PDA

View Full Version : Poll#2 re Classes and Scoring


Dave Barker
10-19-2015, 11:46 PM
So the first poll (so far) confirms that many folks would like us to decrease the number of classes and a number of folks like the idea of individual PAX factors or iPAX. Using iPAX factors means that no one needs to prepare their car in an optimised fashion for any particular class.

OTOH, there may be some costs to closeness of competition if we make a change depending on how this would be implemented.

If we increase the class spread and use RAW times to determine class winners, the cost of optimization may actually increase if the class winner is determined by RAW time. Right now the furthest an unoptimised car can be below a fully optimised car in the same class is 4.9 PI and if we change to a 10 point spread per class, the unoptimised car could be 9.9 PI behind.

If we increase the class spread and use iPAX factors, the class winner may be significantly slower than the fastest car in the class, yet still be declared the winner. (Please note that this is what we do now in determining overall scores for any given event, i.e. the overall winner is not necessarily the fastest car)

The question kind of becomes, which is more important to you, class wins using RAW times or iPAX and how you place in the overall?

There has been another suggestion that we change the class spreads from 5 PI to 6 PI which would decrease the number of classes by 2 but would make a lot of previously optimised cars, unoptimised.

So here we go, round 2

Greg Campbell
10-20-2015, 06:11 AM
I button mashed and accidentally picked option #3, when I actually meant option #4. Not sure if that can be changed so I wanted to call that out.

achoi168
10-20-2015, 08:45 AM
If we already use Ipax for overall, we shouldn't need to use it for the classes.
Most of the time when I look at results, I just look at overall results. I'm not particularly optimized, even though pip wise, I'm near top of GT4.

Class wins should be determined by RAW times, in my opinion.

However, I like the idea of reducing the classes, and do agree 10 pips is a bit wide. Why 6 pips, and why not 7? or 7.5?
Would going to 7 to 8 pips decrease the number of classes further?

I'd vote for 7, or 7.5 pips per class. and Raw times. I'll withhold my vote till later, in case this may be a viable option.

Alan C

kmorris
10-20-2015, 10:47 AM
Here's my 2 cents.

I don't really understand the push to use raw times for class wins. It's not as if you can tell who is winning by watching the runs on track. After a run, the only way to figure out who is ahead is by looking at the timing results, and when you look at the list, you see the order of who is ahead. Whether the time is Raw or PAXed, you can see who is ahead, you can tell what you need to do to make up places, so what's the problem? You go faster, you do better.

I like having larger classes so that a class win is a rarer and more valuable thing, but the only way to do it fairly (since with larger classes the PIP windows must be wider) is to score the classes with PAX.

jimmo-san
10-20-2015, 10:49 AM
Dave, can we have a "none of the above" option in the poll? Just in the interest of democracy. (Which, by the way triumphed big time last night.) :)

achoi168
10-20-2015, 01:35 PM
Here's my 2 cents.

I don't really understand the push to use raw times for class wins. It's not as if you can tell who is winning by watching the runs on track. After a run, the only way to figure out who is ahead is by looking at the timing results, and when you look at the list, you see the order of who is ahead. Whether the time is Raw or PAXed, you can see who is ahead, you can tell what you need to do to make up places, so what's the problem? You go faster, you do better.

I like having larger classes so that a class win is a rarer and more valuable thing, but the only way to do it fairly (since with larger classes the PIP windows must be wider) is to score the classes with PAX.

I see the merits of your argument now.
I've always thought that the Pax time and raw time wouldn't vary much, but as the field of participants will be much wider with the new rules, there definitely would be a difference.

Alan C

Dave Barker
10-20-2015, 01:50 PM
Dave, can we have a "none of the above" option in the poll? Just in the interest of democracy. (Which, by the way triumphed big time last night.) :)

Jim, I think keeping things the way there are now would be the equivalent of "none of the above (below) changes would be my choice"

Our present system is remarkably good ( IMO) and if we had 10 entries per class, there would be no impetus to change. (OTOH we can't handle a total entry of 100+ cars per event anyway)

IWannaGoFast
10-20-2015, 01:55 PM
I like the idea of raw times as conceptually it makes more sense to me to win a class based on being the fastest driver as in my mind a class is meant to be about a similar groupings and competition within that grouping………..but then I think about the Shootout and the battle was all based on PAX and that scoring format seemed to work just fine

iamthewheelman
10-20-2015, 03:44 PM
As I have already stated, I am a fan of class standings based on RAW times. How are people going to explain to sponsors, spectators or possible new competitors how the system works, its too confusing, I can only imagine the faces I will get as people try to work it out in their mind.

Also, by using iPax for classes you are eliminating a whole demographic of people who want a place to race where they win by simply going faster than the other guys in their class. Which is many of the current CSCS competition, left over Sigma crowd, people moving up from autox or down or away from road racing.

Carguy
10-20-2015, 04:00 PM
I agree with Kevin that iPAX works well for class scoring as well as overall scoring. For optimizing within a class I can only speak for my own case. In 2014 I started with a new, unmodified car that seemed to compete well in T1 (I was at the top of T1 on streets and no other modifications). Of course I bought the car to improve its performance as well as drive it in OTA events. So I added coilovers for 2015 and that landed me unoptimized in GT3 (my PIPs were close to the top but the other mods did not optimize the car). I suspect the car is better optimized in GT2 but I didn't have the budget to mod up to that class. While I did OK in GT3 I knew I would be less competitive. Sure enough I was unable to match the performance of Ron and Jeremy (John too but we never competed directly). With iPAX I could have been more competitive at 67.1 PIPs than the 69.1 I ran with, assuming both Jeremy and Ron were at the top of the class in PIPs. I believe other competitors could benefit from iPAX in the same manner and it would make for much tighter battles during the season.

wparsons
10-20-2015, 04:00 PM
One point of clarity, iPAX is not the same as the old PAX value. iPAX is different in that every car has a different PAX value derived directly from the final PI. Someone at the bottom of a class will have a different iPAX value than someone at the top.

Can we add another option, which is the same as what autoslalom does (unless I misunderstand their class/win structure)?

We keep the existing classes (with 5 PI spread), but then group them together for class wins.

ie: T3/T2/T1 each keep their old PAX values, but run as single Touring class. Times would be scored based on PAX values, and the class win would be for the grouped class.

This way it doesn't matter how big of a PI spread the class has, the biggest PAX gap is still the current 5 PI (~60 seconds).

The issue I see with iPAX, scoring classes on raw times, and big class PI spreads is that it essentially forces everyone to optimize to the top of the bigger class, and removes the benefit of iPAX (not needing to optimize to a specific class).

*edit, bold part added... should've been there all along.

ONdriver
10-20-2015, 05:43 PM
The issue I see with PAX and big class PI spreads is that it essentially forces everyone to optimize to the top of the bigger class, and removes the benefit of iPAX (not needing to optimize to a specific class).

I think you meant to say PAX here didn't you Will?

jimmo-san
10-20-2015, 06:12 PM
Jim, I think keeping things the way there are now would be the equivalent of "none of the above (below) changes would be my choice"

Dave, what does the first choice in the poll ("Prefer to use RAW times and 5 point class spread i.e what we do now") mean?

Does it mean:

- class wins are based on Raw Times
- PAXed times still used to determine standings in class
- 14 classes

Greg Campbell
10-20-2015, 06:46 PM
How are people going to explain to sponsors, spectators or possible new competitors how the system works, its too confusing, I can only imagine the faces I will get as people try to work it out in their mind.

I have heard this point a couple of times, and I have to be honest that I don't understand it.

How is class wins determined by individual PAX factors any more confusing or hard to explain than our current scoring system of PAX adjusted times for the overall win? In both cases your result is determined by your time relative to other cars based on your performance factor.

Am I missing something?

If we had class wins determined by raw time but overall wins determined by iPAX we could have a situation where driver 'a' wins GT class on raw, driver 'b' comes in second but driver 'b' wins overall because he PAXes better. Wouldn't it be harder to explain to outsiders how driver 'b' didn't win his class but he won overall?

That's kind of like losing your riding, but still being the Prime Minister.

Dave Barker
10-20-2015, 08:10 PM
Dave, what does the first choice in the poll ("Prefer to use RAW times and 5 point class spread i.e what we do now") mean?

Does it mean:

- class wins are based on Raw Times
- PAXed times still used to determine standings in class
- 14 classes


Presently,each class is won on RAW time and without the institution of iPAX, the PAX factor is class specific and not car specific which means your PAX factor is what is used at the top of the class whether you are optimised to that class of not. It follows then, that the class winner always has the highest PAX score in class. Therefore both highest PAX score in class and fastest RAW time in class win i.e it will always be the same winner.

The interesting concept we have is using PAX factors to compare classes to determine an overall winner. BTW, I think our class PAX factors are pretty good considering that we have had winners from T2 to SGT1. (Just for a red herring here, I might suggest that big track PAX (BTPAX) might be a bit punitive to the higher classes but that is another discussion)

I suppose, just to add another alternative, we could stay with 14 classes and a 5 PI spread won by RAW times but calculate overall from an iPAX point of view. Not sure if the calculations would be too difficult to do but it would preserve the class wins by RAW time but make the overall more accessible to those cars that are not optimised. (Wish I had thought of that permutation before posting the poll :( ) Certainly it would give more flexibility to those whose cars just barely climb in to a higher class. I have no idea if this is feasible from a scoring point of view.

iamthewheelman
10-20-2015, 09:00 PM
If we had class wins determined by raw time but overall wins determined by iPAX we could have a situation where driver 'a' wins GT class on raw, driver 'b' comes in second but driver 'b' wins overall because he PAXes better. Wouldn't it be harder to explain to outsiders how driver 'b' didn't win his class but he won overall?

That's kind of like losing your riding, but still being the Prime Minister.

You raise a valid point Greg. However if I am not mistaken, this topic of discussion seemed to be raised out of some concerns and ideas to get new people to come out to OTA. And at present, it would seem that the largest demographic of people who are interested in racing/time attack but do not attend our events, are the people who seem to prefer a series set up like CSCS. They find value in their simplified classing system where the rules are more wide open. The problem in the CSCS approach is that it is a bit too wide open, and even more apparent is that they don't even enforce the few rules they have.

The reduced classes seemed like a way to attract these people and the iPAX was a way to still retain some of the old OTA scoring system and offer people a way to still compete overall. This seemed very popular based on the other poll, but the idea of RAW times to determine class winners seems to be a large turn off. I can understand why people don't want to feel like they are completely outclassed but at least they still have iPAX to compete on while they work on getting their car and driving to where it needs to be. It just seems so counter productive to use iPAX for both, we mind as well keep our current number of classes if we implement iPAX, as it does seem like a very good concept.

I am sure a solution will be found though.

wparsons
10-21-2015, 07:47 AM
I think you meant to say PAX here didn't you Will?

Nope, I meant iPAX... but forgot "scoring the class on raw times".

The point was supposed to (but probably not clear) that iPAX with a 10-15 point spread is fine for overall, but if scoring that class on RAW times the only people with a chance are either phenom drivers and/or have cars optimized to the top of the class.

Thanks for making me clarify Perry!

wparsons
10-21-2015, 07:54 AM
You raise a valid point Greg. However if I am not mistaken, this topic of discussion seemed to be raised out of some concerns and ideas to get new people to come out to OTA. And at present, it would seem that the largest demographic of people who are interested in racing/time attack but do not attend our events, are the people who seem to prefer a series set up like CSCS. They find value in their simplified classing system where the rules are more wide open. The problem in the CSCS approach is that it is a bit too wide open, and even more apparent is that they don't even enforce the few rules they have.

The reduced classes seemed like a way to attract these people and the iPAX was a way to still retain some of the old OTA scoring system and offer people a way to still compete overall. This seemed very popular based on the other poll, but the idea of RAW times to determine class winners seems to be a large turn off. I can understand why people don't want to feel like they are completely outclassed but at least they still have iPAX to compete on while they work on getting their car and driving to where it needs to be. It just seems so counter productive to use iPAX for both, we mind as well keep our current number of classes if we implement iPAX, as it does seem like a very good concept.

I am sure a solution will be found though.

Is the goal to simplify classing, or allow people with the faster cars to win?

Scoring a class on iPAX doesn't do anything to make the classing easier or harder, all it does is equalize each individual car vs equalizing classes to each other. The CCDB wouldn't change if going to iPAX, just the timing software, so every competitor would still go through the same process to enter.

IMO, iPAX is actually a benefit to all the people from other series, because they don't have to re-optimize to the OTA ruleset. They could end up at the bottom of a class and not be any worse off than if they were right at the top. The only thing I see scoring big classes on raw time doing is forcing anyone that wants a class win to optimize to the top of a bigger class.

Flip it around the other way, and imagine you had never run with OTA and came in with your car at the bottom of GT2 (SFWD trim in CSCS), if scoring classes on RAW you'd have to beat Carsten's M3 at the top of GT1 (SSRWD trim in CSCS). On iPAX you'd have basically a 2 second advantage on him. I would find that pretty discouraging personally.

jimmo-san
10-21-2015, 10:28 AM
Presently,each class is won on RAW time and without the institution of iPAX, the PAX factor is class specific and not car specific which means your PAX factor is what is used at the top of the class whether you are optimised to that class of not. It follows then, that the class winner always has the highest PAX score in class. Therefore both highest PAX score in class and fastest RAW time in class win i.e it will always be the same winner.

Thanks Dave, I understand now. :)

What no one has discussed so far is that for every competitor who benefits from iPAX (e.g. moves up in the standings) there will be a competitor who loses; i.e. moves down in a place in the standings. It's a zero-sum game.

e.g. if 2015 Event #1 was scored using iPAX, the competitor who would have won the new GTB class based on Raw Time would have been 2nd if the GTB class was scored using 2015 PAX and 3rd if the GTB class was scored using 2016 iPAX. So there will be some anomalous results that may mystify some people. It will not effect me since I expect to be last in the T class anyway. :D

John P
10-21-2015, 12:40 PM
The reduced classes seemed like a way to attract CSCS people and the iPAX was a way to still retain some of the old OTA scoring system and offer people a way to still compete overall. This seemed very popular based on the other poll, but the idea of RAW times to determine class winners seems to be a large turn off. I can understand why people don't want to feel like they are completely outclassed but at least they still have iPAX to compete on while they work on getting their car and driving to where it needs to be. It just seems so counter productive to use iPAX for both, we mind as well keep our current number of classes if we implement iPAX, as it does seem like a very good concept.

I am sure a solution will be found though.

Our system forces competitors to jump two classes for a logical technical improvement step (Shocks, springs, and alignment require 7 sPIPs). Based on CSCS competitor experience, two classes would be a big expensive change, but not so in OTA.

Maybe we continue using our present classification system, but with 7 or 8 Performance Index break points, resulting in significant reduction of classes.
Use Raw times in class, and PAX for Overall, same as 2015.

I haven't looked at how to implement this change or who it would impact.

JohnP

Greg Campbell
10-21-2015, 12:43 PM
Thanks Dave, I understand now. :)

What no one has discussed so far is that for every competitor who benefits from iPAX (e.g. moves up in the standings) there will be a competitor who loses; i.e. moves down in a place in the standings. It's a zero-sum game.

e.g. if 2015 Event #1 was scored using iPAX, the competitor who would have won the new GTB class based on Raw Time would have been 2nd if the GTB class was scored using 2015 PAX and 3rd if the GTB class was scored using 2016 iPAX.

Jim,

I would like to clarify the application of iPax, per your statement above (re: "zero-sum game").

iPax would assign competitors an individual performance factor based on their incremental PIPs. For the purposes of overall scoring, iPax will be a net benefit to any competitor who is currently not perfectly optimized on PIPs to their class. For any competitor who is already optimzed on PIPs the introduction of iPax will be neutral.

For example:

I am currently classed in SGT3. Lets assume that I am not optimized to the class and am leaving 2.5 PIPs on the table (i.e. I am halfway). Under our current system I would be assigned the SGT3 PAX factor of 0.964, however under iPax I would be assigned a performance factor roughtly halfway between the SGT3 factor (0.964) and the GT1 factor (0.952). For argument's sake let's assume a linear PAX curve so my resulting iPax factor would be in the middle of these two at 0.958 ((0.964+0.952) / 2).


If I was optimized to SGT3, and right at the top of the PIP range for the class, my new iPax factor would be essentially the same as the current SGT3 factor (0.964).

I don't fully understand the scenario you have given (re: 2015 Event #1 / GTB). Can you send me a PM with the numbers you are using? I want to make sure I understand the impact you are highlighting between 2015 PAX and 2016 iPax.

Thanks.

John P
10-21-2015, 12:54 PM
Jim,

I would like to clarify the application of iPax, per your statement above (re: "zero-sum game").

iPax would assign competitors an individual performance factor based on their incremental PIPs. For the purposes of overall scoring, iPax will be a net benefit to any competitor who is currently not perfectly optimized on PIPs to their class. For any competitor who is already optimzed on PIPs the introduction of iPax will be neutral.

For example:

I am currently classed in SGT3. Lets assume that I am not optimized to the class and am leaving 2.5 PIPs on the table (i.e. I am halfway). Under our current system I would be assigned the SGT3 PAX factor of 0.964, however under iPax I would be assigned a performance factor roughtly halfway between the SGT3 factor (0.964) and the GT1 factor (0.952). For argument's sake let's assume a linear PAX curve so my resulting iPax factor would be in the middle of these two at 0.958 ((0.964+0.952) / 2).


If I was optimized to SGT3, and right at the top of the PIP range for the class, my new iPax factor would be essentially the same as the current SGT3 factor (0.964).

I don't fully understand the scenario you have given (re: 2015 Event #1 / GTB). Can you send me a PM with the numbers you are using? I want to make sure I understand the impact you are highlighting between 2015 PAX and 2016 iPax.

Thanks.

We only talked briefly about this at workshop. I will send you my analysis for Event 1 and Event 4 comparing 2015 PAX vs IPAX and reclassification for all competitors.

Any one else want it?

JohnP

10gt61
10-21-2015, 01:19 PM
Any one else want it?

JohnP

If it's more or different than what you have already sent me, then yes please John.

Carguy
10-21-2015, 01:28 PM
We only talked briefly about this at workshop. I will send you my analysis for Event 1 and Event 4 comparing 2015 PAX vs IPAX and reclassification for all competitors.

Any one else want it?

JohnP

Yep, send me a copy John. Thanks!

Saj5DJ
10-21-2015, 01:29 PM
Our system forces competitors to jump two classes for a logical technical improvement step (Shocks, springs, and alignment require 7 sPIPs). Based on CSCS competitor experience, two classes would be a big expensive change, but not so in OTA.

Maybe we continue using our present classification system, but with 7 or 8 Performance Index break points, resulting in significant reduction of classes.
Use Raw times in class, and PAX for Overall, same as 2015.

I haven't looked at how to implement this change or who it would impact.

JohnP

Doesn't sound so bad to me. Most of us have a tire type change, sway bar, headers, alignment, ecu, passenger seat delete etc etc that a few points could be reasonably be found either way?

PS: Still promising I'll be back at some point :)

achoi168
10-21-2015, 01:34 PM
Any one else want it?

JohnP

I'd like a copy as well please.

Alan C

Carguy
10-21-2015, 02:35 PM
OK crazy idea. Seven classes all scored on iPAX and overall scored on iPAX. Classes are determined by drivetrain and performance index. We would continue to use the CCDB to calculate the final PI.

Class PI Range
==== =======
AWD1 GT2-SGT1
AWD2 T3-GT3
FWD1 GT2-SGT1
FWD2 T3-GT3
RWD1 GT2-SGT1
RWD2 T3-GT3
OPEN MOD2-OPEN

The benefits are:
1- It follows the X/Y group split we establish at every event
2- Cars that are not prepped to the top PI in the class are not penalized by being in the middle or closer to the bottom of a class's PI scale
3- Competitors can win a class even if they don't invest heavily in performance mods
4- It's easier for competitors from other Time Attack series to participate because they can relate to the class structure and they can simply run what they brung without the need to optimize
5- Fewer classes means that any class win is more meaningful
6- The CCDB takes tire choice into consideration thereby limiting the number of classes compared to other Time Attack series

I like iPAX because it is a true leveling mechanism for all cars rather than a class structure with a narrow performance index span. As such it enables us to define any class we want and the boundaries can be completely arbitrary as I am proposing above.

wparsons
10-21-2015, 03:38 PM
Do we want to split on drivetrain? The base handling index already takes care of that (assuming it's well thought out and applied to the given car)

Barry, can you clarify how autoslalom worked this year? Is my assumption of there being big classes, but smaller sub classes for PAX factors correct?

ie: the class win would be for the ST class, but inside that there is STX/STU/STR/etc, each with their own pax value?

Snizzoop
10-21-2015, 04:29 PM
Re: Autoslalom

There are a BUNCH of classes. (46 to be exact...but we only run 39 of them here.) There are different prep levels (we call them families): Street, Street Touring, Street Prepared, Street Mod, Prepared and Mod. Each of those families has classes within it, each with it's own PAX factor. PAX factors and family groupings can be found HERE (http://home.comcast.net/~paxrtp/rtp2015.html).

We score the overall on PAX. The driver with the fastest PAXed time is awarded 100 points. Everyone else is awarded a percentage of points based on their PAXed time compared to the fastest.

Each family is scored similarly to the overall. The driver with the fastest PAXed time in the family is awarded 100 points. Everyone else in the family is awarded a percentage of points based on their PAXed time compared to the fastest in that family.

There are currently no awards for RAW times...everyone is "calculator racing."

the class win would be for the ST class, but inside that there is STX/STU/STR/etc, each with their own pax value?

This is correct.

John P
10-21-2015, 05:01 PM
Re: Autoslalom

There are a BUNCH of classes. (46 to be exact...but we only run 39 of them here.) There are different prep levels (we call them families): Street, Street Touring, Street Prepared, Street Mod, Prepared and Mod. Each of those families has classes within it, each with it's own PAX factor. PAX factors and family groupings can be found HERE (http://home.comcast.net/~paxrtp/rtp2015.html).

We score the overall on PAX. The driver with the fastest PAXed time is awarded 100 points. Everyone else is awarded a percentage of points based on their PAXed time compared to the fastest.

Each family is scored similarly to the overall. The driver with the fastest PAXed time in the family is awarded 100 points. Everyone else in the family is awarded a percentage of points based on their PAXed time compared to the fastest in that family.

There are currently no awards for RAW times...everyone is "calculator racing."

This is correct.

Maybe because they are 10 times our population, they can justify the extra classes to satisfy everyone. But no IPAX!

Per Erik's comments, Raw times will help draw competitors from the other series.

JohnP

Snizzoop
10-21-2015, 05:19 PM
Maybe because they are 10 times our population, they can justify the extra classes to satisfy everyone. But no IPAX!

JohnP

Which is exactly why we score families vs individual classes. There would be too many classes with too few competitors.

iPAX would be awesome...but that's not happening in autoslalom any time soon.

alexb29
10-21-2015, 05:40 PM
IMO we can all keep going in circles for eternity about what we feel is the 'best' approach for OTA to take. Every opinion/solution offered really does have merit, but the real question is this:

What is OTA about?

Is OTA about a run-what-you-brung style of class-racing that rewards the fastest competitors in their respective classes? Is it about evaluating the drivers alone by taking the car out of the equation and rewarding skillful driving? Or does OTA want to take an approach that blends both into one series?

Run-what-you-brung (CSCS-style) - Somewhat fewer classes than the current system, all based on raw time.

Driver-only evaluating - Full iPAX system with ZERO classes (putting classes in a full iPAX system is really just an excuse to give more people awards IMHO).

Blend system - Literally run both above systems at the same time, taking in a bit of what everyone enjoys. Awards for the fastest cars and their pilots, and awards for skillful driving regardless of the machine.

I prefer the blended system myself, but I personally believe the main decision should be made by those who know the series the best - the director/organizers. (Not trying to put you guys on the spot. But I think the only way to get through this is with an executive decision of sorts.) Honestly, regardless of the choice, I'll still be competing next year. I'm open to any challenge, and the people in OTA are way too awesome to turn my back on. :)

Edit: I realize that the 'blended system' is really the same as what we have now, except the overall win would now be determined by iPAX instead of PAX. The main purpose of my post is to create a bit of focus, because each of us have unique and varying directions we all want to take.

jimmo-san
10-21-2015, 06:17 PM
Jim,

I would like to clarify the application of iPax, per your statement above (re: "zero-sum game").



Greg, what I meant by "zero-sum game" is this example. If, under PAX scoring, the scorings are as follows (assuming the same Raw Times for each example, not the same Raw Times for each competitor):

1. Tom
2. Dick
3. Harry

and under iPAX scoring the standings are as follows:

1. Tom
2. Harry
3. Dick

Then, using iPAX scoring, Tom's standing has changed by 0 places, Dick's by -1 and Harry's by +1. Harry is pleased because, using iPAX, his standing has improved (and he attributes it to the better system of iPAX). Dick is less happy because he has moved down one place and so he feels he has not benefited from iPAX. Tom is ambivalent, because he is in first place under both systems.

This is what I mean by "zero-sum" - for each person who will feel he/she has benefited, another person will feel he/she has not benefited.

I'll send a PM as well.

Dave Barker
10-21-2015, 07:43 PM
Blend system - Literally run both above systems at the same time, taking in a bit of what everyone enjoys. Awards for the fastest cars and their pilots, and awards for skillful driving regardless of the machine.


Edit: I realize that the 'blended system' is really the same as what we have now, except the overall win would now be determined by iPAX instead of PAX. The main purpose of my post is to create a bit of focus, because each of us have unique and varying directions we all want to take.


Alex, this is what I did suggest (but didn't put in the poll ). Raw times would still determine each class (and I would suggest we don't upset the apple cart of car prep by changing the class spread from 5 PI) but we could use iPAX to determine overall which is basically the best measure of how a driver drives. You still have the RAW time winning the classes but the overall gets more interesting. IMO, it put more emphasis on the driver and less on the car prep. Some may chose to fight hard for a class win and others may decide to prep their car in an optimum fashion to place well in the overall via iPAX.

Changing the class spread to 6,7 or 8 and using RAW times will likely piss off a bunch of people as their previous optimization may be no more.

ONdriver
10-21-2015, 08:37 PM
I like iPAX because it is a true leveling mechanism for all cars rather than a class structure with a narrow performance index span. As such it enables us to define any class we want and the boundaries can be completely arbitrary as I am proposing above.

Very true, if iPAX is implemented, classing could be arrived at in any number of ways based on any kind of characteristic! ;)

alexb29
10-22-2015, 01:44 AM
Alex, this is what I did suggest (but didn't put in the poll ). Raw times would still determine each class (and I would suggest we don't upset the apple cart of car prep by changing the class spread from 5 PI) but we could use iPAX to determine overall which is basically the best measure of how a driver drives. You still have the RAW time winning the classes but the overall gets more interesting. IMO, it put more emphasis on the driver and less on the car prep. Some may chose to fight hard for a class win and others may decide to prep their car in an optimum fashion to place well in the overall via iPAX.

Changing the class spread to 6,7 or 8 and using RAW times will likely piss off a bunch of people as their previous optimization may be no more.

Totally agree with you! My only comment is if the class spread must be increased by a point or two, I'm sure the people who are already optimized for their classes can find something to do in order to re-optimize (whether adding or subtracting a PIP or so). 3 points would be too big of a difference, I agree. But 1 point isn't asking a lot. I mean, look at the changes that any pro/semi-pro race series make and how it affects the teams. Change can be necessary to re-invigorate a series. I for one would embrace it. I may not be optimized now, but it would definitely change my strategy for upgrading.

I guess at the very least, only changing from a PAX overall to an iPAX overall is still an improvement! Maybe the only one OTA needs! Baby steps, etc. Lol!

Dave Barker
10-22-2015, 09:24 AM
If we change the PI spread to 6, it is only 1 point for the classes next to the base class (whether it be the top, bottom or one of the middle classes) but 2 classes away from the base class is 2 points, 3 classes is 3 points and so on. This could easily prove to be a real change to a lot of folks which COULD mean a lot of money. This will only cut out 2 classes.

If we just use iPAX in calculating the overall, there may be no increased cost but some better competition. OTOH, if we stay with the 5 point spread, there is no decrease in the number of classes. Hence the dilemma.

wparsons
10-22-2015, 10:38 AM
Not to keep harping on the same point, but I think the only way to decrease classes with not scoring within classes on iPAX without making the point spread too big is the autoslalom way. Keep the current classes, but winners are based on class families.

Class winners would be for:

Touring
Grand Touring (or split GTB/GTA if too many people)
Super Grand Touring
Mod

That's 4 or 5 winners vs 10-14 depending on what classes are populated.

Pros to this way:

People moving up from autoslalom will be used to it
Cars currently optimized for a class require no changes
Bigger classes, more competition

Cons to this way:
A slower car can still take the class win, just like with iPAX. (A well optimized T3 car has a 2 second advantage on well optimized T1 car)
People still need to optimize to the top of their class

Making classes 10-15 PI spreads and scoring on RAW for class wins means that everyone that wants a class win has to now optimize to the top of a bigger grouping.

If the series is about removing the car from the equation (through classification) and comparing driver skill, I think raw time is a bad way to accomplish that. If the direction of the series is changing, then it could be fine.

k.beaty
10-22-2015, 11:13 AM
Not to keep harping on the same point, but I think the only way to decrease classes with not scoring within classes on iPAX without making the point spread too big is the autoslalom way. Keep the current classes, but winners are based on class families.

Class winners would be for:

Touring
Grand Touring (or split GTB/GTA if too many people)
Super Grand Touring
Mod

That's 4 or 5 winners vs 10-14 depending on what classes are populated.

Pros to this way:

People moving up from autoslalom will be used to it
Cars currently optimized for a class require no changes
Bigger classes, more competition

Cons to this way:
A slower car can still take the class win, just like with iPAX. (A well optimized T3 car has a 2 second advantage on well optimized T1 car)
People still need to optimize to the top of their class



I like this. I think that OTA has a great system that clearly works well given the tight competition this year. Having wins based on class families will cut down the number of awards required which should help the budget, and will make the wins much more rewarding as there will be fewer winners at each event. It's worked well in Autoslalom for years, so why can't it work in Time-Attack?

Having class wins based on iPax completely defeats the purpose of have any classes at all. This is racing, not a Sunday drive. If people aren't interested in being competitive, that's fine. But it almost seems unfair to base wins on iPax. Racing is just as much about car prep and setup as it is about strapping in and setting a fast lap. Realistically, a 5 PIP spread per class is not a ton, and it's really not too difficult to make sure you're optimized for a particular class. Whether that means adding a couple of PIP's, or taking some away to drop down a class.

I think iPax is just an excuse to try and make things "fair" for the people who are too lazy to make sure they have a car that will be competitive. Just because you might have to add a PIP or 2 to end up at the top of your class, doesn't mean that you're going to have to spend a pile of money. And if someone really isn't interested in making sure they have a competitive car, they shouldn't be expecting to beat the people who are!


I vote to ditch the iPax idea completely. Keep the current classes, but only award class wins to the class families (Touring, Grand Touring, Super Grand Touring, etc.) and base overall wins on class PAX.


The OTA rules really aren't that complicated, and I don't think that switching to iPAX is going to make things any easier for newcomers to understand. All it will do is allow people to show up with whatever car they want, with whatever level of prep and not have to worry about what class their in. Sounds kind of like a lapping day to me...

Greg Campbell
10-22-2015, 01:06 PM
Some great feedback here. This is an excellent discussion and thank you for everyone who's taking the time to write some really thoughtful responses.

I just want to remind everyone of the workshop Nov 7th where this will be raised as a topic for discussion. As well a reminder that no decision has been made on and changes to PAX or the class structure.

I think these kind of open discussions and people's comfort (and respect) for other people's viewpoints is one of the strengths of OTA. Keep 'em coming!

Saj5DJ
10-22-2015, 02:19 PM
Maybe because they are 10 times our population, they can justify the extra classes to satisfy everyone. But no IPAX!

Per Erik's comments, Raw times will help draw competitors from the other series.

JohnP

Yeah, I don't necessarily think what works for A/S would work for OTA.

Ultimately, we use the SCCA classing system as, primarily, they have way more data to work with than us for appropriately classing cars for A/S and, secondarily, because it removes the issue of having the same people competing for the trophies as are classing the cars.

The big drawback here, as Arris points out, is lack of heads up RAW competition. Upside is that both the category and overall trophies are generally very hotly contested right to the end of the season.

Really, the only way to mirror what we do is to throw out your whole classing structure and adopt NASA or SCCA. Don't think you want to do that.

Gwoody27
10-22-2015, 02:52 PM
Two more cents from a Mazda owner.

A. I favour applying iPAX for the overall championship. It will make the playing field more level without the need for anyone to spend more $$. I think that could attract more entries because people can see a way to be competitive immediately, even though we all know that some pips are more valuable to speed than others.

B. I also favour fewer classes and use of raw times for class wins in order to raise the value of a class win. I would do this in stages however, starting by combining 2 adjacent classes, eg GT1 and GT2. I know that many people invest in new tires at some point during most seasons, they typically don't last for 2 seasons. In this example I believe that I could spend a few $ per tire more to move from the street tires I use now to Mid R comp tires. Since I am optimized in GT2 I would become optimized in GT1+2 and would take my chances against much stronger competition, but I should at least be competitive and can feel that I have a chance. All this by spending only a few incremental $ for more capable tires. Others could do the same and the number of classes is cut in half and field would more or less double their current size. It would be a fair way to start. In future the data would tell us what to do next.

As an old registrar I have some class attendance data which I have attached here.

wparsons
10-22-2015, 02:57 PM
Moving to non-premium R's could be a substantial change in season budget for some people, especially those that don't swap tires at the track or trailer their cars. Something like a TD soft isn't going to last a single season with street driving to/from tracks.

Then there's the issue of needing to re-optimize their suspension to fully take advantage of the stickier tires (stiffer spring rates, possibly re-valved or new shocks).

Mhussain
10-22-2015, 03:08 PM
I like this. I think that OTA has a great system that clearly works well given the tight competition this year. Having wins based on class families will cut down the number of awards required which should help the budget, and will make the wins much more rewarding as there will be fewer winners at each event. It's worked well in Autoslalom for years, so why can't it work in Time-Attack?

Having class wins based on iPax completely defeats the purpose of have any classes at all. This is racing, not a Sunday drive. If people aren't interested in being competitive, that's fine. But it almost seems unfair to base wins on iPax. Racing is just as much about car prep and setup as it is about strapping in and setting a fast lap. Realistically, a 5 PIP spread per class is not a ton, and it's really not too difficult to make sure you're optimized for a particular class. Whether that means adding a couple of PIP's, or taking some away to drop down a class.

I think iPax is just an excuse to try and make things "fair" for the people who are too lazy to make sure they have a car that will be competitive. Just because you might have to add a PIP or 2 to end up at the top of your class, doesn't mean that you're going to have to spend a pile of money. And if someone really isn't interested in making sure they have a competitive car, they shouldn't be expecting to beat the people who are!


I vote to ditch the iPax idea completely. Keep the current classes, but only award class wins to the class families (Touring, Grand Touring, Super Grand Touring, etc.) and base overall wins on class PAX.


The OTA rules really aren't that complicated, and I don't think that switching to iPAX is going to make things any easier for newcomers to understand. All it will do is allow people to show up with whatever car they want, with whatever level of prep and not have to worry about what class their in. Sounds kind of like a lapping day to me...

Mhussain
10-22-2015, 03:09 PM
Well said Kyle! Thank you for simplifying the issue.
Totally agree with you :)
Mohamed Hussain

John P
10-22-2015, 03:56 PM
Well said Kyle! Thank you for simplifying the issue.
Totally agree with you :)
Mohamed Hussain

I also agree with using Raw time and leaving 5 PI per class or move to 7 PI per class. I prepared an analysis of Events 1, 4 with 7 PI per class showing a range of 0 to 6.8 PI increase per competitor, with an average of 3.0 PI increase per competitor. Number of classes dropped to 10 (from 14).

Also looked at IPAX for Event 1 in the 5 PI per class scenario (same as 2015), with raw times and found only one competitor would move one position from 9th to 8th.

I can't justify moving to IPAX for Overall on those results.

JohnP

Dave Barker
10-22-2015, 11:09 PM
John, I think there may be a number of competitors who are not using all the PIPs claimed (personally I ran with 3 sPIPs fewer than were on my approved PIP schedule) and some who might decide to actually add a PIP or two to their cars, which in a class specific PAX system could leave them at a disadvantage but if iPAX is used, might be very useful as long as they were interested in running for the overall.

Personally I don't have an issue with still using RAW times for smaller class spreads but don't agree with a class with a 15 points spread in PI being scored on RAW times only.

Still like the idea of running RAW times for class wins and iPAX for overall. Really not much of a change from what we do now. Unfortunately doesn't decrease the number of classes either.

wparsons
10-23-2015, 11:12 AM
Only give class wins based on class "families", scored on smaller class PAX, and the number of effective classes goes down significantly...

2TH PWR
10-23-2015, 11:41 AM
I find I keep asking myself why?

It appears that classes are being made larger to give the illusion of more competition.

I don't think the competition model is completely broken and doesn't need a complete overhaul. There are things I don't like but they aren't major.

The focus should be on marketing and conveying the experience, value, learning environment, variety, and levels of challenge the series offers. Maybe find some creative ways to give incentive or reward to competitors that hasn't happened in the past.

If people "lap" they need to at least know about Ontario Time Attack and what it offers. When I first stepped onto a track a couple years ago I had no idea it even existed. I very quickly knew what CSCS was. I saw stickers and signs and was drawn to ask "what's that?"

How much would it cost to post a billboard trackside at DDT and TMP and Shannonville? These tracks with their easily accessible track days are a funnel for all the newbies.

Yellow Viggen
10-23-2015, 05:34 PM
Regarding class size and rule changes, what is the reason/history of having two series, OTA and CSCS in Ontario? If we make our rules simpler and more attractive to newcomers we will be cannibalizing CSCS? This is not a healthy scenario. Shouldn't we try to make the rules in the two series more similar with the ultimate goal of joining forces? It is my understanding that Time Attack is an international series. Perhaps our rules should be made more similar to the international body and CSCS could approach it from their side.

Mhussain
10-23-2015, 06:54 PM
[QUOTE=2TH PWR;251595]I find I keep asking myself why?


The focus should be on marketing and conveying the experience, value, learning environment, variety, and levels of challenge the series offers. Maybe find some creative ways to give incentive or reward to competitors that hasn't happened in the past.

If people "lap" they need to at least know about Ontario Time Attack and what it offers. When I first stepped onto a track a couple years ago I had no idea it even existed. I very quickly knew what CSCS was. I saw stickers and signs and was drawn to ask "what's that?"

Mhussain
10-23-2015, 07:01 PM
Perhaps it's time we got a marketing and business consultant to improve our visibility and attraction. I too stumbled onto Time Attack (Solosprint) 12 years ago surfing the internet.
We have a great product that needs no further analysis, but more exposure!
Mohamed Hussain

jimmo-san
10-23-2015, 07:41 PM
I find I keep asking myself why?

It appears that classes are being made larger to give the illusion of more competition.

I don't think the competition model is completely broken and doesn't need a complete overhaul.

I agree with Mike. I think the maxim "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies here.

Do people think OTA is broken? If so, why? It seems to me to have been functioning pretty well during the three seasons that I have been participating.

Dave Barker
10-24-2015, 02:39 PM
Regarding class size and rule changes, what is the reason/history of having two series, OTA and CSCS in Ontario? If we make our rules simpler and more attractive to newcomers we will be cannibalizing CSCS? This is not a healthy scenario. Shouldn't we try to make the rules in the two series more similar with the ultimate goal of joining forces? It is my understanding that Time Attack is an international series. Perhaps our rules should be made more similar to the international body and CSCS could approach it from their side.


I think CSCS and OTA are significantly different and attract a different type of competitor with different aims. Also OTA is non profit and CSCS likely makes quite a bit of money for the organizers. Therefore I don't see the need to merge the rules to form a single time-attack series in Ontario. One other point is that the Ontario rule set is used as the National rule set and our car classification system is used across the country while CSCS is Ontario (and to some extent Quebec) only.

As I mentioned before, if we had 30 more competitors spread across the class spectrum, there would be no need to even consider making any changes, so the mention of promotion to the unsuspecting public could well make this all unnecessary.

The issue comes from the first poll where it seems the vast majority would like fewer (could this actually just mean more well populated?) classes. The issue is that we don't all agree on how scoring would work when decreasing the number of classes and, as usual, there are pros and cons to each choice, even before we look at the idea of iPAX.

You may notice that I haven't voted yet as I think this discussion is very useful and frankly, I haven't even decided yet.

Chris P
10-24-2015, 04:05 PM
It's unfortunate that so much energy is being spent on discussing a rules revamp when what the series needs is marketing, and plenty of it. Increasing our numbers should be the primary mission as it drivers better economies of scale which will reduce the per competitor cost, which cycles back to bring more competitors....

30-40 racers at an event just isn't compelling and no amount of rule tweaking is going to will make that sales pitch better.

Dave Barker
10-24-2015, 09:50 PM
It's unfortunate that so much energy is being spent on discussing a rules revamp when what the series needs is marketing, and plenty of it. Increasing our numbers should be the primary mission as it drivers better economies of scale which will reduce the per competitor cost, which cycles back to bring more competitors....

30-40 racers at an event just isn't compelling and no amount of rule tweaking is going to will make that sales pitch better.


Don't worry Chris, there are a number of moves afoot on the promotion issue. (Never enough I know but certainly more than in recent years)

Grant Galloway
10-24-2015, 09:58 PM
I don't think anything is broken. I too knew what CSCS was years ago! But it was Corey who introduced me to CASC.

I plan to run the whole series next year, hell I bought a new tow vehicle.

How about something that caters to new competitors, something that will allow the lap day guys to come and experience it. Not sure what it looks like? I can tell you it's not the costs that keep lapping day guys away, most of those guys don't have an income problem. (evidence Porsches, Ferrari etc)

I have the stickers on my car, do a lot of track days and guys ask me about it all the time. It would be great to have some handouts (brochures or something) that would allow us to share the series.

I left RC car racing to run track days and time attack, we had the same issues getting people out and sharing the hobby. When we got people to come out they got hooked.

Grant