Dave
11-17-2003, 12:22 AM
Hi All:
For those of you who were unable to attend the Solo 1 workshop but had an interest in it, here's a summary of what we discussed, as well some other issues the CCC is working on for 2004. Please feel free to share your views on any of these topics, since we're always looking for ways to improve the system such that the greatest number of competitors find themselves in a fun and competitive class.
2003 Summary Statistics:
145 different competitors competed and 649 person events registered; compared to 118 different competitors and 648 person events registered in 2002.
37 competitors attended at least 7 events, qualifying them for the championship; compared to 33 in 2002.
Average of 50.8 registered competitors per event in 2003; compared to 51.85 in 2001/2002
We had a high of 84 registered competitors for event 12 at SMP Pro and a low of 43 competitors for event 1 at SMP Nelson.
We had 49 novices compete this year, compared to 48 in 2002, 39 in 2001, and 40 in 2000.
We had a total of 16 classes, with 6 being filled (3 or more competitors) and 10 under-filled (less than 3 competitors) on average in 2003, or 37.5% of classes being filled on average; compared to 23 classes in 2002, with 6 being filled and 17 being under-filled, or 26% of classes being filled on average.
We had 29 unique 100-point class winners in 2003; compared to 30 in 2002 -- given the significant reduction in the number of classes in 2003, we feel this indicates an increase in the overall competitiveness of the series.
Rulebook Issues Discussed:
Safety regulations and roll over protection - There may be increased safety requirements handed down from the ASN National Solo Committee which will mean that many of our more modified cars will no longer be allowed to compete without roll over protection. The details of this situation have yet to be worked out, but we will update you as soon as we have them. If you car has a gutted interior, lightened body/chassis, a fixed-back racing bucket seat and a racing harness seat belt system, there is strong indications that you'll be required to equip your car with a roll bar that meets CASC specs (as outlined in the rulebook in section 2.3 in the rulebook).
Elimination or reduction of negative PIPs in the 'Body & Trim' section of the rulebook - There was quite a lot of discussion about reducing the perceived advantage modified cars may have in the same class against stock cars. Christian proposed that the imbalance may be as a result of the negative PIPs awarded for the addition of safety items including roll over protection, fire supression systems, and nomex gear, which were allowing cars to "sneak" down a class. The CCC is now examining the Body & Trim section of the rulebook very carefully and it's likely we will be reducing the negative PIPs for roll over protection (we will no longer differentiate between roll bars and roll cages) and eliminating negative PIPs for anything else. We may also be assigning different PIP values to other Body & Trim mods so that they reflect performance enhancement more accurately. It is our hope that this change will help equalize the playing field between more heavily modified cars and lightly modified or stock cars competing in the same class.
OE Head Swaps - this issue was raised, particularly in reference to the 92-95 Honda Civic VX. As a result of this discussion and further research done by the CCC, it's possible we will raise the PIP value of OE head swaps such that cars such as the Civic VX will not gain an unfair advantage against similar cars who are required to do an engine swap to achieve the same result.
Forced Induction Rules - were discussed at the workshop and at a prior CCC meeting. As a result of these discussions, a new category will be added for air-to-liquid intercooling systems in order to recognize the performance advantage these provide over a standard air-to-air intercooler. A new rule dealing with water spraying of intercoolers will also be added.
Clarification to the bushing rules in the Suspension section - it was pointed out that there is some ambiguity with regards to upgrading bushings in this section of the rulebook, a situation we will be addressing. In particular, we will be eliminating any mention of bushing material type with regards to camber adjustable devices such that any bushing material is legal in this case (elimination of 6.2.3.b)
Dyno Plot Option - considerable discussion went on surrounding this issue. It was concluded that this method of classification, though certainly imperfect, continues to be a desireable option and one that competitors want left open to them. We will, however, be tightening up the requirements of this option such that we are provided with more consistent and comparable data that will allow us to achieve the fairest classification possible in each case.
Carb rules - Jud has provided the CCC with some excellent feedback on our rules regarding carbs and we will be implementing the revisions and additions he's suggested in this area.
Use of Aftermarket Engine Blocks - Jud also provided us with some insightful thoughts on the use of non-OE engine blocks, something we have not addressed in the rulebook to date. We will be adding a rule such that aftermarket blocks are legal but are assigned a PIP value recognizing the enhanced performance capabilities these blocks provide.
Mentoring Program - a number of competitors felt that introducing a formal mentoring program where novices to the series are matched up with a veteran competitor who can show them the ropes would do wonders to promote the series and help retain new competitors. Although somewhat outside the scope of the workshop, I believe the Director took note of this issue and will raise it at future Solo 1 Committee meetings.
Overall the feedback received from the competitors in attendance was that the new system of classification is working extremely well for most cars. The CCC has received a great deal of very positive feedback from competitors to date. We continue to welcome any/all feedback competitors may have, good or bad, so please don't be shy and let us know where you feel we can improve the system. We appreciate your comments!
Cheers,
Dave
For those of you who were unable to attend the Solo 1 workshop but had an interest in it, here's a summary of what we discussed, as well some other issues the CCC is working on for 2004. Please feel free to share your views on any of these topics, since we're always looking for ways to improve the system such that the greatest number of competitors find themselves in a fun and competitive class.
2003 Summary Statistics:
145 different competitors competed and 649 person events registered; compared to 118 different competitors and 648 person events registered in 2002.
37 competitors attended at least 7 events, qualifying them for the championship; compared to 33 in 2002.
Average of 50.8 registered competitors per event in 2003; compared to 51.85 in 2001/2002
We had a high of 84 registered competitors for event 12 at SMP Pro and a low of 43 competitors for event 1 at SMP Nelson.
We had 49 novices compete this year, compared to 48 in 2002, 39 in 2001, and 40 in 2000.
We had a total of 16 classes, with 6 being filled (3 or more competitors) and 10 under-filled (less than 3 competitors) on average in 2003, or 37.5% of classes being filled on average; compared to 23 classes in 2002, with 6 being filled and 17 being under-filled, or 26% of classes being filled on average.
We had 29 unique 100-point class winners in 2003; compared to 30 in 2002 -- given the significant reduction in the number of classes in 2003, we feel this indicates an increase in the overall competitiveness of the series.
Rulebook Issues Discussed:
Safety regulations and roll over protection - There may be increased safety requirements handed down from the ASN National Solo Committee which will mean that many of our more modified cars will no longer be allowed to compete without roll over protection. The details of this situation have yet to be worked out, but we will update you as soon as we have them. If you car has a gutted interior, lightened body/chassis, a fixed-back racing bucket seat and a racing harness seat belt system, there is strong indications that you'll be required to equip your car with a roll bar that meets CASC specs (as outlined in the rulebook in section 2.3 in the rulebook).
Elimination or reduction of negative PIPs in the 'Body & Trim' section of the rulebook - There was quite a lot of discussion about reducing the perceived advantage modified cars may have in the same class against stock cars. Christian proposed that the imbalance may be as a result of the negative PIPs awarded for the addition of safety items including roll over protection, fire supression systems, and nomex gear, which were allowing cars to "sneak" down a class. The CCC is now examining the Body & Trim section of the rulebook very carefully and it's likely we will be reducing the negative PIPs for roll over protection (we will no longer differentiate between roll bars and roll cages) and eliminating negative PIPs for anything else. We may also be assigning different PIP values to other Body & Trim mods so that they reflect performance enhancement more accurately. It is our hope that this change will help equalize the playing field between more heavily modified cars and lightly modified or stock cars competing in the same class.
OE Head Swaps - this issue was raised, particularly in reference to the 92-95 Honda Civic VX. As a result of this discussion and further research done by the CCC, it's possible we will raise the PIP value of OE head swaps such that cars such as the Civic VX will not gain an unfair advantage against similar cars who are required to do an engine swap to achieve the same result.
Forced Induction Rules - were discussed at the workshop and at a prior CCC meeting. As a result of these discussions, a new category will be added for air-to-liquid intercooling systems in order to recognize the performance advantage these provide over a standard air-to-air intercooler. A new rule dealing with water spraying of intercoolers will also be added.
Clarification to the bushing rules in the Suspension section - it was pointed out that there is some ambiguity with regards to upgrading bushings in this section of the rulebook, a situation we will be addressing. In particular, we will be eliminating any mention of bushing material type with regards to camber adjustable devices such that any bushing material is legal in this case (elimination of 6.2.3.b)
Dyno Plot Option - considerable discussion went on surrounding this issue. It was concluded that this method of classification, though certainly imperfect, continues to be a desireable option and one that competitors want left open to them. We will, however, be tightening up the requirements of this option such that we are provided with more consistent and comparable data that will allow us to achieve the fairest classification possible in each case.
Carb rules - Jud has provided the CCC with some excellent feedback on our rules regarding carbs and we will be implementing the revisions and additions he's suggested in this area.
Use of Aftermarket Engine Blocks - Jud also provided us with some insightful thoughts on the use of non-OE engine blocks, something we have not addressed in the rulebook to date. We will be adding a rule such that aftermarket blocks are legal but are assigned a PIP value recognizing the enhanced performance capabilities these blocks provide.
Mentoring Program - a number of competitors felt that introducing a formal mentoring program where novices to the series are matched up with a veteran competitor who can show them the ropes would do wonders to promote the series and help retain new competitors. Although somewhat outside the scope of the workshop, I believe the Director took note of this issue and will raise it at future Solo 1 Committee meetings.
Overall the feedback received from the competitors in attendance was that the new system of classification is working extremely well for most cars. The CCC has received a great deal of very positive feedback from competitors to date. We continue to welcome any/all feedback competitors may have, good or bad, so please don't be shy and let us know where you feel we can improve the system. We appreciate your comments!
Cheers,
Dave