguar S-Type R 42.11
51 Volvo S60 40.24
52 Ford Fairmont Ghia (v8) 37.10
53 Holden Commodore SS '02 37.01
54 Holden Barina Sri 35.14
55 Porsche 911 GT2 34.61
56 Audi S6 34.15
57 Ford Falcon XR8 16.14
58 Alfa Romeo 147 15.40
59 BMW X5 4.6is 5.14
60 BMW X5 0.46
61 Jaguar XKR -1.76
62 MGF Trophy 160 -7.61

naishou

Can you post the prices and lap times from this time please?

tafka TMB

This is so much better than the Fordforums discussion which seems to be a collection of 15 year olds whinging about how the XR6 Turbo should have won it.

RedRover

DavidM, Looks like your formula is getting close to what a "real world" assessment would be. There's certainly some very good value cars in the top ten. Just to help fine-tune your formula and promote more contributions I've used colour below to highlight a few that I think might not be in their correct sequence (see comments at bottom of list)

1 BMW M3 '02 114.39
2 Porsche BoxsterS'03 106.58
3 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VI 93.07
4 Nissan 200SX 89.25
5 Subaru Impreza WRX Sti '02 88.19
6 Mazda MX5 SP 86.79
7 BMW 330Ci 84.76
8 Subaru Impreza WRX Sti'03 82.46
9 Porsche 911 Turbo 81.37
10 Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo 78.71
11 HSV GTS'03 77.99
12 Lotus Elise 111S 77.39
13 Porsche 911Carrera '02 75.59
14 Renault Clio Sport 73.23
15 Audi RS4 72.15
16 Merceses CLK55 AMG 71.44
17 Mazda6 Luxuy Sports 71.42
18 Audi S3 71.34
19 Holden Monaro CV8'03 70.17
20 HSV GTS 69.45
21 Mercedes E55 AMG 69.19
22 Lotus Elise '02 68.28
23 Ford Falcon TE50 '02 68.21
24 Subaru Impreza WRX 66.86
25 Ford Falcon XR8 '02 66.46
26 CSV Veloce 330 '02 66.12
27 HSV GTS Coupe 64.25
28 Holden Commodore SV8 61.92
29 CSV Veloce 330 61.31
30 Chrisler Viper RT/10 60.24
31 HSV Mallo R8 59.22
32 Ford Falcon TE50 56.27
33 Honda S2000 55.49
34 Mazda MX5 55.14
35 Mini Cooper S 55.05
36 Mitsubishi Raliant Magna 53.89
37 HSV Clubsport R8 53.86
38 Holden Commodore SS 53.63
39 Mercedes SL55 AMG 53.55
40 Mercedes C32 AMG 52.52
41 BMW Z3 3.0 Auto 51.35
42 Jaguar X-Type Sport 3.0 51.13
43 Alfa Romeo 156 GTA 50.31
44 Mitsubishi Magna VR-X 49.99
45 Honda Integra Type-R '02 49.72
46 Merceses SLK230 48.79
47 Toyota MR2 Spyder 47.79
48 Holden Monaro CV8 46.81
49 Toyota Camry Sportivo 46.11
50 Jaguar S-Type R 42.11
51 Volvo S60 40.24
52 Ford Fairmont Ghia (v8) 37.10
53 Holden Commodore SS '02 37.01
54 Holden Barina Sri 35.14
55 Porsche 911 GT2 34.61
56 Audi S6 34.15
57 Ford Falcon XR8 16.14

COMMENTS

The Porsche Turbo is a fine car but at $308,000+ it seems out of place with all those under $100K cars around it.

I would have thought that the Subaru Impreza WRX would have ranked much higher than 24. It's one of the great performance bargains of our time.

Similarly, the Honda Integra Type-R should be even higher.

I don't know much about the Mazda6 Luxury Sports but it looks to be a bit higher up than what I would have guessed.

Iggy_Type_R

I am surprised to find the Cleo Sport at number 14 and the ITR at 45 considering in every review I've read on the two the Cleo is said to be just a tad behind the Honda for performance, speed, agility, etc.

DavidM

I've used colour below to highlight a few that I think might not be in their correct sequence (see comments at bottom of list)

Remember that this is PCOTY you're looking at and not BFYB. PCOTY does not put as much emphasis on the 'value' as BFYB (where it is 1/2 the equation). Value accounts for 1/3 of the final score in PCOTY. The performance + votes here are the most critical part of the equation and that answers the 911 Turbo question:

The Porsche Turbo is a fine car but at $308,000+ it seems out of place with all those under $100K cars around it.

The following numbers were responsible for the 911 Turbo to be 9th (in brackets is a $133k Boxster S):
- 0-100kph = 4.30 (5.48)
- 0-400m = 12.39 (13.70)
- 0-1000m = 22.24 (24.95)
- Top speed = 247kph (213kph)
- Winton lap time = 1:37.07 (1:42.09)
- Price = $298,800 ($133,100)

So as you can see, the performance of the 911-T is not even comparable as it's in a totally different league. So the price and votes alone are responsible for the Boxster S finishing 7 spots higher. I suppose it comes down to the weighting of 'value' but for a PCOTY value is resonsible for only 1/3 of the final score ... I'd argue that maybe that's too much for a PCOTY but cars like WRX need to be able to win it and that's the only way they can. Just for interests sake, if the 911-T cost $190,000 then it would beat the Boxster S in my spreadsheet. It would need to cost $160,000 to beat the M3. If that seems odd then it's because the Boxster S and M3 gut superb scores from the judges while the 911-T score were not as good (but still very good).

I would have thought that the Subaru Impreza WRX would have ranked much higher than 24. It's one of the great performance bargains of our time.

In BFYB it certainly shines (when I'll punch the '03 BFYB data in there then I'm sure it 'll be close to the top), but in PCOTY it does not shine like somehting like EVO. Still that is not the reson for it's 'lowly' placing ... it's mostly dou to the judges' votes. The 200SX is as high as it is not becuase of it's outright numbers, but because the judges scored it really high. The WRX got 'average' votes and that's what hurt it.

Similarly, the Honda Integra Type-R should be even higher.

Same story as the WRX but the all perfromance numbers are lower, the votes were lower and the price about the same. Though, again, it's the votes that stopped it being much higher. In a way that's why the S2000 is in 35th spot ... the performance numbers were were good (in a way pretty good), but the votes in particluar were not favourable.

I don't know much about the Mazda6 Luxury Sports but it looks to be a bit higher up than what I would have guessed.

In could not agree more, but accordring to the judges' votes, the Mazda 6 is one of the best handling cars out there (miles better than the S2000 or WRX) and that brought it really high up. The actually perfmance numbers were pretty weak so you can see what really high 'votes' (ie. judges' impressions of handing, dynamics and drivability) can do to a placing of the car in PCOTY. If a WRX got that kind of votes than it would probably win.

I am surprised to find the Cleo Sport at number 14 and the ITR at 45 considering in every review I've read on the two the Cleo is said to be just a tad behind the Honda for performance, speed, agility, etc.

That is not what the judges thought in the PCOTY and that is why the results. The judges gave 70 points to the ITR in PCOTY while the Clio received 92 points. Not only that but there's $10,000 price difference in the Clio favour ... that is the ITR is 1/3 more expensive. Though, the ITR did beat the Clio purelly on performace numbers (and lap time) where it collcted 27.57 points compared to CLio's 15.55. You can see just from here that the votes alone put the Clio 10 points ahead despite the ITRs perfromance advantage.

ps. I'll post the '03 BFYB results once I punch the numbers inthe the BFYB spreadsheet.

DavidM

I just ponched the '03 results into the beforementioned BFYB formula and these are the results:
1 Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo 86.74
2 Holden Astra Sri Turbo 83.75
3 Subaru Impreza WRX '03 74.66
4 Subaru Impreza WRX STi 71.75
5 Toyota Corolla Sportivo 69.80
6 Holden Barina SRi 53.99
7 Nissan 350Z Track 53.47
8 Mazda RX8 49.84
9 FPV Falcon GT 45.22
10 Ford Falcon XT V8 40.71
11 Holden Commodore SV8 39.21
12 Ford Falcon XR8 '03 32.20
13 Audi S3 '03 15.60
14 Ford Focus ST170 10.53
15 BMZ Z4 3.0i 1.00
16 HSV GTS Coupe -3.95
17 Porsche Boxster S '03 -20.32
18 Toyota Echo Sportivo -32.92
19 Lotus Elise 111S '03 -33.40
20 BMW M3 SMG-II -52.88

Very different to what Motor got in they equation (if you can call it that). The expensive cars are badly handicapped in this equation ... I like the PCOTY one better, but then this is BFYB.

Iggy_Type_R

I didn't realise these cars had any "BANG" at all!?!?!?!?!

I find it hard to compare some of these cars in just one large pool. There really should be categories and then cars can be ranked in those.

For example... I would not go comparing a Porsche Turbo to a WRX... reason? Cause You can have 6 WRXs for the price of a Porsche. The Turbo should be compared to cars like the GT2, GT3, 360, 550, Murcelago, SL55AMG, etc etc.

May be also use the luxury tax threshold to separate the "expensive" sports cars from the "every day" sports cars.

Just thinking out loud anyway.