Lists, lists, lists

It's getting close to that time of year again.

Once again, various organizations are getting set to deliver their verdict on which new cars are the best on sale today.

Of course, the alchemical and sometimes thaumaturgical calculations and machinations involved in deciding the winners of such awards sometimes leaves non-automotive enthusiasts... and even some enthusiasts... hell... even some of the judges who vote on these things... confused.

As well they should be... there's really no system that can't be gamed to produce any results you want. Since bench-racing is a favorite pastime of most automotive enthusiasts, those of you who know what "0-62", "bhp" and "lateral g" signify can understand this. It's tempting to give scores for performance... or for "value-for-the-money"... such cheap tricks the media employs to convince the manufacturers that their cars should be cheaper and better!

But things get awfully wooly when you start adding subjective scoring to the mix. Some awards are decided subjectively for items that most lay-people will never notice... the cleverness of the engineering of a car's engine mounts... the use of cylinder deactivation for fuel economy... hybrid implementation... etcetera. Such subjectively decided criteria have led to some pretty crappy cars being crowned for no other reason than their uniqueness. I'm looking at you, Motor Trend and "European Car of the Year"!

Others may try to rigidly structure subjective observations into a quantifiable table. But they find that the scoring then gives them an answer that nobody was expecting. Car and Driver has all but given up on its methods of calculation and has created a master subjective score: the "Gotta-Have-It" score. One score to rule them all. Or at least one score to make the numbers look nice and neat at the end of the day. Such baldfaced manipulation is tantamount to an admittance that their scoring system sucks, but at least their "TenBest" list doesn't rely on scoring, but are rather editorial picks debated by the whole staff.

Which brings me to the inspiration for this post: the "C! Awards 2009". This is one list I usually agree with. Because it's a list created by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts... but with an eye towards practicality and grounded in reality. Well... as real as any list with three categories for high-end supercars costing more than my house can be.

One funny disclaimer, though, for the list. It notes that category winners aren't always comparo winners. Even the new editor-in-chief, James Deakin, says he doesn't agree with every award, but hey, that's democracy.

I find it funny that many people have criticized the magazine for dropping scoring from their comparisons in the past. I don't actually care about scoring. I think the way Top Gear Philippines does it works. Just pick a winner. There was a time C! didn't do this for their comparos, which made them somewhat pointless. I'm ambivalent about the new scoring system. It seems to be continually under development, and criteria can vary from comparo to comparo. What I'm not ambivalent about is the category winners for the "Editor's Choice" awards, since they seem to have picked the right winners given their categories, for the most part, though there are some that could go either way.

It's a challenge facing the "Philippine Car of the Year" panel. With a voting panel the size of a small barangay, it's impossible to sit around a table with some beers to decide the winner, so a scoring system is a must. I haven't agreed with all the category winners in the past, and I still think that older cars still on sale should be made eligible (how do the new cars really stack up to the old guard, I wonder?), but you can't deny that most have been good cars. And if you weren't there, you don't know how or why a car won. It could be that your favorite horse rides like a bucking bronco over potholes and got negative marks from the judges for it (as well it should!), or a car you think is "boring" turns out to be more practical and easier to drive than that flashy new model. This is the advantage of having all the contestants available at the same time and at the same place. It's a proper comparison. Of course Gwyneth Palthrow was great in "Shakespeare in Love" (one of the most controversial Oscars of the past decade...), but how would that performance stand out if you had every Academy nominee for that year reprise the role on stage in front of a voting audience? Exactly. The outcome might have been completely different.

I think what the PCoTY lacks is an explanation of how a winner won, which would satisfy both enthusiasts and non-enthusiasts alike. A detailed press release... or... hopefully... a publication? :)

As this is a growing organization, there has to be a continuous refining and tweaking of the rules, to make them fair and balanced. Of course, there comes a point where you have to accept that no scoring system in the world will be perfect. At which point, it's up to the judges to be as fair and impartial as possible, to give the best results possible.