Too Many Classes , Not enough Competition

[Dave Barker]

Sorry folks but after looking at the final results for this years Solo1 , it strikes me that the fears expressed by various competitors early in the season have been realised . We had 49 drivers complete the minimum 8 events or more in a total of 23 classes . Classes ASS1 , B1 , BSS2 , BSP , B Mod , and C3 didn't have a single competitor complete 8 events and ASP , A Mod , B2 , and C1 only had 1 driver finishing 8 events guaranteeing a class win albeit with no competition .
Although I have had my best season ever and the competition was sometimes very good , it was not always consistant . A quick perusal of the classes of those of us who got 800 pts shows that the competition wasn't too stiff in the top 5 until we get to Stephan Tong in C2 stock where 2nd place was very close . Meanwhile A1 , CSS2 and CSP were very close with no " perfect " scores due to the close competition
Wouldn't it be more fun to run 2nd or 3 rd in a class of 8-10 consistant competitors who completed at least the minimum 8 events than win a class by default ??
It strikes me that the way to use the performance indices as previously worked out ( which means we have a way of classifying new cars) would be to get rid of the arbitrary "Family " classification and break cars up into front drive and rear/4 wheel drive groups . This would basicallly mean getting rid of B class and absorbing it into A and C class . It seems funny to me that a 3450 lb front engine ,rear drive 2 door M3 with 300+ hp is called a " Sports Coupe " and runs in B class while a 3500 lb front engine rear drive 2 door Camaro or Mustang with 300 +hp runs in A class . Even Jud Buchanan's front engine rear drive live axle car with who knows how much hp runs in B class against various front drivers such as Preludes and 4 wheels drivers such as the Talons but not against over front engined rear drive live axle cars . Deciding which "Family " a car runs in seems too arbitrary .
If B class were to be absorbed into A and C we would have 7 fewer classes and consequently more competition in each of those remaining classes . The idea concerning the positive effects of different mods being less on higher performance cars still applies and the performance indices , ( a great idea ) still work . The cutoff indices may have to change a bit but we could still have 3 stock front drive classes and 3 stock rear/and 4 wheel drive classes with different prep points for SS and SP improvements . Looking at Nick Major's times when he did run makes me think this would work in modified as well .
I feel we need to increase the numbers of drivers if each class to make this more of a competition . I am well aware that under this type of classification , I would not have won my class and might not even place in the top 10 ( I did place 3rd )
On the other hand the top 4 finalists this year would definitely have had a tougher time of it ( and I think more fun )

[B18C5]

That sounds like a good idea to me. I know when I check my times in CSS1 I always look over to see how I'm doing compared to the B classes. Most seem to align fairly closely timewise, and it's just very interesting to see how I'm comparing to them.

I think separating A and C classes strictly by the driven wheels might be a little too simplistic, but it seems like a good goal to shoot for. I do think the Miatas are more of a C car with their engine size IMO.

Hrm. I think this should involve some comparisons of times... err. maybe not. hrm...

[Jud Buchanan]

Dave Barker I think you're onto something. I'm sure with all of the leg work that the classification committee did last winter that it's just a case of shifting a few paramater and bingo....ASS2 and BSS1 run together. Sure looks good on paper, as long as we don't forget that these classes currently enjoy a points spread. The fly in ointment though is those Corvettes. The fact that they run against live axle cars is a total joke - it's a really obvious flaw in the classification system that should be corrected. Nothing short of a 2200# tube frame car with one of those 427 all aluminum small blocks is going to touch a fully prepared C4 or C5. When the Yellow Corvette gets the power that Red TransAM has, it will be good bye TransAM. Hell I'd like to see the ASS2 or ASS1 pony car that will keep up to a new Z06. With your proposal, minus the Corvettes, we might even see the 914-6 and the 240Zs back. If you check their times you'll find they would run almost as fast as you and Chris.

Let's hear what the non-Corvettes in A and B goup think.

Enjoy!

[Shaman]

I have to agree with Jud there. I've spent a few hours in a C5, and given some more power, there's very little prep I could do to make it that quick. Quick, sure, but not that quick.

And part of the reason, I confess, that I didn't make more of a priority on getting my car ready (though I did have problems galore) this year is that there is just Eric and I fighting it out in ASP, with the occassional other car showing up and realizing that they need a fairly big (and reliable, as we have evidenced) gun. I don't mind at all running in a SP group, but one well-prepped Viper, FD RX7, 911 TT or Z06 and it's all over for the SP cars we've seen to date - not sour grapes, just the facts.

Eric and I have both put a few minutes into discussing whether we should get a Honda and head into CSS or something just to have competitors. :(

BTW Judd... on a really tight track or a really big track, my car seems to really hold its own. It's Shannonville that always messes with me. I'm working on it... ;)

[turboawd]

Well I only made it to 6 events this year because a) I was way too busy with work, farm, wedding, honeymoon, degree courses.... b) car issues. Last year there was 3-6 cars in BSP every event. That was fun. This year I was the only car! Kinda doesn't make you too excited. If all was well I would have done more events because i just like being out there. However, I to have been thinking of runing a different car, maybe C or B3 class because it looks like more fun. The family of cars needs to be modified. There are too many family classes and many don't make sense. Why is a slow Cavalier a B3 class car and an Integra a C1 ? A fwd Cavalier would never be able to compete against a talon or BMW. Why is the type R still in C ? Should it not be a B car with 200hp, limited slip, light weight and performance suspension, all stock ? A Cavaliar should be in C, its heavier than an integra, hp is about the same (Z24) and the integra has much more sophicasted suspension. Thats just one example.

Sports Coupe, Sports Sedan and Sport Compact. Whats the differnce? Sports Coupes are heavier than the Sport Compact, yet they are ranked higher? B as opposed to C, the only difference being the 2.4L cut-off. Some other Cars in B that shouldn't be, Beretta, Mazda 626 4cly, Isuzu Impulse. Probe 4cyl, Sonata 4cyl, Talon non-turbo.

I agree... it needs work.

[Dave]

I guess I'll be the first CCC guy to respond.

First of all, let me say that I can't disagree with Dr. Dave's assertion that we had too many classes this year. Fewer classes (given that our population base remains more or less constant) should theoretically mean more competition. Of course creating competitive classes with a larger variety of cars in each class is a MAJOR challenge. This is really the fine line the CCC has tried to walk -- balancing competitiveness (ie. giving more cars a chance to run near the front of their class) against population requirements. Believe you me, this is no simple task and there hasn't been any easy answers so far. I'm certain the CCC will welcome any and all ideas about how to walk this fine line in a way that addresses the population issue without unduely damaging the 'competitiveness' issue (meaning having a greater chance of your car being competitive, NOT having more cars to compete with). This is something of a double-edged sword, and the more you struggle with this the more I'm sure you'll realize how difficult it is to find a happy medium where nobody gets cut.

In their present form, I agree that A- and B-families suffer from a number of problems. Not enough population makes our attempts to give more cars a chance to be competitive self-defeating in some instances. Some of the 'car type' definitions developed to-date are vague and have no statistical basis, making it difficult for the CCC to divide A- and B-family cars in as clearcut a way as needed. Defining and differentiating 'Sports Cars' from 'Sports Coupes' has been hotly debated among the CCC very recently and this seems to coincide at least in part with the points made by Dr. Dave and Jud. I believe this indicates that the CCC recognizes this problem and we are working on further refining our 'car type' definitions.

On the upside, C-family was a very competitive group this year. If you own a 4-banger FWD car you probably had a blast this year. I think the success of C-family is partly due to the fact that the cars in this group are fairly easy to define and because this is likely the most affordable family to run a car in.

What I hope will happen this winter, though I can only speak for myself, is that we work hard at finding a feasible way to move A- and B-families (perhaps by reducing the number of classes within each or by combining them into a single family) towards something where they more closely ressemble the population levels seen in C-family without overly damaging the competitiveness of too many cars.

To more directly answer you questions I strongly suggest you all come out to the Workshop on November 3rd at the CASC office so that we can discuss these issues in person. I should also emphasize that I don't speak for the CCC so please don't take any of my comments as representing the committee. This are just my thoughts and my sad little attempt to at least shed a bit of light on the issues you've raised. To reiterate, I think you've got some very valid concerns and I'm sure with your help we'll find some ways of addressing them this winter.

Looking forward to seeing you on the 3rd,

Dave Pratte

[B18C5]

Eric and I have both put a few minutes into discussing whether we should get a Honda and head into CSS or something just to have competitors. :(

HADA meetings are the 3rd Wednesday of every month! ;) :P

turboawd: I believe the reasoning behind the families isn't based on performance or power to weight, but more on upgrade potential. Put 4 points into a Talon and you'll get a MUCH larger increase in performance than you would with 4 points in a Type R. That's why the larger engined cars are there too. If someone took full points on a 3.1L Cavalier engine I would suspect that it would be able to make more power than a fully built 1.8L Integra motor (maybe that's a bad example).

Generally small NA 4 cylinder motors are near their potential as far as tuning goes right out of the box. Larger motors and especially turbos have much room for tuning potential. Large displacement V8s and other A cars have loads of potential. That would also explain why 6 cylinder BMW M cars compete in B instead of A. Stock for stock they're competitve with many A cars, but separating them makes them more competitive when you move up to the modded classes.

There will always be some cars that are more competitive in certain modification levels than others. For example, it hasn't been proven yet :P but the Type R should be a much more competitive car in C1 than it would be in CSP. At least this way you have a lot more leeway when it comes to how you prepare your car. Instead of just being potentially competitive in one class you might be in two or three.

All that being said, would it be a good idea to split B by aspiration and displacement, or by dividing body styles between A and C? Or would that just naturally happen anyway the same way A and C became front and rear/all drive classes? Hrm... this is interesting...

[Dave]

Dave, sorry I didn't address your suggestion about splitting families based on which wheels are powered. As Jud and Shaman elude to in their posts, using a single variable like RWD/AWD/FWD as the means of creating families is likely too reductionist an approach. Like they suggest, suspension type is also very important, since a solid axel car may have a very difficult time keeping up with an independent suspension car. And the list of other important variables can go on and on. What about engine displacement? How does forced induction factor in? Should curbweight be considered? These are the issues the CCC debated endlessly all winter and it looks like we've got another fun winter in store :)

Don't get me wrong, I like simplicity, it often seems to be the way to go, but the variety of RWD cars out there is so huge that you'd really be eliminating a lot of good cars from having any competitive chance. For example, does a 4cyl Miata stand a chance in a RWD class against Z06s? Those extra 4 cylinders the Corvettes have will only further the performance divide between them and Miatas as you modify the engine, not to mention the size of rubber you can fit on a Corvette compared to a Miata. Miatas are damn fine cars and deserve a competitive home and I don't see that being with high horsepower V8 cars like Corvettes.

What the CCC has tried to do with the index system and the 'car type' system is find a method that takes into consideration as many relevant performance elements of a car as possible. Our 'car types' are basically our attempt at recognizing that Pony Cars, with their solid rear axels, are a different animal that 'Sports Cars' like Corvettes with their considerably more sophisticated suspensions. And so on. Rather than going with a single variable like drive-wheels to define the classes, I still believe we need to take into consideration a number of the key variables, though how to do so most effectively is still something that we should definitely be working on.

Anyway, that's just my view on the idea of going with a Family system based on drive-wheels alone.

Off to Ottawa for Thanksgiving for this puppy...

Dave Pratte

[Bruce Murphy]

I dunno guys, totally eliminating B group will unfortunately trash one of the most competitive classes; BSS1. Although Chris soundly whipped my ass this year, on any given day, just about anyone could finish on top. It would be a crime to let it go. We need some consistency from year to year so that guys like myself can get a chance to catch up; moving cars around from class to class will mean that I'm always trying to second guess where I'm going to wind up.

Car age is definitely something that should be taken into consideration as far as potential is concerned. I don't know where my 1972 911 would run, but I know what kind of times to expect from it, as the classes that have been bandied about for it all include cars with a 30 year technological edge that would hammer me into the ground even with a granny driving them.

Has anyone considered using breakout times like in regional racing? Go consistently slow, you're in one class, go faster than a preset breakout time, and you move up to the next class. This would put a hell of a lot more emphasis on driving skills as opposed to who's got the most money.

Anyway, I think we leave B alone for a couple of years. Or maybe handicap guys like Rob McAuley who wind up running against nobody every weekend, so he can run in a higher class like BSS1? Or trade off you prep points for a slight time advantage?

Bruce

[Rob McAuley]

All of the points are valid, and something should be done.

My biggest frustration in this, my novice season has been the lack of competition. I had much more fun coming second in a full class than running on my own and making up my inter-class races.

I've been plugging the series to others with similar cars to try to get a full class, but realistically, I don't see any way that we can generate enough interest to fill all classes.

Having said that, I think the class/family/points system is brilliant! It seems that the family breakdowns are arbitrary, but we need something to let different vehicles apply different prep point levels as they move up the ranks and the groups are consolidated. It appears that we would need to let different vehicles apply different prep points to move up levels.

Maybe we start off with 6 stock groupings that consolidate to 3 or 4 SS2/SS1, then to 2 or 3 Mod groups. That way the Miatas would never have to run against the 'vettes.

My brain is starting to hurt as I contemplate a C1 car (now simply Stock 2?) applying 4 points and moving to one of 4 SS categories - it wouldn't even have to move up in a family - just to a competitive group.

I'll see you on the 3rd!

[Chris P]

Breakout times are a horrible idea. Look to regional racing as your proof! You have people not running to the potential of their cars. i.e.: the break time is 1:22(I believe) on Pro track for GTD. The object of the competitor is to build a car that will run 1:20's or 1:19's on PRO all day long. When the qual or race comes you pace your self into doing 1:22's every lap of the race..... It's not racing!

As for classification, The CCC did a amazing job with their Classification index. Too bad we didn't use it this year! The STOCK classes should have been defined by there index number and not some silly grouping such as Sports; grand sports; touring......and what ever else. This could work quite well.
However there is a problem, it's when cars start getting modified. The answer is to make separate classes by dividing them up according to their potential.
One last thing, Dividing cars up by FWD and RWD is a pretty silly idea. Does it really make a difference how the car is driven, no, what defines a cars speed is it's specs. I would be more then happy to see Type R's and BMW 32x's compete against each other. It's worked in the past with some very good results. The method of locomotion is not important.


I will be there on the 3rd.......wait a sec i think i have a exam that day, or do i

[Bruce Murphy]

I dunno guys, totally eliminating B group will unfortunately trash one of the most competitive classes; BSS1. Although Chris soundly whipped my ass this year, on any given day, just about anyone could finish on top. It would be a crime to let it go. We need some consistency from year to year so that guys like myself can get a chance to catch up; moving cars around from class to class will mean that I'm always trying to second guess where I'm going to wind up.

Car age is definitely something that should be taken into consideration as far as potential is concerned. I don't know where my 1972 911 would run, but I know what kind of times to expect from it, as the classes that have been bandied about for it all include cars with a 30 year technological edge that would hammer me into the ground even with a granny driving them.

Has anyone considered using breakout times like in regional racing? Go consistently slow, you're in one class, go faster than a preset breakout time, and you move up to the next class. This would put a hell of a lot more emphasis on driving skills as opposed to who's got the most money.

Anyway, I think we leave B alone for a couple of years. Or maybe handicap guys like Rob McAuley who wind up running against nobody every weekend, so he can run in a higher class like BSS1? Or trade off you prep points for a slight time advantage?

Bruce

[Dave Barker]

Folks , I'm glad to have such a good number of replies and so quickly . I would like to respond to a few points
1 Arbitrarily dividing cars by how they are driven is no less arbitrary than what their body style is . Most pony car manufacturers call their cars Sport Coupes anyway which should make them B cars ( Chevy does NOT want their product called a PONY car !!)
2 I am well aware that a live axle car cannot handle like a car with IRS ( believe me I am WELL aware ) . Fortunately I think this is dealt with in the performance index . Even with my 97 Camaro's power , I believe I am running at a lower performance index than an M3( E36) which has less power but IRS .
Why with all the work done on performance indices , cars with similar indices can't run together I'm not sure .
3 Bruce Murphy , The high running ASS2 cars and BSS1 cars run very similar lap times . I f BSS1 were to no longer be available you would be in ASS2 or ASS1 with a much larger class . It just wouldn't be called BSS1
4 The " super car" family including the Zo6 and others tend to screw up the A classes. ASS 1 becomes a total non option due to being propositioned by A 1 class . I would suggest that A1 not be allowed to improve to SS classes and have to advance to ASP . This would not be any help to Eric J or Steve Cole but would allow some realigning of points for ASS1 and ASS2 so that improved miatas could run , or we could actuallly add an ASS3 class . This would mean that we would only lose 6 classes rather than 7 and I am not informed enough to make any comments about the front drive C classes and the Type R which might lead to a similar situation . I think its interesting that the Miatas in stock class would wipe up in A3 and even the improved Miatas in CSS2 would do quite well in ASS2 . I don't think there is any reason that they couldn't run with other RWD cars .
and 5 ) How many times have we had to worry whether of not we have "a class", meaning 3 competitors , for an event ??
I was fortunate this year to always have at least 3 drivers in ASS2 but many others may have been limited to 97.5 or fewer points even though they may be excellant drivers in well prepared cars . If we amalgamate B into A and C this will be less likely to happen . Also I would expect the competition to be stiff enough that we won't ever see anyone driving for points ( as Chris P pointed out happens in regional racing ) and we will be less likely to have 5 drivers with perfect points .
PS . Awarding trophies to winners of classes with no competition, as mentioned in my opening post , demeans the efforts and accomplishments of those hotly contested class winners.

[Christian Sorensen]

I have to thank Dave Barker for getting this necessary discussion going!

Obviously the CCC took a risk by increasing the number of classes available to 23 from 16.

Did the experiment work? Did we end up with fewer competitive classes than in previous years?

From the official results for 98-01 seasons, I've gathered the following statistics:

2001
Classes with full subscription for at least 8 events: 8

Classes with 3+ competitors who ran at least 8 events: 6
Classes with 2 competitors who ran at least 8 events: 6
Classes with 1 competitor who ran at least 8 events: 5
Classes with 0 competitors who ran at least 8 events: 6

Class winners who ran at least 8 events: 17
Class winners who ran 6-7 events: 2
Class winners who ran 4-5 events: 3
Class winners who ran 1-3 events: 1

2000
Classes with full subsription for at least 7 events: 10

Classes with 3+ competitors who ran at least 7 events: 8
Classes with 2 competitors who ran at least 7 events: 5
Classes with 1 competitor who ran at least 7 events: 1
Classes with 0 competitors who ran at least 7 events: 2

Class winners who ran at least 7 events: 14
Class winners who ran 5-6 events: 2
Class winners who ran 1-4 events: 0

1999
Classes with full subsription for at least 6 events: 10

Classes with 3+ competitors who ran at least 6 events: 6
Classes with 2 competitors who ran at least 6 events: 2
Classes with 1 competitor who ran at least 6 events: 5
Classes with 0 competitors who ran at least 6 events: 2

Class winners who ran at least 6 events: 14
Class winners who ran 4-5 events: 2
Class winners who ran 1-3 events: 0

1998
Classes with full subsription for at least 5 events: 9

Classes with 3+ competitors who ran at least 5 events: 8
Classes with 2 competitors who ran at least 6 events: 3
Classes with 1 competitor who ran at least 6 events: 5
Classes with 0 competitors who ran at least 6 events: 0

Class winners who ran at least 5 events: 16
Class winners who ran 1-4 events: 0


From the above one can see that in the last 4 years the number of 'fully subscribed' classes has ranged between 8 and 10, and the number of classes with at least 3 'full-time' competitors has ranged between 6 and 8. In the meantime we have increased the length of the season from counting 5 events to counting 8.

The numbers for 2001 are admittedly down somewhat from 2000, but not by a lot.

What has really changed is the number of 'practically empty' classes: we now have 6 where no single competitor ran at least 8 events whereas there used to be only a couple.

I agree that a class win in a 'practically empty' class does not mean as much: perhaps the Solo director would like to consider creating some kind of minimum criteria for the awarding of a trophy in these classes.

Chris

[turboawd]

I agree totally with Chris P. Who cares how many doors or seats a car has or if its RWD/FWD/AWD whatever. Its the on track performance that counts. The classes should be based on the performance indicies and perhaps their potential. I have no argument that a turbo car has more potential... for hp. But hp isn't everything. Just look at Chris P and Chris S.

A 3.1 cavalier vs. a type R ? come on....

Class winners without 3 in the class. Well If I had run two more events I would have gotten a trophy, so what, I was the only car in BSP. Trust me, it feels worse to win a class by default than it is to finish 2nd in a tight, competitive class. Setting new rules that limit trophies to certain classes dosen't accomplish anything. That won't fix the problem.

I think the CCC should have the power to move certain car models from one class to another during the season if its felt that it is dominating. Then re-calculate the results for overall scores only, not changing the individual events that may have passed. This would be a rare event.

[Shaman]

I'd say horsepower isn't much at all on the tracks we run in Solo-1. Torque is much more important, getting out of corners. Only track I can think of that allows a bit of horsepower lead is the Pro @ Shannonville and it's only for short periods of time.

The big track @ Mosport - well, that would seperate the ranks a bit. But then we'd be mopping the novices up with blotters. Probably me, too.

[Christian Sorensen]

A simplistic approach to the population problem that was briefly considered at the beginning of the year would have been to merge A and B families together.

Using the existing index system and break points, almost all of the B-family cars would have been A3 root cars, except the M3s.

The E36 and E30 M3s would be A2 and the E46 M3 A1.

This means that the cars entered in A3, B2 and B3 would have run in the same class, producing full classes in 13/14 events and generating another 800 point-scoring class winner.

Almost all of the BSS1 and BSS2 cars entered would have run in ASS2, except Jud's Acadian and Jamie Eastman's Daytona which would have had to run in ASS1.

The effect of that would have been 10 or more cars in ASS2 for 10/14 events, with one less 800 point-scoring class winner and no change at the top of the standings.

ASS1 would have been just as underpopulated, and propositioned by A1 in every event anyways.

The ASP class would have gained an extra runner for 6 events which would have allowed full classes in 9/14 events but no changes in the amount of points anyone would have scored (due to propositioning).

The AM class would only have had one more full event (2/14 instead of 1/14).

I don't believe such a merger would have been 'worth it'.

What about changing the system to have RWD/AWD in A and FWD in C?

The front-drivers that were run in B were in B3 and BSS2: these would have ended up in C3 (and still not filled that class) and CSS2 (simply replacing the RWD MR2s, Miatas and English sports cars that ran there).

The Miatas would have ended up in A3 instead of C2 and C2 would have been an empty class. A3 would have had lots of entries and generated an 800point winner.

The SuperStock Miatas and MR 2s would have filled an already-bloated ASS2 class and not made any difference to the results.

Therefore I don't believe such a re-alignment would have been 'worth it', either.

The essential problem seems to be that finding equitable breakpoints is very difficult if you have to divide such a large population with widely varying indexes into just 3 root classes.

What if such a merged family were divided into 4 root classes?

We could then have 3 SuperStock level classes and 1 or 2 Street Prepared within the 'family', leading to 1 Modified class.

This would mean having 10 or 11 classes within A family instead of 14.

Where would the break points be set for such a 'super-family', and how would the composition of the SuperStock classes be determined?

Would such a structure have been 'worth it'?

Any suggestions?

[Dave Barker]

Chris , I really appreciate your analysis but you are assuming there would be the same points assigned to A2 and A3 to advance to ASS1 & 2 . You mention the bloated ASS2 class if the B families came over but if they don't , you should remember that only 3 drivers drove 8 events this year with one or the regulars apparently trying to sell his car now . Rather than saying that ASS2 would become bloated I think that if we don't do anything if will be starving !!! ( Just like aSS1)

One of the major problems is letting the A1 "Supercars" advance to ASS1 . Having seen how fast an A1 car can be , no one in their right mind would think that the 7 points awarded to an A2 car for ASS1 would be adequate to run with even non modified A1 cars let alone ASS1 cars from the A1 root . Even Steve Cole's Firebird with ALOT of points in ASP is barely a match . If A1 cars had to advance to ASP and the points required to move up were massaged for A2 and A 3 , then even the modified Miatas could run ASS2 when the more modified or more powerful cars could run ASS1 without being propositioned by a " Supercar " . Without this change ASS1 will continue to be a dead class . Alternatively we could have an ASS3 class limited to improved A3 cars .

BTW Chris , I think any change that expands a class to 8-10 entries is " well worth it " if it doesn't destroy another class. The changes I'm suggesting make A3 and ASS2 very viable classes which they are not now .

Also , Nino , the reason I suggested a rear and allwheel drive class and a front drive class was to allow the CCC to catagorise new vehicles more easily ( certainly one of their major concerns). Its really simple and can't be argued with .
. If we were to use just performance indices as I think you and Chris P . are suggesting , there would always be those who would argue that their car was a 48 and not a 52 ( or whatever)

I do agree that stock classes decided strictly on performance indices sounds neat but I'm not sure how it would work in improved classes.

BTW Steve , Does this post win the record so far for most responses and most views ? Certainly this topic needed some airing out before the Nov workshop . Thanks for providing the forum for this discussion to take place .

[Shaman]

I'm glad it's useful. I suggested it mostly because it's fully searchable and provides notification to those people who are interested in an individual feature.

I have to agree that I am somewhat alarmed, looking at the Z06 performance, that they are allowed (points-wise) a motor like mine to slip into ASP. As is a Viper. If that ever happens, ASP will become the true rich man's select club... not that there's anything wrong with having such a thing, just that entry onto the roster is going to be $100K CDN, that's all. As it is, I don't mind competing directly with the Z06 as it is, stock, since my car and a Z06 are comparable in price if not in all other ways... but on a larger track like Mosport, the Z06 wouldn't have a hope of keeping up with the sheer speed and acceleration of my car in an environment where its power could be put to use. Honestly, this is a 3 dimensional problem, and I'm not sure that it really can be solved, at least not without seriously considering all the environs in which Solo-1 is held... I'm glad, as I said last year, that I'm only involved on the fringe of it, because it's one seriously complex issue.

[turboawd]

Heres more fuel for the fire

Peformance indicies and classes from the rule book

Type R 65 C1
BMW M3 65 B3 (E30, 4cly)
BMW E36 60 B2
CRX 55 C3
Couger V6 40 B?
Berrata GTZ 35 B3

There is something very wrong here. A Berrata has a PI of only 35 but with a few mods must compete in BSS against Talons and BMWs yet the type R has PI of 65 and is in a lower class of C1 competing against much lower PI cars in CSS1, 2 or SP.

Lets take the poor guy in the Berratta,
If he stays in a stock class, B3 stock, he's ok because hes only runing against B3 stock cars. However there are very people in any stock classes. So he moves up to one of BSS1 or BSS2 or BSP competing with Talons and BMWs and has no chance in hell.

Theres the problem, too many stock classes with too wide a differential in performance. Sure they get more prep points but it still doesn't work.

Now, the older system of having only 1 stock class per family is sounding better. It just needed the PIs applied to reclass the cars. Perhaps only 2 stock classes per family instead of the present 3..... eg... B1 stock, B2 stock, BSS1, BSS2, BSP. That gets rid of 4 classes. However the family classes "sport compact this and that" have to go or be reduced and perhaps the point preps will need massaging as well.

Just trying to show some holes in the present system.

Well thats my 1 cents.

[Rob McAuley]

We could use a linear ranking of classes - say A to L for a total of 13 classes - with no families.

Stock cars are pre-assigned to various classes. My stock 328is might go in somewhere around H. As I modify it, various prep points will move me up to higher classes where I might compete against faster stock models, or more highly modified cars whose stock classes were lower than mine.

This may be as simple as saying that "For every x prep points, you move up 1 class."

It would be interesting to see if such a simple system would work.

[Dave Barker]

My original premise was that there are too many classes including 9 stock and 9 improved classes as well as modified Karts etc. At this stage we seem to be discussing various solutions and only Chris Sorensen and Dave Pratte have argued for the status quo.
Idon't pretend to have the one and only answer but I think we need to know if it is just a vocal few who want to change the system or are the majority quite unhappy .

Steve Cole , can we set up a poll to see how many want to change and how many are happy leaving things the way they are ?? . We can discuss which alternative later if a majority agree that a change is necessary . ( How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb ? A) only one but the light bulb really has to want to be changed )

Rob McAuley , I like your suggestion alot . As long as prep points and performance indices are accurate then each driver will be up against a narrower performance index range in his class . Also it will be possible to modify some lower cars without running into Z06s or Type R s until you are seriously modified.


There would also be fewer classes which I think is good

Might I suggest an increase in performance index of 2-3 points for each prep point ??

[Christian Sorensen]

Dave,

You are correct that I based my analysis on using the existing break points and prep point allowances ... I'm sure that if you play with these as well we can get all kinds of results! (Hmmm, how would my car have fared in ASS1? :( )

Of course, one can only carry hypothetical re-alignments so far, after all, the same cars wouldn't necessarily have kept showing up if their class/competitive situation had been drastically different, and other cars might have materialized.

One reason that I feel that the 'merging' wouldn't be 'worth it' was that we would effectively combine two competitive classes (ASS2 and BSS1) into one and eliminate any chance for BSS2 to become competitive. I know of at least one potential competitor considering entering a new car into BSS2 next season.

I have to concede that when 45-55 cars are entered in an event the new system doesn't work as well as it should. It is a different story when ~70 cars are entered. There is still a vast potential population of entrants who we can attract into Solo 1 to flesh out the classes.

The issue of A1 'Supercars' being unbeatable in ASS1 is a different story. I suppose the same could be said about the Type R in CSS1 and (maybe) the E46 M3 in BSS1.

I'm not comfortable with preventing the 1 level stock cars from running in SS1. Nor with making an 'exception' for the Z06. The problem really comes down to having only 3 root classes within each family: the ones in the middle class can only do minimal prep before being 'exposed' to the top level.

As for dividing the families up by powertrain configuration, I have to admit that it makes just as much sense (perhaps more) as our present division. The real problem is that I don't believe it'd work with just 3 root classes in each family ...

I wrote the above before reading your latest response: I too would be keen to see how many competitors want a change or not.

Nino,
I believe that you have mixed up the suspension indexes with the Performance Indexes in your example, as the actual PIs used are calculated differently within each family (using a different mix of the four base variables).

That said, within B the PIs for your examples are:
BMW E36 M3: 65.37 B1
BMW E30 M3: 61.55 B2
Cougar V6: 46.81 B3
Beretta GTZ: 47.65 B3

How competitive would a BSS2 Cougar/Beretta be against an E30 M3 or a Talon? Probably not very. The problem once again is that there are too few divisions within a family for all cars to find a competitive niche.

Rob,
As for using a purely linear ranking of classes, one problem is that there is not a constant increase of performance for a given amount of prep points.

My car certainly got a lot more out of the first three prep points (springs & alignment) than the last three (swaybars plus a chip).

Some cars with a great deal of prep points would never be competitive with the 'stock' level cars they'd have to run against several steps up the ladder...

I suppose if it were possible to accurately calculate new PIs for modified cars we could slot them in in this manner...

For everyone's edification (and just in case you didn't download it when it was available off the soloontario site earlier in the year) I have attached the 'Solo 1 Classes' Excel spreadsheet.
Chris

[Jud Buchanan]

The big A Class problem is trying to find cars to run against the Super Cars. Give the Super Cars their own class and let the low entry be their problem.

If you want to create a new class or combine classes, let's create one for 4-passenger, V8, live axle rear wheel drive cars....a pony car class (sorry Dave but that's what they are). Check the stats Chris S, and I think you'll find they have enough for their own Stock, Super Stock and Street Prepared Categories. Add in the guys who only come out ocassionally as they are tiried of getting beat by 4 seconds by Super Cars. In fact, if you give these guys their own class, put them all in a room for an hour, they'll come out and tell you what level of prep points will work the best.

I've said it before and I'll say it again "there is no way a pony car will ever beat a C4, let alone a C5, in Stock, Super Stock or Street Prepared". Just when the pony car gets close the C4 will always move ahead. It turns into the 'spent tons of money' competition. As we have no real limits on engine or suspension modifications, you can add over 25% more capacity for a few prep points. You can take the live axle out of the pony car and put in an independent rear suspension, for what 3 points as well. Now we have two 100 k cars that can almost run together is ASP. Let's give outselves a reality check here and look at putting some limits on this stuff. i.e. a realistic capacity increase limit; and no adding independent rear suspension.

To give you front wheel drive enthusisats a comparison of the difference in performance between a live axle and independent rear suspension, it's like putting a beam axle in the front of your car - now try going around a corner. An IRS car goes into, goes around, and comes out of a corner faster than any live axle. The only place a live axle has an advantage over IRS is a standing start - a live axle plants the tires much harder and 100% vertical...you're launched NOW!

[turboawd]

Chris, thanks for correcting my mistake about the PIs but the they still make my point.

Chris S. wrote: "How competitive would a BSS2 Cougar/Beretta be against an E30 M3 or a Talon? Probably not very. The problem once again is that there are too few divisions within a family for all cars to find a competitive niche. "

Chris, you just reinforced my case. The family classification based on body type... etc. has many flaws. They don't make much sense therefore cars like the Beretta are mis-classed. This family class thing needs to be reworked. The Beretta is a C car and a Type R is a B car... period, I don't think anyone can argue that and there are many more examples. But this family class thing has it reversed. Instead of Touring, compact, sport, econmy crap why not just call them Group 1, 2, 3, 4... Then but the appropriate car in the appropriate Group based on PI. The family definitions force cars like the Beretta and type R to be mis-classed. A car should be classed B only if can outperform a C car... as an example.

Let the Z06s have there own super car class, they have stability control and almost drive by themselves.

I don't mean to pick on Type Rs, they are great cars but they are the easiest example.

[Shaman]

Let's not single out just the Z06s. The 911TT (which we've never seen because of the points handicap), and latest M3 have similar features. While the M3 really isn't as competitive against the two others, they're all much simpler to drive than a live axle car, as Jud pointed out.

And I have heard it directly from several Mustang owners that have shown up in ASP - they can't be remotely competitive against what's running in there right now. Their rear suspension design is old even compared with a f-body. Think Kangaroo... hop hop hop! Not that there aren't some quick ones out there, but the prepped ones that we've seen, so far, have been very discouraged.

Oh yeah, before we go too far bashing on live axled cars, what streetable car has the counter-clockwise permiter lap record at DDT right now... ;)

Oh, and Dave: anyone can post a message with its own poll - it's a feature of the software. If you have a good idea what you want to ask, by all means go to it.

[Rob McAuley]

Christian says As for using a purely linear ranking of classes, one problem is that there is not a constant increase of performance for a given amount of prep points.

Then let's clean up the prep point system - or possibly do a sliding scale: Any mod moves you up a class, 1-2 points is one class, 3-5 points is 2 classes, 6-9 is 3, etc. This is all guesswork right now. I've never

And how about charging points for track tires? I've heard more comments from people in my stock class running on street tires (Richard, Avi, Axel) about this. They've got to be worth almost as much as 2-3 suspension points (more for Hoosiers!).

[Rob McAuley]

Yes, it's been frustrating running on my own, or against just one other car, and not getting full points.

Another way to deal with this would be to base classes of 2 or fewer cars on the previous best lap time of the winning driver. If the driver had not run that track/configuration before, then base it on the track record. That eliminates the arbitrary 97.5 and 95 scores.

Of course, you still have the feeling that you are racing against yourself (perhaps even more so!), and the bench racing afterwards wouldn't be as interesting (if it was, you've got bigger problems than running in a small class).

[B18C5]

This family class thing needs to be reworked. The Beretta is a C car and a Type R is a B car... period, I don't think anyone can argue that and there are many more examples.

You can't separate the Type R from the Civic and the other Integras. If you pull the Type R are you going to pull the regular Integra too? Then what happens with the Civic? The Type R was planned to be the top of C class because so far it's been the best example of a compact car. There will be cars that will be competitive with the Type R given time. That's why C1 and B1 were left underpopulated.

A isn't necessarily supposed to be faster than B isn't necessarily supposed to be faster than C. There will always be some crossover. I still believe that a 2.8/3.1 Cavalier/Beretta ultimately has more potential than a Type R engine. The most heavliy modified normally aspirated Type R engines don't make any more than 230 horse. That's with serious serious $$$ and lasting not very long. A more typical figure is 210-220, which isn't exactly as easy as throwing parts together. With a 3.1L block you've got a huge advantage to work with. What are they around, 160 pounds of torque? Type Rs have 130ish.

If you could move the RPM that the Beretta peaks at further up with cams, maybe to 7500rpm, port the head, match the intake and exhaust to the increased flow you'd be getting and doing whatever else you would need to take advantage of the higher RPM you would have a more powerful engine than a Type R. It might not be easy, but it is possible. GM engines are very inefficient, which is more of an invitation to modify.

Nobody's building these engines I guess because it would be prohibitively expensive, but if you leave the door open and use cost as the deterrent eventually someone's going take advantage of it. If you move the large displacement cars to C class then the modified classes would become another "rich man's playground".

There's no replacement for displacement. (there - I said it)

[Bruce Murphy]

Several points here;

•I prefer to leave things as is, but Rob's sliding scale approach makes the most sense.

•I have a friend running a Beretta in regionals; there is DEFINITELY gobs of potential in a modded Beretta.

•Chris hit the nail on the head about the total number of entrants; the system works better with about 70 cars. If we change to something akin to Dave's proposal and we start getting a consistent 70 entrants next year, we'll have people complaing about huge classes they can't possibly win in as opposed to people complaining there's no one to run against.

Unless someone can reasonably predict how many Solo 1 entrants we can expect next year, changing the categories will likely be an excercise in frustration.

Bruce

[Andrew Wojteczk]

Hi,

I ran an RX7 this past season and will be running the complete season this coming summer. In my experience at Cayuga it would have been nice to have some competition other than the four Z06's. They do give something to shoot for, however they are currently out of reach of my abilities and there wasn't any other competition. It would be nice to see some other cars in the category.

Thanks,

Andrew Wojteczko

[Brent]

Rich guys racing Berettas, thats funny. Comparing typeRs and Berettas, thats funny too.

[Shaman]

There are some frighteningly fast j-bodies out there.

Believe it or not, there is a fully-framed j-body (that's what the beretta is based on) running 7s in the 1/4 mile for almost four years. I don't see any 7 second Type Rs on the list right now... how's that for funny...

[Dave Barker]

Have all you people responded to the poll? At this stage we only have 11 responses .

[Taylor]

I'm with Rob on the sliding scale bit and here's why.

I started racing (for the first time ever) this year, and I did the first 4 events in the S2000 (A2). And in those events I was about 3 seconds off from John Paczynski, 2 seconds from Paul Jappy. I attribute that gap to inexperience, novice skill, and lack of balls. Now tack on some 30 or so events and even with my last event in the MR2 (also an A2 car) and I know I'm driving that car really damned hard but I've been anywhere from 5 to 7 seconds behind John (and Alan). Growing some bigger balls to brake a fraction of a second later on the Fabi straight might help knock of a second or so but that still hardly makes me competitive. Now I know it's possible, but I don't think I'm getting worse... so why is there such a huge gap? Beause my 10 year old stock MR2 isn't competitive against a Lotus Super Seven and the S2000. But, the car is too powerful as an A3 car. It's really an A2.5. So classification wise, I think I made a poor choice for a dedicated race car.

The thing that really gets my goat is the only place I can really safely go is ASS2. ASS1 and I'll get my ass handed to me by stock Z06's constantly propositioning my class. Though I think I could be more competitive in ASS2 than I was in A2, my plans are for points that would put me in ASS1. So I'm trying to convince myself that it doesn't matter just as long as I'm having fun. :) Riiight.

Now for the 4 events I drove my Prelude, I had the highest scores I ever received all season. (no doubt aided by Rob M's absence for a couple) but even taking that into account it just doesn't gel.

I know John P is considering a car change and that's no doubt a result of the constant fear of having or not having a class every Solo 1 weekend. I had to come out a couple times I didn't want to, to help make it happen. (though illness and distain for shannonville :) Even if 70 showed up, that doesn't make my MR2 any more competitive with S2000's and Super 7s. And it sure as heck won't make any E36 M3 more competitive with the E46 M3.

Oh and one last thing.. if the E46 is a B Family car next year, all hope is lost on the classification system. 333HP <> 240HP. But.. where do you put it? A1? A2? It'll would dominate in A2, and probably fall short in A1. There are just some Stock cars that don't belong in any of the existing 9 stock classes.

Considering for a moment that all drivers are equally skilled, I have no doubt that the existing classifaction structure is ruled by income. Z06's will always be at the top of A1, Type R's at C1 and M3's in B1. Nothing for nothing but Dave P's car in CSP should show itself to be leaps and bounds above current existing CSP cars. This isn't a professional series. Then again, perhaps those who can't afford need to adopt the "I'm just here to have fun" mentality. It just sucks to have to say "well if you want to be competitive you should buy a Z06, M3 or Type R, or you better get spending on your outclassed car to maybe get somewhere in a SS or SP class with lesser developed cars.

Or does that take the fun out of modding?

Food for thought? Or just mindless rambing?

I know that some of you are fine with the existing classification system, but.. then again, the system is probably working for you. By all means, if you believe it, tell me the whole difference in my lap times with the MR2 is skill. Either way, the gap is humiliating (not that I'm deeply hurt or anything, but a 7 second gap on nelson, 6 seconds on pro and 6 on fabi when I'm driving the crap out of the car is wrong).

I, obviously, vote for a change.

[Jeff]

I was going to write a big long thing here, but I can't type for crap.

Dave, glad you brought this up.

As a new competitor, and somebody who's not planning on quitting any time soon, I say less classes, more cars.

I only see lap times, and I want to run against guys who run equal times. I don't care if it's a Type R or a jet powered toilet with pink floor mats.

As an added bonus to having more cars in each class, aside from the tonnes of good points brought up here, it should promote a bit more friendly rivalry at the track.

We're all out here to have fun, and nobody expects to have Roger Penske banging down their door with a huge contract, so let's make sure we HAVE FUN.

Whatever you guys decide, please keep in mind the majority of us are racing simpletons with delusions of racing grandeur, and would probably rather say we finished 10th of 20 than 8th of 10. You get the idea.

Bottom line is KEEP IT FUN!! For everybody..........



JJ

(Any insults to simpletons or toilet drivers were unintentional. Two small animals were hurt in the making of this message, but not the cute cuddly kind)

[B18C5]

The more I read and the more I think about this it seems like the current system does a pretty good job. It's not perfect, but what is. I think it's a good tradeoff between scientific and subjective classification, between accommodating many cars and preparing for the cars that don't exist or compete yet, between having too many classes and not enough. Okay, well maybe there are too many, but where do you draw the line? The line that has been drawn wasn't just a line in the sand.

The CCC guys spent a lot of time trying to find a fair method. I'm not just saying that we should keep the rules just to make it worth the time they volunteered, but they've come to the conclusions they've come to for a reason. I've had many questions about relatively minor details and why they are the way they are. Both guys from the CCC I asked would have the definitive answer without even thinking about it. It seems that there was hardly anything they didn't think about, discuss and agree upon before finishing.

Everybody will have some problems with any system you use. There are some things I've wondered or think might be better off being different. Maybe adjusting point allowances for fairness or allowing hybrids in SS or allowing ECU mods or whatever. There are some very good arguments to leaving things the way they are though. I just don't think that a major overhaul is necessarily necessary. :P

Also I don't think it would be a good idea to dramatically change the classification system after only one year. We've hardly had a chance to see any faults in the current one. Fine, we have a population problem in A and B, but it's not absolutely critical to fix it right now. Maybe it'll fix it's self after this year. There were a lot of good classes to be a part of in A and B this year too.

geo - who wonders if sentences sound as good typed as they do in my head

[Mark Bidwell]

As someone who won BSS2 overall and only completed in 6 events, due to health reasons, I agree more competitors would certainly help. I also agree that any system is going to have it's issues, but believe the existing system will work with slight modifications.
My suggestions would be to revisit the preparation points allowed to each car before it moves up (stock to SS2, SS2 to SS1, SS1 to SP, etc.) And see if any changes are required, some may not be.
Look at a solution for classifying the Z06.
Look at a solution for when less than three cars appear in a group. The idea of looking at previous times for the same track is something to consider. Certainly there must be enough history at each track now. By knowing the time to beat prior to running each day to get that 100points is still a motivator, even if no one else is in your group.
Mark
91 Silver 318is

[Brent]

Shaman,
I'll think it's funny until I see a Beretta beat a typeR around a track with the prep points my neon is allowed.

I think it would be funny if a rich guy, who could chose any car, would choose to race a beretta.

If berettas can do 7 sec 1/4 miles that solves the problem for the ZO6's, they could run in a class with all the rich guys with the modified berettas.

I heard Bin Laden was going to run a modified beretta next season and bring the western solo empire to it's knees.

Seriously folks, it doesn't matter how the classes are arranged, there are always going to be certain cars that dominate. You can wait and see which cars dominate and address each case individually, you can wait to see which cars dominate and then go buy one or have as much fun as you can with the car you have.

I'd run a jet powered toilet next year if I was sure I wouldn't be classed with those rich guys and their modified berettas.

Changes I would make to C class:

1 Seperate new and old miatas, put new stock miatas in CSS2.

2 Put stock typeRs in CSS1

Scary thought for Dave and his hot honda in CSP - a new miata with suspension work, turbocharger and Tony driving it.

[Dave Barker]

My basic premise was that there are too many classes to foster good competition and I wanted to prevent people having to scramble to get a " class" of 3 for an event . I also wanted to prevent the " hollow " victories of winning a class without even running 8 events . It seems to me that the " status quo " doesn't solve these problems but maybe I',m one of the few who perceive these as problems worth fixing .
BTW it seems to me that answering " Needs some improvements " in the poll is rather ambiguous . i.e. what improvements ????

[turboawd]

According to the directer, you need at least 8 events to qualify for a class win. I only have 6 so I don't get squat for my empty class BSP.

[Bubblecar]

While many friends (and even associates) of mine have engaged in the practice - I think it is time for SOLO to discourage filling a class for the sole purpose of bumping up your points.

No one wants to discourage walkup registrations or disuade new competitors from trying an event - but I see no pride or competition in someone fabricating competitors just to score 100 points in an event.

If you are the only competitor in a class (like I was) sorry - thems the breaks. If you want to get another competitor or two to sign up and come out - great. But there must be someway to prevent gross manipulation of the rules when it's obvious to every single person that the only reason for the manuvere was to score additional points in a class that is not fully populated.

My suggestion would be first to make it clear in the rules that this practice is discouraged and should not be done.

Then give the Solo Director the power (yes - more power to the director - did I say that!) - to conduct a very simple and informal questioning of any unusual actions. Simply ask the participants what's going on. No big deal - no big hearing - just ask why someone signed up at the last minute - driving another persons car. If they claim it was legit - fine. At least everyone will know they can be questioned and that it's not considered part of the game.

Believe me - it would have been simple for me to fabricate competitors around my B-Mod class and score 100 point EVERY event - but should that have given me a shot at the overall title?

If the rules allow it - sooner or later someone will make blantant use of it.

Let's make winning a SOLO event about competition, skill, strategy (and maybe even a bit of luck) - not about playing with rules.

[Director]

The Championship scoring is and always be a majority of events (8 of 14) must be run to be in contention for an award (trophy). This is the way the series has always been run and always will be. This year was the first and hopefully not the last for the Pole Position award. Every driver had the opportunity to win this at each weekend they competed. I truly believe that this was a great idea for putting in the extra effort to not only win your class, but to imprve your consistency to piut in an excellent backup time.
Please don't make it sound that I decided you get squat. I am the biggest proponent for rewarding all drivers with awards and prizes and to put on a great awards banquet.
A small part of the money raised through sponsorship for the series covers the expenses of running it, but most of all it goes to paying for the banquet, the trophies and door prizes that the competitors receive.
If you want to be rewarded for your efforts through competition then you'll have to compete in the minimum of 8 events.
I know that you personnally couldn't make 8 events, but a lot of competitors did and for that commitment they will be rewarded.
I hope that you can attend all of next years series and can be in contention for top honours in your class.
The committee is determined to put on an even better show next year and look forward to more competitors attending to fill in most of the lean classes. We have some really good plans in the works to boost competition and to tweak the Classification system to enhance competition.
See you at the banquet.