PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Gauging interest in decreasing the number of classes


Dave Barker
10-04-2015, 12:21 PM
Presently we have 14 classes in Time-attack, 1 Open Mod, 3 Mod, 3 SGT, 4 GT and 3 Touring.

We MAY be able to class cars on individual PAX factors which would mean we COULD also decrease the number of classes. If we just decreased the number of classes without going to individual PAX, it would leave a wide spread in performance index from top to bottom and make it much more difficult for most to optimise their car.

The suggestion (and I stress only a suggestion at this stage) would be to have 1 Open Mod, 1 Modified, 1 SGT, 1 new GTA (combination of previous GT1 and 2), 1 GTB (combination of GT3 and 4) and 1 Touring for a total of 6 classes with each entrant having their own individual PAX factor.

This would change the need to optimise your car to a particular class and allow for much more freedom in car prep. There would still be the potential to "break out" or your previous class with an extra PIP but given that the PAX factor would be individualised and we believe our system to be linear, it shouldn't make any difference to total overall scores i.e. if you were at the top of the previous GT1 at 79.9 PI and added something to go to a PI of 80.4, you would jump to the new SGT class but your PAX factor wouldn't change much. In our present system, you would want to add another 4.5 PIPs to your car to try and optimise in SGT3.

The plus side to this is more freedom in car prep and generally large class sizes. The competition should be even better. The down side is fewer folks get to be class winners and take home trophies. Also comparing raw lap times won't be quite as informative.


Sorry guys, there are only 3 choices in the poll.

Dave Barker
10-04-2015, 02:53 PM
Please note that (as this is still in the preliminary stage and the kinks need to be worked out) it has been pointed out to me that Mod 1 is an unlimited class like Open Mod but for street chassis based cars. Therefore we would actually need Open Mod, Mod 1 and whatever we would like to call the rest of modified.

At issue is that both Open Mod and Mod 1 do not have any limits and do not follow our linear based system.

Therefore we would go from 14 classes to 7 classes but please note that there were no entries in Mod 1 class this year.

BTW, the timing Guru tells me that PAX calculation may be possible down to 0.1 PI differences.

kmorris
10-04-2015, 02:53 PM
As a person in an under filled class for many years, I like the idea of reducing the class count. It provides more competition, makes wins more meaningful, and makes the results much easier to understand.

kmorris
10-04-2015, 03:06 PM
At issue is that both Open Mod and Mod 1 do not have any limits and do not follow our linear based system.



Why do you need a separate class for Mod 1 just because it's open-ended? With individual PAX the car should still be workable within the same framework. If we think the car is modified beyond the limits of the PIP system, maybe it should be classed by Open rules anyway.

ONdriver
10-04-2015, 06:29 PM
Why do you need a separate class for Mod 1 just because it's open-ended? With individual PAX the car should still be workable within the same framework. If we think the car is modified beyond the limits of the PIP system, maybe it should be classed by Open rules anyway.

Good topic for discussion at the upcoming workshop, hence the reason for the poll to generate feedback. The "new" MOD1 may not be the same as the
"old" MOD1, depends where we set the upper PI limit for the MOD class.

Dave Barker
10-04-2015, 09:22 PM
There is a downside to this approach. The fastest car in any individual class may not win the class as someone with a lower PAX factor may end up with a higher PAX score.

OTOH, all of you who check out the TV screen at any of our events are aware that the timing system compares PAX scores on the fly which is why some drivers can compare their scores in totally different classes rather than waiting for the end of the day.

For a number of seasons we have heard from some folks about reducing the number of classes. If we just made the class spread larger (i.e from a PI of 5 to 7 or 8) then a whole pile of cars would become unoptimised for their new classes. This approach prevents that issue while decreasing the total number of classes at the same time.

Now that we know it is do able, we need to know if folks really want this or not.

John P
10-04-2015, 10:50 PM
There is a downside to this approach. The fastest car in any individual class may not win the class as someone with a lower PAX factor may end up with a higher PAX score.

I re- calculated Final results for Event 1 competitors from SGT1 down to T3 so far. Here is some interesting info;
1. The change from the present, to a PAX per PIP formula, there wasn't any class winners that were knocked out by a competitor lower in class.
2. Some competitor's score was increased by .2 to .9, but none were able to beat the next car above them.

Really, there are two changes with Dave's proposal;
1. Change PAX to account for individual competitor Performance Index closer than the 5 PIPs we have now. There is little impact on scores.
2. Change the number of classes from 14 to 7. Event 1 winners would be;
Open Mod - Miles M
Mod1 - No entry
Mod2,3 - Kevin M
SGT1-3 - Greg C
GT1,2 - Carsten G
GT3,4 - Mohamed H
T1-3 - Kyle B

At Event 1, the top four classes Open Mod, Mod1-3 only had 2 competitors, total. Now, we are proposing to make them into 3 classes that only have 2 competitors. Looking at those four classes for the 2015 season, total entries average 1 per event.

Maybe we should keep classes that are well populated, rather than combining them into bigger classes. We could combine Mod2 and Mod 3 classes, into one class, to eliminate one class.

Is there any good reasoning for drastic cutting of classes, from 14 to 7?

JohnP

iamthewheelman
10-04-2015, 11:40 PM
This is an excellent idea, that I support a hundred percent, and I seem to remember discussing it last year at some point. I think it will help new people coming into the series as I find they tend to be scared away by our large and complicated class system. By just minimizing classes and seeing that there is only a few classes they may be slotted into, they will be more inclined to work through the CCDB to get their car classified.

Also, to address Dave's point about a car with a lower PAX factor beating a car with a quicker RAW time in its class, why not just use PAX as a separate system for determining overall standings and stick to RAW time for the individual classes, again it simplifies what needs to be done as a competitor.

To add, might I suggest that we move away from calculating season standing points by using PAX score and go to a simplified method of just points based on finishing position. Again, it keeps it stream lined and simple for people to understand. I feel most on lookers who are tired of competing at CSCS for various reasons, feel our series is to complex.

Making these changes opens everything up. The average car enthusiast that has plans to go to the track usually installs at least a set of coil overs and maybe some sway bars, and one or two more "PIP"able items (such as headers or a tune) and comes out. In the current system this would bump them up one or two classes, which freaks people out because in most racing series even moving up one class is a huge difference in lap times. Implementing this new classing system people can potentially stay in the class the car starts in with the typical basic mods, which is easy to grasp.

Our series also starts to flow better, and make more marketing and spectator sense. People will see that the Touring class will be for most sub 125hp small light cars, Mini, Miata, Celica etc. The lower GT class is for most 200ish horse power 2500lb cars such as the S2000, FRS, RX8, many 90's FF Honda's. Higher GT class gets the STI, M3, Mustang GT style cars and then above that becomes the crazy Micheal Gardiner, Stephen Deneka crazy trailer (or towing trailer) "racer cars" and so on.

It makes a lot of sense to me and I could go on with how this whole thing could breathe a lot of new life into OTA, especially if we can really get out and market it properly, but I will stop for now and wait to see what others have to say.

ONdriver
10-05-2015, 09:56 AM
I re- calculated Final results for Event 1 competitors from SGT1 down to T3 so far. Here is some interesting info;
1. The change from the present, to a PAX per PIP formula, there wasn't any class winners that were knocked out by a competitor lower in class.
2. Some competitor's score was increased by .2 to .9, but none were able to beat the next car above them.

Really, there are two changes with Dave's proposal;
1. Change PAX to account for individual competitor Performance Index closer than the 5 PIPs we have now. There is little impact on scores.
2. Change the number of classes from 14 to 7. Event 1 winners would be;
Open Mod - Miles M
Mod1 - No entry
Mod2,3 - Kevin M
SGT1-3 - Greg C
GT1,2 - Carsten G
GT3,4 - Mohamed H
T1-3 - Kyle B

At Event 1, the top four classes Open Mod, Mod1-3 only had 2 competitors, total. Now, we are proposing to make them into 3 classes that only have 2 competitors. Looking at those four classes for the 2015 season, total entries average 1 per event.

Maybe we should keep classes that are well populated, rather than combining them into bigger classes. We could combine Mod2 and Mod 3 classes, into one class, to eliminate one class.

Is there any good reasoning for drastic cutting of classes, from 14 to 7?

JohnP

Hi John,
Just wondering what formula you used to calculate the PAX factors for each individual competitor?
Perry

Greg Campbell
10-05-2015, 10:20 AM
I think this is an excellent idea. Reducing the number of classes and assigning each competitor an individual PAX factor addresses what I believe are significant barriers to entry in OTA (needing to optimize your car to a class, and too few entries per class make class wins insignificant).

The regional Autocross series has done something similar and seen great success; by grouping the classes by Stock, Street Touring, Mod etc., the regional series has been able to leverage the existing SCCA autocross classes and ruleset while still creating good competition.

Asides from the need for some programming changes to the CCDB, I see no downsides to this proposal.

Gwoody27
10-05-2015, 11:34 AM
I believe that this plan has a great deal of value and should be done.

One thing that needs to be considered is that the individual PAX factor could change for every driver at every event as people make adjustments throughout the year to become more competitive. While this happens today it is masked because people rarely change classes. Somehow we will need to make it easy to modify the PAX Factors in the timing system so they are up to date. This is best done before the event because making changes on the morning of the event introduces a lot of chances for error and adds a lot of stress to the timing crew.

I still think that attracting new folks needs to be even easier yet so want to throw out the idea of a "Newbie Class" that really is no class at all, but a collection point for people to drive whatever they have at the time without classing them. It could be used for people to enter up to say 2 events, during which time one of the CCC folks could work with them to explain our system and correctly class their cars. This classing could be applied retroactively if they run more events and allow them to run for the Novice championship.

wparsons
10-05-2015, 11:50 AM
Asides from the need for some programming changes to the CCDB, I see no downsides to this proposal.

This wouldn't actually need any work on the CCDB, just the timing software. The CCDB final PI is the individual PAX factor, the classes just group people into blocks of 5 points.

Erik, just to clarify your comment... are you suggesting that the class would be scored on raw times, but for the overall it would be scored on PAX? If I'm understanding correctly, that could lead to someone who has never won their class winning the overall. I'm going to use you and Mohamed for an example. By the new classing proposal, you would both be GTB (forgetting you bumped to GT2 briefly). IIRC your raw times were faster, but PAX'd scores he would have beat you? I could be wrong, haven't looked that closely at the results for any events you were both at.

The good news is we have tons of data that could be used to play out scenarios and finalize how it would work if there is support to move forward with reduced classing.

Gary
10-05-2015, 11:59 AM
This proposal epitomizes all that is good about OTA. Openness to new ideas, forward thinking, consultation with competitors, and evidence of some real hard work behind the scenes to develop new ideas.

I have understood this series to be focused on driving skills, and what I believe this does is reinforce that by reducing the need to optimize your car to its particular class. Your car then becomes less of a factor in how you do.

Interestingly enough, I was recently in the ccdb working at trying to understand what I needed to think about over the winter to prepare for next year, including optimization. What was clear is that my car isn't optimized at present and maybe I should make changes to drop my car a class. If this change goes ahead, I am now thinking the car should be left alone and the focus shifted to what really needs work: the driver. :)

And, that's the point: Run what you brung, it's your driving that matters, not your car.

I am fully supportive.

dsprongl
10-05-2015, 12:20 PM
I would also review the base car index that is being currently used.
There are for sure some errors on the list.

If you are reviewing class strutures, pips, PAX for personal or vehicle, I would suggest looking at the whole picture.

Look at the list, and delete the infrequently used cars, or archive them
until a customer will arrive with that car.

Once that is done, do a realistic audit of the handling indexes etc.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Dan Sprongl

2TH PWR
10-05-2015, 02:33 PM
It seems ok. As a person in SGT1 this wouldn't affect me at all though. Life continues on as before.

I am assuming there are class wins that are more on raw time and pax wins on comparative time. That is what I would support.

I think it would be counter intuitive for someone lower in the same class to squeak out a class win on pax time. Then what is the point of classes at all in that scenario? Just delete them in that case.

If we are keeping classes I would create an entirely separate "N" class that people can opt into if they are new. This class would only be scored on pax. Opting into the N class isn't mandatory if people want to be scored like everyone else, but it's a nice segue for initiation.

I could see a relatively new guy in an SGT3 WRX being put off by my car lapping the track in the same "class". The "N" class solves that.


I would also delineate pax to slightly reward the difficulty in driving faster cars at the limit, but I understand if that sounds self serving and unpopular. However it has physical quantifiable merit and I feel it would attract a lot of new competitors.

iamthewheelman
10-05-2015, 02:51 PM
Erik, just to clarify your comment... are you suggesting that the class would be scored on raw times, but for the overall it would be scored on PAX? If I'm understanding correctly, that could lead to someone who has never won their class winning the overall. I'm going to use you and Mohamed for an example. By the new classing proposal, you would both be GTB (forgetting you bumped to GT2 briefly). IIRC your raw times were faster, but PAX'd scores he would have beat you? I could be wrong, haven't looked that closely at the results for any events you were both at.

Yes this exactly what I am suggesting, it makes much more sense to have classes based on RAW time even though someone who didn't win thier class could win overall. There is pretty much no point in having classes if they are going to be scored by individual PAX factor, classes must be RAW time or the change becomes a waste in my opinion.

John P
10-05-2015, 03:55 PM
With Dave's proposal, one of the Class winners would win Overall.

JohnP

IWannaGoFast
10-05-2015, 04:53 PM
I like the concept of fewer classes, will make the competition more interesting at the class level, but I agree with Erik, class wins need to be based on raw times, otherwise what’s the point of having separate classes

John P
10-05-2015, 05:01 PM
Looking at the Event 1 comparison, there are two examples of raw times faster, but wouldn't class win using PAX score. The Event 1 Overall winner wouldn't be fastest in raw time, in the SGT class. CCC members, please review the spreadsheet, I sent, of the 2015 Event 1 comparison.

JohnP

alexb29
10-05-2015, 06:24 PM
Hi all!

Personally, I enjoy the challenge of optimizing my car for a class and pushing for a class win. I'm in favour of running fewer classes, basing class win on raw time, and basing overall win on PAX. I do understand that the overall win can potentially go to a driver that didn't win their class, and personally I'm OK with that. But I'd also suggest making class wins a little more 'important' in the grand scheme of things than they are now. Almost like 7 races happening at the same time - 6 class races and 1 overall PAX race - rather than focusing much more intently on the overall PAX race. Think multi-class races like Le Mans and Grand-Am, where having a class win seems to have the same kind of clout as an overall win.

In my eyes, this gives drivers more than one target to shoot for. You can go for class win, overall win, or both. And the exciting part is that one doesn't guarantee the other. Plus for me personally, it keeps the excitement of optimizing my car for a class and shooting for a class win.

nowcritical
10-05-2015, 08:00 PM
Im a fan of having less complicated class system, I think it is a barrier to entry for new competitors and hurts our numbers.
I think a NEW class would be helpful were you can show up and run for a couple of events while we assign a coach to help you get your car classified will be seen as a distinctive benefit over other series. When you share information with people this tends to bring loyalty and trust to your organization

My 2 Cents.

Dave Barker
10-05-2015, 10:28 PM
Yes this exactly what I am suggesting, it makes much more sense to have classes based on RAW time even though someone who didn't win thier class could win overall. There is pretty much no point in having classes if they are going to be scored by individual PAX factor, classes must be RAW time or the change becomes a waste in my opinion.

Interesting idea although not what I was thinking of originally. With a 10-15 point spread in PI per class, it is obvious that the optimised car for the class PI wise is still likely going to win by looking at RAW times. We didn't see a lot of propositioning this year so a GTA guy at 70.1 PI is unlikely to make much headway on a fellow GTA guy with a car at 79.9. OTOH his PAX score could totally blow the 79.9 car away.

I suppose the idea of having class wins vs PAX wins could be interesting. OTOH, I think given there would be fewer classes, at larger PI spreads, there would likely be fewer cars optimised to a class which would make a class win on RAW time less meaningful. To me this might mean we would have more guys looking for a PAX win than a class win.

Please keep the ideas coming. None of this has been made as a formal proposal.

ScotcH
10-05-2015, 11:59 PM
Throwing this idea out since you're finally looking at some wholesale changes :)

If you want super simple and maybe attract a wider audience, just have 3 classes: Street, Tuner, Race

- Street would allow things like exhaust and intake, alignment ... basic stuff.
- Tuner is your average "tuner" type mods, coilovers, maybe some engine, etc
- Race is full mods, and maybe cage, whatever.

You score everyone by iPAX, then hand out trophies for top 3 in each class. This gives you way fewer classes (easy to understand!), less expense for each event, but still gives competitors a "class" win to shoot for. Overall champ could be decided the same way (just add up winner in class), or base it on iPAX.

iamthewheelman
10-06-2015, 12:28 AM
Interesting idea although not what I was thinking of originally. With a 10-15 point spread in PI per class, it is obvious that the optimised car for the class PI wise is still likely going to win by looking at RAW times. We didn't see a lot of propositioning this year so a GTA guy at 70.1 PI is unlikely to make much headway on a fellow GTA guy with a car at 79.9. OTOH his PAX score could totally blow the 79.9 car away.

I suppose the idea of having class wins vs PAX wins could be interesting. OTOH, I think given there would be fewer classes, at larger PI spreads, there would likely be fewer cars optimised to a class which would make a class win on RAW time less meaningful. To me this might mean we would have more guys looking for a PAX win than a class win.

Please keep the ideas coming. None of this has been made as a formal proposal.

Dave, respectfully, I have to disagree with this, I do not see how this makes class wins less meaningful. My situation this year gives the perfect example of why someone not optimized for their particular class still can compete in class on RAW time and will be able to compete on PAX time with an individual PAX score system in place.

My car was roughly a half PIP into GT2 at the three events I competed at, yet all three times I won my class. However I did not do as well on PAX as I could have, because for GT2's PAX factor I was not optimized. If we had individual PAX factors I would have been also competing for overall PAX wins as well. Therefore, I would not feel the need to make any vehicle changes, because I am competitive in class and on PAX. The other drivers in my class would just simply have to step up their game, and when they do, and start beating me on RAW time, I would have to step up my car prep more to catch back up. It keeps people working and striving to get better. I feel it actually does the opposite of diluting class wins and makes them that much better, everyone grows together. The new system then improves the situation further because the classes have more drivers, which means more direct competition for everyone, the better drivers in the series then start to have more direct competition with each other, and to be the best you have to beat the best. And because PAX factors are individualized, the PAX race all gets worked out in the wash.

I don't know if that makes my point clear, but the new system basically gives people 3 options of how they want to race during the year. There is essentially two different races going on at the same time for each driver, an in class race, and a PAX race. They can make their goal one of the two options or both at the same time. The personalized PAX does not lie, if your driving to the best of you and your cars ability, you will be competing for overall wins, no matter what class you are in even if you are or are not optimized for it. If your doing well on PAX but not in class, and this bothers you, then make the necessary changes to the car and your RAW times will get better and you will begin competing in your class, because your PAX factor will now require quicker RAW times because of PIP's taken. Again, I highly doubt many guys will sit back say "yeah I am doing well on PAX but I am finishing forth in class all the time, no big deal". People want to win, and if they can win two races for the price of one they will work for it if they feel its possible.

The new system will mean competitors will really have to stay on top of car prep changes, and notify the CCDB accordingly, but I don't see this being an issue any more than it is right now.

Elliot
10-06-2015, 01:16 AM
Here is a dumb question. What does PAX stand for? I went quickly through the rules and didn't see anything that explained it. I think people who occasionally do Car Lapping may be a little confused by the rules. I know I was ( and am ) and had to ask Corey and Steve numerous questions just to understand what I was watching at a couple of events.

I can see the benefits of having less classes and having current OTA Racers talking to people at Car Lapping events and handing out a simple to understand summary of the Rules and a typical schedule for a race day to build interest.

For those who are involved I can imagine you know the rules inside out, for those not involved it may seem confusing.

Slowpoke
10-06-2015, 09:59 AM
Not sure if this definition is accurate, but it supposedly started as Professional Autocross Index (PAX). Another term thrown around in the Autocross world is RTP / Racer's Theoretical Potential/Performance.

For us, it's a Performance Adjustment Index. We can add that definition to the rulebook easily enough.

The biggest differentiating factor of OTA vs. CSCS and other Time Attack organizations is that we have fine definition of performance expectation. It is very hard for guys with dual duty vehicles (Daily driver and track) to optimize for the overall win (toe out/camber limitations on McPherson strut vehicles for example.) And thus, they may aim just for a specific class.

History: OTA used to judge the overall winner by how well you could repeat your laptimes while still winning your class with a raw time that wasn't beaten by the classes below you. It wasn't about who could throw down the best lap, it was about doing a "good enough" laptime repeatedly. If you were in a class where you couldn't beat the fast guy on consistency, you could not compete well for the overall, whereas someone in an under-attended class could just focus on turning in repeatable laptimes. Applying PAX was a way of making sure that A) the focus was on the fastest laptime compared to all competitors and B) you couldn't win just by choosing the least attended class.

The idea of doing iPAX (individual PAX factors) is that you can truly optimize for your personal vehicle's performance without having to dump thousands more into optimizing for a class. If you're at 59.5 and want an alignment, but that means you now have to optimize for 64.9, that's a significant additional cost.

Down side of implementing iPAX is certain cars like Vettes and 350Z which were barely bumped to a higher class by the CCC may need another look.

If you want to go to raw times across all of SGT, you are penalizing anyone who was barely in SGT3, because now they have to purchase/achieve 14.9PI of performance to have a hope of winning SGT. Not as bad in GT where it will only by a 9.9PI difference, but in Touring and SGT, it will be a larger ($$) performance difference. And if you're already in Modified 3... the PIP's sometimes cost more to reach top of MOD 2 versus for a touring car.

CSCS is a good series with a focus on best laptimes within the class. You choose Street, Super Street or Unlimited based on budget, buy the hot tire of the year and you're as optimized as you're going to get. I don't see a long term benefit in OTA going the same way. We might get an extra competitor or two when the laptimes are raw, but when people realize we've just become CSCS with an extra class or two, what is our real value differentiator?

We have to wait for the results of the survey, but generally I don't see a long term benefit to focusing on raw times.

Gwoody27
10-06-2015, 11:26 AM
Here is a dumb question. What does PAX stand for? I went quickly through the rules and didn't see anything that explained it. I think people who occasionally do Car Lapping may be a little confused by the rules. I know I was ( and am ) and had to ask Corey and Steve numerous questions just to understand what I was watching at a couple of events.

I can see the benefits of having less classes and having current OTA Racers talking to people at Car Lapping events and handing out a simple to understand summary of the Rules and a typical schedule for a race day to build interest.

For those who are involved I can imagine you know the rules inside out, for those not involved it may seem confusing.

Thanks for this post, it clearly illustrates what people mean when they say that our rules are "too complicated". In fact it is often the terminology that is the hindrance but whatever the reason it is up to OTA to make things easier to understand so that people will find it straightforward and less daunting to get involved.

iamthewheelman
10-06-2015, 12:13 PM
Not sure if this definition is accurate, but it supposedly started as Professional Autocross Index (PAX). Another term thrown around in the Autocross world is RTP / Racer's Theoretical Potential/Performance.

For us, it's a Performance Adjustment Index. We can add that definition to the rulebook easily enough.

The biggest differentiating factor of OTA vs. CSCS and other Time Attack organizations is that we have fine definition of performance expectation. It is very hard for guys with dual duty vehicles (Daily driver and track) to optimize for the overall win (toe out/camber limitations on McPherson strut vehicles for example.) And thus, they may aim just for a specific class.

History: OTA used to judge the overall winner by how well you could repeat your laptimes while still winning your class with a raw time that wasn't beaten by the classes below you. It wasn't about who could throw down the best lap, it was about doing a "good enough" laptime repeatedly. If you were in a class where you couldn't beat the fast guy on consistency, you could not compete well for the overall, whereas someone in an under-attended class could just focus on turning in repeatable laptimes. Applying PAX was a way of making sure that A) the focus was on the fastest laptime compared to all competitors and B) you couldn't win just by choosing the least attended class.

The idea of doing iPAX (individual PAX factors) is that you can truly optimize for your personal vehicle's performance without having to dump thousands more into optimizing for a class. If you're at 59.5 and want an alignment, but that means you now have to optimize for 64.9, that's a significant additional cost.

Down side of implementing iPAX is certain cars like Vettes and 350Z which were barely bumped to a higher class by the CCC may need another look.

If you want to go to raw times across all of SGT, you are penalizing anyone who was barely in SGT3, because now they have to purchase/achieve 14.9PI of performance to have a hope of winning SGT. Not as bad in GT where it will only by a 9.9PI difference, but in Touring and SGT, it will be a larger ($$) performance difference. And if you're already in Modified 3... the PIP's sometimes cost more to reach top of MOD 2 versus for a touring car.

CSCS is a good series with a focus on best laptimes within the class. You choose Street, Super Street or Unlimited based on budget, buy the hot tire of the year and you're as optimized as you're going to get. I don't see a long term benefit in OTA going the same way. We might get an extra competitor or two when the laptimes are raw, but when people realize we've just become CSCS with an extra class or two, what is our real value differentiator?

We have to wait for the results of the survey, but generally I don't see a long term benefit to focusing on raw times.

We will not become CSCS with just some extra classes, because CSCS differentiates there class's a complete different way then we do. Also the in class competition at OTA right now is based off RAW time, so your point has no merit. Yeah some people will have to spend some money to fit in better under the new system here, its racing, that happens when rule books change. CSCS also have no cap on power, weight etc. In theory I could build a 500HP Civic, with a full interior (or not even a full interior) and then go dominate Street Front Wheel Drive. But of course, after two events of that, CSCS would just say I am wining by too large a margin and bump me to super street, even thought I am "optimized" for my class just fine.

CSCS does not enforce their rule book at all either. I competed in "STREET" Front Wheel Drive, a class for mildly modified street cars with full interior and valid plates and insurance on them, it says it right in the rules book this is a requirement. Yet my main competition all year, trailered his car to every event, had a completely gutted car, with a fuel cell, no valid plates or insurance on it and CSCS said nothing when he rolled through tech. And when I protested, the answer I received was... "Well your winning anyway so why do you care?" Seriously? I don't complain a lot of politics in racing, because they are there and you can't do anything about it, nor do I publicly bash a racing series just because I feel they have a rule book that makes little sense. But this year, CSCS showed me that it has to be the most unprofessional organization I have ever raced with, on more than just the fact they allowed multiple illegal cars to compete in class.

These changes will allow OTA to attract more people to come in and then offer them a fair fighting chance once they are here, because we have some integrity and enforce what the rule book and sanctioning body says we have to. People need to stop getting so but hurt that they are getting beat by people with better cars and more experience, and man up and drive. The people that win at OTA win because they are the best drivers, and built the best car to the rule book. The new system just opens up the classes a bit and allows more people in one class, hopefully peaking peoples interests.

John P
10-06-2015, 01:44 PM
Here is a dumb question. What does PAX stand for?

For those who are involved I can imagine you know the rules inside out, for those not involved it may seem confusing.

The OTA rule set is based on allowing nearly any car at any mod level to have a competitive class to run in. To implement this, OTA uses a ladder type system, where top cars on each step of the ladder is about 1 second faster than top cars in the next lower step. There are 12 classes with small differences between them (excluding Open Mod and Mod1 where all Mods are free). The base for any car starts with horsepower to weight (for car and driver) plus a small handling index for the base car (eg. Stock Corvette Z06 handles better than a stock Honda Civic). Moving up a class requires small changes to your car, using points (PIPs) for each mod. Five PIPs moves you up a class, so you don't have to spend lots to be competitive at the next higher class. You can move up at your own pace if you want but you can stay in one class and fine tune handling and improve driving for many years.

PAX is a straight line formula that matches all competitors against a reference so they can be compared to each other, for an Overall Event winner. Competitors use their PAX score to compare themselves to other competitors in different classes (eg. in 2014 Corey in GT2 was able to beat class winning cars two classes higher in raw time and beat everyone on PAX score because of his excellent driving and car prep).

Objective of the OTA classing system is to fairly class cars based on car and mod capability without expensive steps between class. Using the PAX scoring, any class car can win the Overall Event. In 2015, out of nine events, one competitor from T2 (2nd step of ladder) won 1 Event, one competitor from GT4 (4th step) won 3 Events, one competitor from SGT3 (8th step) won 1 Event, and one competitor from SGT1 (10th step) won 3 Events. Overall OTA season winner was from SGT1 with a Pax score of 599.71, Second was from GT4 with 597.439 and Third was from T2 with 594.269.

PAX scoring is important for Overall champion and to allow competitors to compare themselves on the total season.

JohnP

alexb29
10-06-2015, 03:01 PM
I agree with Erik. By making Class wins based on raw time and Overall wins based on PAX, the good parts of CSCS will be mixed into the good parts of the traditional OTA layout, except this time it'll be run PROPERLY by a crew and volunteers that know what they're doing. It'd be a very straightforward Class battle system that new competitors can easily comprehend, supplemented by an Overall PAX battle that newbies can eventually grow into.

As an OTA newbie myself, changing the layout or not doesn't help or hinder me really. I'm still in the process of building myself and my car to suit the rules anyhow. But if making the change means I'm even further away from being optimized, I'm still in favour of it. Even if I was already optimized, I'd still be in favour. The competition amongst neighbouring classes is so close anyways - mixing them together would be one hell of a show!


If you want to go to raw times across all of SGT, you are penalizing anyone who was barely in SGT3, because now they have to purchase/achieve 14.9PI of performance to have a hope of winning SGT. Not as bad in GT where it will only by a 9.9PI difference, but in Touring and SGT, it will be a larger ($$) performance difference. And if you're already in Modified 3... the PIP's sometimes cost more to reach top of MOD 2 versus for a touring car.


Definitely a good point. Whatever idea is chosen is still very far away from weapons-grade. I'd imagine all the classes can be overhauled in a way that will minimize this kind of disparity. Plus it was also mentioned earlier that OTA does have a wealth of time and PAX info available from past years. Looking into lap time differences amongst the SGT classes and the T classes to see if the large amounts of money actually do translate into large amounts of time. (Just shooting from the hip here. I'll be the first to say I don't know a hell of a lot about running a race series. Lol!)

wparsons
10-06-2015, 06:10 PM
Im a fan of having less complicated class system, I think it is a barrier to entry for new competitors and hurts our numbers.
I think a NEW class would be helpful were you can show up and run for a couple of events while we assign a coach to help you get your car classified will be seen as a distinctive benefit over other series. When you share information with people this tends to bring loyalty and trust to your organization

My 2 Cents.

Not disagreeing, because I like the idea, but how would we handle scoring them overall on the day of? Would we run them in their own class with open mod pax so that they aren't skewing the rest of the results?

I doubt anyone is going to come in as a total noob and be in the top 10 overall, but it could happen.

Dave Barker
10-06-2015, 07:30 PM
My car was roughly a half PIP into GT2 at the three events I competed at, yet all three times I won my class. However I did not do as well on PAX as I could have, because for GT2's PAX factor I was not optimized. If we had individual PAX factors I would have been also competing for overall PAX wins as well. Therefore, I would not feel the need to make any vehicle changes, because I am competitive in class and on PAX. The other drivers in my class would just simply have to step up their game, and when they do, and start beating me on RAW time, I would have to step up my car prep more to catch back up. It keeps people working and striving to get better. I feel it actually does the opposite of diluting class wins and makes them that much better, everyone grows together. The new system then improves the situation further because the classes have more drivers, which means more direct competition for everyone, the better drivers in the series then start to have more direct competition with each other, and to be the best you have to beat the best. And because PAX factors are individualized, the PAX race all gets worked out in the wash.

I don't know if that makes my point clear, but the new system basically gives people 3 options of how they want to race during the year. There is essentially two different races going on at the same time for each driver, an in class race, and a PAX race. They can make their goal one of the two options or both at the same time. The personalized PAX does not lie, if your driving to the best of you and your cars ability, you will be competing for overall wins, no matter what class you are in even if you are or are not optimized for it. If your doing well on PAX but not in class, and this bothers you, then make the necessary changes to the car and your RAW times will get better and you will begin competing in your class, because your PAX factor will now require quicker RAW times because of PIP's taken. Again, I highly doubt many guys will sit back say "yeah I am doing well on PAX but I am finishing forth in class all the time, no big deal". People want to win, and if they can win two races for the price of one they will work for it if they feel its possible.

The new system will mean competitors will really have to stay on top of car prep changes, and notify the CCDB accordingly, but I don't see this being an issue any more than it is right now.

Erik, indeed you did very well in GT2 on RAW times despite not being optimised. OTOH if you were joined with GT1 in the new GTA class you would have been beaten by Carsten whose car is optimised to GT1 levels. How much more would you need to do to your car to beat Carsten's RAW times?

The proposal of joining the classes and using RAW times would leave all the present SGT2, SGT3, GT2, GT4, T2 and T3 cars as being unoptimised and given the 15 PI spread of the SGT and Touring classes, the money needed to optimise could be very substantial and I suspect very discouraging to all in those classes. Many of us would need a Deneka type budget or else would just give up on winning the class and just run for PAX champion. Hence my suggestion that class wins would not be as important as they are now, at least if based on RAW times. I don't imply that this is a good thing at all, but actually a downside of going to this system and needs to be considered before making any changes.

Given that we are allowing competitors to compete with an iPAX, I doubt that many would suggest competing for RAW times in a smaller number of classes is a feasible or even desired alternative due to the change require to do all that optimisation.

I think the argument could be made that iPAX is similar to a golf handicap (if I understand golf, which I don't really) and that we don't necessarily need ANY classes. OTOH, I think most of us like to think of ourselves as competiting against at least somewhat similar speed cars. Hence the suggestion of 7 classes.

The purpose of the fairly narrow class structure we have now, i.e only having a 5 PI difference but expecting optimisation within your chosen class, was done to give people a lot of leeway in car prep. Now that we may be able to do iPAX, the flexibility in car prep is even higher. I just don't know that having fewer classes with effectively fewer points to optimise to, would be to the benefit of those classes mentioned above.

Slowpoke
10-06-2015, 07:50 PM
I think the argument could be made that iPAX is similar to a golf handicap (if I understand golf, which I don't really)

Not really... golf compensates for competitor skill level, where our PAX system leaves the competitor out of it and just adjusts for the expected 1 second difference between classes. OTA does everything possible to leave the competitor out of it.

Note that the series winner and the shootout winner were on JRZ RS Pro suspension that with the current exchange rate is in the $6k to $9k ballpark brand new. And that's only 6 PIP's out of 15.

http://www.evasivemotorsports.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=JRZ-RSP

John P
10-06-2015, 08:35 PM
As this discussion is evolving, we may end up with less classes but are the classification rules simpler? How do we make the rules simpler? Can a number of rules be bundled or eliminated?

JohnP

Grant Galloway
10-06-2015, 10:01 PM
As a newbie, as was very fortunate to have Corey W help me understand the rules. After two events I still don't know the system completely!

I will run the entire series next year, had planned to run GT2...

Either way I look forward to a winter working on my car and competing next season.. No matter what new things are implemented!

Grant

2TH PWR
10-07-2015, 12:25 AM
When people ask me about the rules, I just say it is set up so that you don't need to know the rules.

Step 1.
You fill out a check list.

Step 2.
You show up and drive around as fast as you can on that day.

Greg Campbell
10-07-2015, 10:23 AM
As this discussion is evolving, we may end up with less classes but are the classification rules simpler? How do we make the rules simpler? Can a number of rules be bundled or eliminated?

JohnP

I am not sure we can meaningful simplify or bundle the rules without diluting the ability to effectively performance index cars. Either way rule complexity is not a complaint that I have heard from non OTA competitors. Anyone I have talked to has had very positive things to say about the online car classification system and using it.

Where I do think we have a lot of opportunity for improvement is how we present the rules to outsiders and some of the mechanisms we use to enforce the rules.

wparsons
10-07-2015, 11:10 AM
When people ask me about the rules, I just say it is set up so that you don't need to know the rules.

Step 1.
You fill out a check list.

Step 2.
You show up and drive around as fast as you can on that day.

Not disagreeing, but would you consider the CCDB process filling out a check list, or do you feel like that could be improved upon?

Carguy
10-07-2015, 11:48 AM
I support this 100%. Individual PAX is a great way to allow competitors some freedom to modify their cars. Just do it!

John P
10-07-2015, 12:00 PM
The ccdb is so flexible, it is confusing to new competitors.

The main body of ccdb is a checklist but the process of getting there is an issue for some competitors. eg after a competitor has got his base car in My Saved Cars list he has to 'Select' the car he wants to check off mods for, but the system requires him to Select and then go to bottom of page to chose "Edit, Copy or Delete". Some new competitors don't don't go to bottom of page to see this and then are confused why it is there. Maybe we can use the 'Select' to go to mod checklist and integrate the 'Copy, Delete' functions in the main body.

JohnP

wparsons
10-07-2015, 01:47 PM
The ccdb is so flexible, it is confusing to new competitors.

The main body of ccdb is a checklist but the process of getting there is an issue for some competitors. eg after a competitor has got his base car in My Saved Cars list he has to 'Select' the car he wants to check off mods for, but the system requires him to Select and then go to bottom of page to chose "Edit, Copy or Delete". Some new competitors don't don't go to bottom of page to see this and then are confused why it is there. Maybe we can use the 'Select' to go to mod checklist and integrate the 'Copy, Delete' functions in the main body.

JohnP

I've been working on a full re-write of the CCDB behind the scenes, not making as much progress as I want lately, but getting there. The goal is to make it more intuitive for competitors, and also easier for the CCC to manage everything.

John P
10-07-2015, 04:09 PM
As this discussion is evolving, we may end up with less classes but are the classification rules simpler? How do we make the rules simpler? Can a number of rules be bundled or eliminated?

Possible Simplification; Change the requirement for competitor having to obtain a Race Weight from the present "more than 4 bPIPs" to "more than 5 bPIPs" or even "6 bPIPs"?

JohnP

10gt61
10-07-2015, 10:08 PM
I am really excited about all of these ideas for change to our series.
I hope to be competing again next season, as well as fulfilling my role as director, so this is all very important to me. Thanks for all of the excellent input and keep the ideas coming. We'll do our best to implement some of these changes and make next year a great season for OTA.

Rob
10-08-2015, 12:27 AM
Going to iPAX is a great idea and I support it 100%. Too often you select the mods that you want, and then start hunting around to either add PIPs that may not be optimal, add weight, or reduce weight to get up close to the top of whichever class is applicable. The breakpoint between classes are arbitrary, so, in a class system, the term "optimization" means having to do less-than-ideal mods to meet an arbitrary number. iPAX allows true optimization - pick those mods that you think will give the best bang per PIP.

I've read through the debate on raw times versus iPAX'd times. To me, competing on raw times removes the benefits of moving to iPAX as once again a competitor has to start optimizing to that arbitrary breakpoint between the classes. And with wider classes, only a small number of competitors have any realistic chance of posting the fastest raw time in each class. However I do see the point of wanting to post the lowest lap time, period. When I used to autocross there was status in running fastest-time-of-the-day (FTD). Why don't we score everyone on iPAX, but announce an FTD for each class?

10gt61
10-08-2015, 09:17 PM
I have to wear two hats (actually one hat and one helmet ;))
Hope I haven't used that line somewhere else on the forum....

Anyway, as Director, I love the ideas and interest people are demonstrating on this thread. I'm looking for what is best for the series and something that will keep the majority of our competitors happy and also attract new people. I'll consider all of this input, along with the assistance of the OTAO.

As a competitor, I like less classes and I like iPAX.

That doesn't necessarily mean that is what will happen. I don't have that much power! It will be a decision made by the executive (with input from me).

Dave Barker
10-08-2015, 11:08 PM
When I used to autocross there was status in running fastest-time-of-the-day (FTD). Why don't we score everyone on iPAX, but announce an FTD for each class?

This sounds good to me

jimmo-san
10-09-2015, 07:18 AM
Dave, just curious to know how this would work in practice.

e.g., if iPax is linear, then would an '85 Chevette (PI = 6.9) have an iPax factor of 0.1217 (6.9/49.9 x 0.880 = 0.1217)

If so, then the '85 Chevette could equal Mohammed's winning Paxed time (note, Paxed time, not iPaxed time) of 91.349932 at MIR this year with a raw time of 750.7183 seconds:

91.349932/0.1217 = 750.7183 (12 min. 30 seconds)

If the above is true, I'm starting to search Kijiji and Autotrader for an '85 Chevette right now ... :)

Typos/mistakes in the above I attribute to typing on an iPad (and fat fingers).

kmorris
10-09-2015, 10:14 AM
Dave, just curious to know how this would work in practice.

e.g., if iPax is linear, then would an '85 Chevette (PI = 6.9) have an iPax factor of 0.1217 (6.9/49.9 x 0.880 = 0.1217)

If so, then the '85 Chevette could equal Mohammed's winning Paxed time (note, Paxed time, not iPaxed time) of 91.349932 at MIR this year with a raw time of 750.7183 seconds:

91.349932/0.1217 = 750.7183 (12 min. 30 seconds)

If the above is true, I'm starting to search Kijiji and Autotrader for an '85 Chevette right now ... :)

Typos/mistakes in the above I attribute to typing on an iPad (and fat fingers).

http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu263/atdivine/87%20Chevette/2012-11-06_14-22-56_187.jpg:D

ONdriver
10-09-2015, 10:45 AM
Dave, just curious to know how this would work in practice.

e.g., if iPax is linear, then would an '85 Chevette (PI = 6.9) have an iPax factor of 0.1217 (6.9/49.9 x 0.880 = 0.1217)

If so, then the '85 Chevette could equal Mohammed's winning Paxed time (note, Paxed time, not iPaxed time) of 91.349932 at MIR this year with a raw time of 750.7183 seconds:

91.349932/0.1217 = 750.7183 (12 min. 30 seconds)

If the above is true, I'm starting to search Kijiji and Autotrader for an '85 Chevette right now ... :)

Typos/mistakes in the above I attribute to typing on an iPad (and fat fingers).

Calculations are a bit off Jim, hold off buying that Chevette!
GT4 time of 99.727 at MIR coverts to PAX time of 87.161 seconds with a PAX factor of 0.874 currently.
In other words MOD3 would have to run that raw time to equal car #777 (MOD3 PAX = 1.0)
Chevette comes in with with BT PAX of 0.6652 so it would have to better a raw time of 131.030 seconds at MIR
Wonder if that's possible?!!! :eek:

We will have to set upper and lower limits for iPAX as the linear relationship does not hold across all values of PI, another item to be discussed!

Dave Barker
10-09-2015, 01:08 PM
Thanks for pointing that out Jim. Given that our system is linear for the majority of cars but not at the extreme ends, both top and bottom, we may have to set some limits on the iPAX settings.

jimmo-san
10-13-2015, 08:15 PM
I voted to keep 14 classes and the current PAX factors. I had to wait until I had access to a proper keyboard to explain why.

I understand the intent to create more competition in the classes by consolidating existing classes, but I don’t believe it will have the desired intent. All that it will do is amalgamate an existing finishing order into one class. For example, I would bet the finishing order in the new “T” class in 2016 will be as follows: Kyle, Albert, Rick and Gerry or me. Unless there are some existing competitors who participate in more events in 2016 or there are new OTA competitors in the “T” class. Or I buy that smokin’ ’85 Chevette. :p

I believe a better way to create more competition in 2016 would be to encourage more competitors to participate in more events. In 2015 there were 88 participants in OTA events. But 62 participated in 5 or fewer events. Only 26 participated in 6-9 events. (I intended to complete 6 events in 2015, but Saturday afternoon/Sunday morning paranoia over damaging my engine caused me to withdraw from event 7 at SMP. Paranoia turned out to be just that. Engine is OK.) The graph below illustrates this. 19 competitors completed 1 event, 15 completed 2 events, etc.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UUUz0-_XO8sNccIxVH4ZYcthcCu2vNDT_sZam2MUhnwF15GQliRb8Z69fgaplZKGdB3P8UiNn1st24N0FqRQm47SRY6i1eSFov_muT0f8v KRgyIrgMnP8g32QsTTstkOxcPI9XhevvxmlRhSkGvgVqqRlPxTCheEwBn0b06cdH84nJ4ArP5ZzChh6sljBg98FEO7nz4JIng1C9 QZSXYe43HHuwJjyzDcwDMzhHMrhGA8SeAt65kQu45HiVq3uxbxXF70PIJrCX5CJVTQcImuSUi6yuicwIuCHNxFPamBGZfZcf-YfdyCOnFbDFlRUJWVPyoYu7HaAwYxnChXHDkvbLpr7s5FffFBOLwEBGT_5qN8xXxYtzbrCFwuD_NLtqGv3TezHm3Z3us5XnP8j6g L6oS4E_ar_N8geRITExsJwh47RXiAWgkeDoKGRReSjDqnN-JICDH_SkHbhtNkOmvixy5YaTt31NxnAwQlolbsuCbDLDKDsqtFGuKIy1FQyiFHUmxd_3KdF9Y0qJAlaF40F4ByZIG_NKAYbZyNfo VkNKY=w950-h435-no

I think the best way to encourage competition in OTA is not to change the PAX factors or car classes, but instead to:

1. encourage existing competitors to participate in more events
2. attract new competitors

I recommend concentrating on point 1 above because it is generally accepted that it is easier (and less costly) to keep an existing customer than to try to attract a new one. This is why your cell phone carrier will do everything possible to prevent you from switching carriers. Once you have a customer for your product, you should try to get him or her to (a) stay with you as a customer and (b) use your product or service more. OTA currently has 88 customers. It’s just getting those 62 customers to consume more of the product - OTA events - that is the hard part.

So it would be worthwhile to poll some of the existing OTA competitors who participated in 1 – 5 events (perhaps by direct e-mail or, if you want to be really intrusive, by a telephone call) to find out why they only completed 5 or fewer events in 2015. The current survey most likely will be completed by the more “committed” participants, but will not be fully representative of all 88 participants in 2015. Another objective of the poll would be to find out what OTA can do to encourage them to compete in more events in 2016. I think I can predict the two most common reasons why participants may compete in only 5 or fewer events each year: time and money. But there may be other, more subtle, reasons.

Another reason for keeping the existing 14 classes is that someone who is new to OTA can see more easily how their car would fit into an OTA class. I could envision a new competitor to OTA seeing that they could compete in T3 with their Mazda Protegé, T2 with their NA Miata, T1 with their NB Miata, GT4 with their RX-8 or GT3 with their Mazdaspeed 3. To use a Mazda example. :)

On the other hand, only 6 classes seems more intimidating. (The iPax factor would overcome this, but this may not be initially apparent to a new competitor.) “How can a stock Protegé compete against an NB Miata in the T class?”, they may think, and be scared off. 14 classes seems to offer something for everyone. It’s most likely ignorance on my part, but I don’t see how my lightly modified NA Miata could be competitive in Street RWD in CSCS, for example. Even with a capable driver. And CSCS has 9 classes!

A third reason for keeping the 14 classes and existing Pax factors is the idea of history, or continuity, or tradition. You can go back to 2005 and compare results for T3 cars with 2015 (keeping in mind various rule changes from 2005 to 2015). Moving to 6 classes would be a big break in the history of Solo I/Time Attack.

Dave Barker
10-13-2015, 08:56 PM
Jim, I think if we had more participants, this whole issue would not have arisen.

The purpose of posting this poll was to see if folks really wanted fewer classes (as has been suggested numerous times in the past). The advent of iPAX makes is feasible but to be fair, using raw time data to determine a winner when performance indices could vary by 15 in the same class kind of defeats the main purpose of the rule set which is to find the fastest driver.

Certainly from my point of view, I would not recommend going to raw times to determine class winners with such a wide potential spread in a class but I know some folks who have voted for the fewer classes would like that. I wonder if those who just support raw times being used to determine class winners in a smaller number of classes might like to change their vote and leave things the way they are with all classes decided by RAW times.

Gary
10-14-2015, 03:51 PM
I voted for the reduced number of classes and the move to ipax having formed the thought that ipax would be used for all scoring, including class wins. My view of the proposal was that classes were simply a way of roughly grouping cars by performance capability, and the car with the best pax score in each group would be the best of that group and therefore the class winner. Under that scenario I thought the playing field would be reasonably level for all competitors and all classes. (Or if not absolutely level, at least as close as you can get it using the pax system) However, if class wins are to be determined by raw time, then moving to fewer classes creates more problems than it solves in my view. A well driven T1 car should always beat a well driven T3 car yet I think they'd be in the same class if we moved to fewer classes. You might have a scenario where the overall winner, based on ipax, is a T3 car that can't win it's class because it's at the bottom of its class grouping. Moreover, the cost in time and money to make that T3 car into a competitive car within a single T class might be prohibitive.

Given the comments people have made it seems that moving to ipax is well supported. I think that part of the proposal is a real positive. On the other hand, if there is strong support for raw times to determine class winners, then I'd argue that reducing the number of classes isn't the thing to do, given that it would widen the performance capabilities of competing vehicles within the class.

I think the proposal needs to be split into two parts, the first of which deals with the issue of implementing ipax, while the second part deals with the issues of class sizes and the method of scoring for class wins.

jimmo-san
10-14-2015, 05:55 PM
You might have a scenario where the overall winner, based on ipax, is a T3 car that can't win it's class because it's at the bottom of its class grouping.

That's the point that I was trying to make with the example of the '85 Chevette. The PI for the '85 Chevette is 6.9. But it doesn't really matter if that is "accurate" or not, because the Chevette uses the current T3 Pax factor for scoring.

But with iPax, the accuracy of the PI becomes more important. A car with a relatively low PI (e.g. a 1998 Mazda Protegé SE with a PI of 26.7) could achieve a better than expected paxed time if the PI, and therefore iPax, underestimates the actual performance of the car.

There are currently 347 cars in the base car list for the T3 class. I don't know if it's possible to ensure that the PI is sufficiently accurate to ensure accurate iPaxed times for all 347.

I'm not saying that anyone would try to exploit weaknesses in iPax to achieve better results. But it could happen inadvertently.

John P
10-14-2015, 07:13 PM
A well driven T1 car should always beat a well driven T3 car yet I think they'd be in the same class if we moved to fewer classes.

Taking MIR results with new Classification and using IPAX, the two T3 cars (Albert R, Daniel R) would be 1, 2 in the new Touring Class. Maybe there wasn't a competitive T1 car, but it can happen.

[/QUOTE] by Gary; You might have a scenario where the overall winner, based on ipax, is a T3 car that can't win it's class because it's at the bottom of its class grouping. Moreover, the cost in time and money to make that T3 car into a competitive car within a single T class might be prohibitive. [/QUOTE]

If a T3 car won Overall he would definitely win the new Touring class. Here is a practical example; Mohamed H won Overall and GT4 at MIR using 2015 scoring. With the proposed classification and IPAX, he won Overall and GTB (combined GT3, GT4).

Mohamed could have run (without any car changes) in the SGT (2015 SGT1, 2, 3 combined) with 12 other cars, and he still would have won Overall and SGT class because with IPAX (Individual PAX), he is still the most efficient. Mind you, on raw time, he would have been beat by 9 of the 12 other cars in the class.

The point Erik was raising, is that with the new classification and IPAX, competitors with slower raw time but higher PAX Score could be higher in Class standings. In Event 4 MIR results with the new system, 10 of 42 competitors were lower on raw time class results than on IPAX results.

JohnP

Yellow Viggen
10-14-2015, 10:53 PM
I voted for reduced number of classes primarily to eliminate classes that had 1-2 competitors. It wouldn't affect me personally since I am placed in the well populated GT2 and happy to continue. With 6 classes I may move to GT3 (new GTB) by changing tires to more affordable type and would enjoy equally interesting group of competitors to race with.

10gt61
10-15-2015, 02:48 PM
I voted for reduced number of classes primarily to eliminate classes that had 1-2 competitors. It wouldn't affect me personally since I am placed in the well populated GT2 and happy to continue. With 6 classes I may move to GT3 (new GTB) by changing tires to more affordable type and would enjoy equally interesting group of competitors to race with.

Also a valid reason for the change I think.
You'll recall we limited the number of class awards this season if there were only one or two cars in the class - kind of a hollow victory and waste of an award. High numbers in fewer classes would fix this - a meaningful award and savings on the cost of them. (ya I gotta consider that too....:()

alexb29
10-15-2015, 05:27 PM
I just had a bit of an epiphany, and I feel kinda foolish for not thinking about it earlier. My answer to the poll stays the same, but my opinions have changed.

While everyone's opinions and inputs are always good, I think we may be obscuring the actual purpose of OTA. Especially when compared to CSCS. The general format of CSCS - raw times dictating class wins - rewards those who already have lots of money invested in their cars. I'm sure we ALL have griped on countless occasions how biased and unfair that is to those of us with much more modest budgets. That coupled with the overall chaos and lack of uniformity of CSCS is what pushed us to OTA in the first place. If I'm not mistaken (and I don't believe I am), the true purpose of OTA is to evaluate the DRIVER regardless of their budget. That in itself makes OTA leaps and bounds ahead of CSCS IMHO, and that point alone should bring plenty of new competitors our way. Modifications really just become a matter of 'feel' and harmony between man and machine, and not about budget. Driving your favourite car in a competitive manner regardless of the build of your competition.

To keep the true purpose of OTA clearly in view while reducing the complexity and 'clutter' of the current system, I personally believe moving to a system with fewer classes where iPAX determines all class and overall wins is the way to go. End of epiphany. Lol!

10gt61
10-15-2015, 05:46 PM
To keep the true purpose of OTA clearly in view while reducing the complexity and 'clutter' of the current system, I personally believe moving to a system with fewer classes where iPAX determines all class and overall wins is the way to go. End of epiphany. Lol!

Sound logic. I like it.

KLZEMX6
10-15-2015, 06:02 PM
I just had a bit of an epiphany, and I feel kinda foolish for not thinking about it earlier. My answer to the poll stays the same, but my opinions have changed.

While everyone's opinions and inputs are always good, I think we may be obscuring the actual purpose of OTA. Especially when compared to CSCS. The general format of CSCS - raw times dictating class wins - rewards those who already have lots of money invested in their cars. I'm sure we ALL have griped on countless occasions how biased and unfair that is to those of us with much more modest budgets. That coupled with the overall chaos and lack of uniformity of CSCS is what pushed us to OTA in the first place. If I'm not mistaken (and I don't believe I am), the true purpose of OTA is to evaluate the DRIVER regardless of their budget. That in itself makes OTA leaps and bounds ahead of CSCS IMHO, and that point alone should bring plenty of new competitors our way. Modifications really just become a matter of 'feel' and harmony between man and machine, and not about budget. Driving your favourite car in a competitive manner regardless of the build of your competition.

To keep the true purpose of OTA clearly in view while reducing the complexity and 'clutter' of the current system, I personally believe moving to a system with fewer classes where iPAX determines all class and overall wins is the way to go. End of epiphany. Lol!

Every series you have to spend money to be competitive, whether that is on shocks, engine, or a combination of anything else. Certainly some cars won't fit into some classes as well as they would fit into others, money still needs to be spent to optimize. If you wanted to get an overall PAX win with either of your cars it wouldn't be on HSD coils you'd have to spend a whole bunch of money on some good shocks to do it if you didn't want to go back to stock suspension. I would say with your mazda speed protégé if you put an interior back in your car, took the splitter and flares off and put some re71r's on your car you could be very competitive in street.

If you want to make OTA better that's fine but comparing every aspect of the series to CSCS(while putting them down) is not the way to do it IMHO.

alexb29
10-15-2015, 07:15 PM
Every series you have to spend money to be competitive, whether that is on shocks, engine, or a combination of anything else. Certainly some cars won't fit into some classes as well as they would fit into others, money still needs to be spent to optimize. If you wanted to get an overall PAX win with either of your cars it wouldn't be on HSD coils you'd have to spend a whole bunch of money on some good shocks to do it if you didn't want to go back to stock suspension. I would say with your mazda speed protégé if you put an interior back in your car, took the splitter and flares off and put some re71r's on your car you could be very competitive in street.

If you want to make OTA better that's fine but comparing every aspect of the series to CSCS(while putting them down) is not the way to do it IMHO.

I apologize for sounding like I'm bashing on CSCS. It's true that I did have some pretty bad experiences with them, but I am trying to be as objective as I can when talking about the series. I still do have respect for CSCS and everyone that runs it. I didn't mean to slight them in any way. I'll try to choose my vocabulary a bit better.

The reason why I personally compare CSCS and OTA is because they're the only two series in Ontario to compare. IMO, organizing OTA and CSCS in similar ways will just cannibalize competitors from each other without bringing in 'new blood'. So the real reason for my personal comparisons is to emphasize the fact that OTA should be (and is) providing a different kind of 'product' to the competitors in Ontario in order to maximize its' effect. CSCS is certainly a very exciting and ambitious series, but it does lend itself more to highly-developed cars and drivers. You're absolutely correct that spending money and optimizing is part of any series, however I feel that an overall PAX/iPAX layout makes it somewhat less critical and more accommodating in general. Essentially, the goal should be to create a series that's more relaxed and generally accommodating to any driver and any car. It's an ambitious goal as well, but so far I'd say it's being achieved.

John P
10-15-2015, 07:40 PM
To keep the true purpose of OTA clearly in view while reducing the complexity and 'clutter' of the current system, I personally believe moving to a system with fewer classes where iPAX determines all class and overall wins is the way to go.

IPAX is based on the Final Performance Index for each competitor from the Approved Car Classification Submission, so all the "clutter of the current system" remains. All we have achieved is decreasing the number of classes.

Part of the solution is to simplify the rules clutter. Ideas?

JohnP

alexb29
10-16-2015, 10:58 AM
By 'clutter', I was mainly referring to the classes themselves. Basically there are just too many classes that are sparsely populated or just plain empty. Cutting down on the number of classes makes the series appear a bit simpler yet more populated at the same time. Granted it's a superfluous change, but appearances are just as important in the grand scheme of things.

IMHO, the rules and the CCDB are excellent. I'm sure like any system there are tweaks that can be made, but its core is sound. Considering the whole point of OTA is to evaluate the driver and not the car, complex rules are necessary to create the math that levels the playing field. I personally don't think the rules should be simplified. Rather, I think that we all as a group should help any newcomers to navigate the rules. They really aren't that bad - I mean, if I can effectively understand them in my rookie year with only minor help as it is, I doubt we'll have any real problems 'baptising' our newcomers.

John P
10-16-2015, 11:24 AM
By 'clutter', I was mainly referring to the classes themselves. Basically there are just too many classes that are sparsely populated or just plain empty. Cutting down on the number of classes makes the series appear a bit simpler yet more populated at the same time. Granted it's a superfluous change, but appearances are just as important in the grand scheme of things.

IMHO, the rules and the CCDB are excellent. I'm sure like any system there are tweaks that can be made, but its core is sound. Considering the whole point of OTA is to evaluate the driver and not the car, complex rules are necessary to create the math that levels the playing field. I personally don't think the rules should be simplified. Rather, I think that we all as a group should help any newcomers to navigate the rules. They really aren't that bad - I mean, if I can effectively understand them in my rookie year with only minor help as it is, I doubt we'll have any real problems 'baptising' our newcomers.

Thanks for the clarification.

JohnP

Greg Campbell
10-16-2015, 11:54 AM
...

IMHO, the rules and the CCDB are excellent. I'm sure like any system there are tweaks that can be made, but its core is sound. Considering the whole point of OTA is to evaluate the driver and not the car, complex rules are necessary to create the math that levels the playing field. I personally don't think the rules should be simplified. Rather, I think that we all as a group should help any newcomers to navigate the rules. They really aren't that bad - I mean, if I can effectively understand them in my rookie year with only minor help as it is, I doubt we'll have any real problems 'baptising' our newcomers.

This is consistent with the feedback I have received from people who are outside out series. The CCDB and website is really well laid out and slick; it's an strength of our series that we could do a better job of promoting.

jimmo-san
10-16-2015, 02:25 PM
Taking MIR results with new Classification and using IPAX, the two T3 cars (Albert R, Daniel R) would be 1, 2 in the new Touring Class.

To further John's point, it would be interesting to see the 2015 results (all events) re-scored using iPax. Just to test drive the new iPax scoring.

ONdriver
10-17-2015, 12:39 PM
To further John's point, it would be interesting to see the 2015 results (all events) re-scored using iPax. Just to test drive the new iPax scoring.

John P has spent quite a few hours doing this for a couple events (Thanks John) and the results are as expected, cars that are not fully optimized in their current classing do see an improvement in their points scores as expected due to their PAX value change. What I like best is that there are generally about a dozen cars or so in each new proposed class except for the upper and lower ends which are sparsely populated anyways.

In my mind more competitors per class = better competition! :)

10gt61
10-17-2015, 02:30 PM
In my mind more competitors per class = better competition! :)

Like it.

Greg Campbell
10-19-2015, 10:35 AM
In a recent OTA planning meeting we briefly discussed the iPAX proposal and the impact. While the forum survey responses favor the adoption of iPAX (and a reduction in the number of classes) there are some implications to reducing the number of classes that have not been fully articulated in the forum discussion.

I think we would benefit from more conversation/debate on this topic and would encourage anyone who has not chimed in with their thoughts to do so. In addition to this forum discussion, iPAX will be an agenda topic at the November 7th OTA workshop.

Please continue to "let the pigeons loose"

Thanks.