Originally Posted by Bob-Stormer
Also to get to a .150 would almost mean you didn't peak your pack. or your car "came in" to late. I've got an opinion that .3 is ideal. If a computer perfectly drove a car, likely it would get a .4, I base this on lap times following the voltage curve. So a .150 kind of points to a potential where something wasn't exactly right at the start, and the car came in, "slightly". That's why I think the formula is absolutely best when using your best qualifier. Probably better luck in traffic, your best driving, best gearing, tire and chassis choices, more of the equation was accurate. The mains with rare exception are just not as fast, not as clean, and people in 5-10th do a lot of courtesy driving, raising their error factor.
Didn't see this when you first posted. But I think a .3 is too high at least is 6 cell. Now in 4-cell and 8 minute heats it may be right, but I am still working on that class, but in tc if I can turn a 7.9 in the first couple of laps I can turn at least an 8.0 in the last lap. Also your formula was for the average of your best 20 laps, that allows me to knock off 17-18 laps. Maybe it should be configured for the overall lap average instead of the top 20 lap average. This way at 37 laps I would have a consistency of .346 and at 38 would be .126 this is based on a 305 second finish. And you see, if I took only the top 20 laps of that 38 lap finish I would probably be under .100. But this is all subjective, it can't really be used to compare my times to a guys at a different track, we generally only have 5-6 cars in a heat, the guy at the other track may have more which will cause a different consistency, but it is extremely helpful when comparing yourself to yourself or to another person at your track. Which you have said already, but I am just saying you are right.