Proposed 2003 Linear Index Classification System

[Dave]

Attn All Solo 1 Competitors:

At the February Solo 1 Committee meeting the CCC proposed a new car classification system and revised car modification schedule based on a linear (or straight) index approach. The Solo 1 committee and Director gave the proposal their unanimous support at that time, though Eric Jurashka has subsequently voiced his objections and concerns and John Blennerhassett, President of BAC, has expressed concerned about implementing this change for 2003 (though he continues to support the idea of a linear index classification system for 2004). Given these concerns, we would like to solicit as much feedback as possible from all Solo 1 competitors about the implementation of the linear index classification system and the revised car preparation and modification schedule associated with it.

The file attached is the most up-to-date version of the proposed linear index classification spreadsheet (in text format due to the limitations of this messageboard...an MS Excel version has been e-mailed out on the solo 1 listserve). We have added all 'model variants' for each car since one of the advantages of this system is that we'll no longer be basing classification on the best 'variant', but rather each variant will have its own classification and starting class. The linear indexing of all cars in this spreadsheet is based on a 70% weighting of horsepower-to-weight ratio and a 30% weighting of our 'suspension' or handling index.

I will also attach a text file which includes a revised car 'Prep Schedule' (e-mailed out to the Solo 1 listserve in MS Word format), though it is important to note that the wording of the rules as they appear in this file are not final. They will be aligned more closely with the wording used in the 2002 rulebook so as to avoid as much confusion as possible. Included within this file is considerable discussion of how this new system is designed to work, what some of our assumptions were when developing it, and so on.

Once you've had a chance to look over both these files, I would encourage you to send your feedback to the Solo 1 Committee and the Car Classification Committee (CCC) by posting your thoughts here.

Cheers,
Dave

[Dave]

attached is the car Preparation and Modification Schedule

[rpr]

Is that crank HP or wheel HP?

[Shaman]

Here's the original system in Access format:

[Shaman]

And the original prep schedule in Word format. They just needed to be "zipped". If you look below the Attach File requestor, you will see the valid extensions. Everyone knows Zip (or should), so this hopefully won't be a problem.

Any revisions, etc. just zip and upload. BTW, if anyone doesn't have Access or Word (like me on Linux) then a free office suite that will read these files is available at http://www.openoffice.org/

[Dave]

thanks Steve, that's very helpful!

[andrew1984]

my bug is 3005 lbs . where did you guys grab 2875 from?

[Dave]

Andrew, most of our data on car weight and horsepower rating came from either the yearly 'Car Guide' magazine or from the Carpoint website. It could be that the year and model version we've listed for the new Beetle was in fact lighter than yours. There is variation from year to year and from model version to version. We've included as many model versions as we could without becoming slaves to the spreadsheet, but obviously we don't have a listing for every car for every year and every model version. For the correct classification of your car, all you have to do is forward us (here, or via e-mail at dpratte4@cogeco.ca) the year and model version of your car along with the horsepower and curb weight rating out of the owner's manual (which we'll cross-reference with our sources). We'll input this into the official spreadsheet and you'll be good to go!

[Taylor]

Once again (in a more public environment) I want to thank the CCC for all their hard work and turning what I personally wanted to see into a workable system.

First off.. I personally preferred the straight Letter Class designations. I do appreciate the attractiveness of these newer class names, but I gotta tell you, I've never heard of Grand Sports... if we are to name them this way, I'm more in favor of Touring and GT classes. I suppose you could call the Grand Sports ones SGT or something, if it's necessary. Anyhow just my opinion there, I figure it would be somewhat less confusing. Frankly the letter designation is even less confusing, but isn't nearly as sexy.

Having looked at the most recent spreadsheet and plugging in my numbers I have a few comments.

My base class and the cars in it (top of Class F or Sports 3) feels appropriate for a 12 year old car with 12 year old technology. While my final placing based on PIP puts me into Class B (Grand Sports 2) which is obviously waaaay out of my cars league. This is the result of the high points a turbocharged car can accrue with typical/common mods. 6 points for my upgraded turbo, which is really just a rebuilt stock turbo with an altered internal wheel. This modification is very common with people with CT26 turbos, probably common with most tubo cars with many miles on them. The situation is such that you need to get the turbo rebuilt, so you put a wheel in that fits for the style of competition you're interested in. As a result, I maybe gain 3 or 4% in horsepower. Unfortunately this was not an optimal upgrade for me and I suffer (on the surface) from the 6 point PIP "penalty" as a result.

HOWEVER, the CCC seems perfectly content in my situation to accept an accurate dyno graph showing my vehicles actual power output and therefore they can calculate a new base class for me based on Engine and Drivetrain. This is a god send for people like myself, and no doubt the thousands of young import guys who have done mods to their car out of convienence or impulse rather than out of preparation for competition. I pretty much needed a new turbo and under the old system it didn't hurt me to upgrade my OE turbo like it does now. The new system doesn't see a difference between an upgraded/modified OE turbo and a new/different turbo, which perhaps it should, regardless, I have the ability to submit my dyno plot. This then places my car at a base of 76.2PIP with stock suspension, then add in my 5 points for my coilover setup and alignment and I'm at 81.2% or the bottom of Class C which is far more logical. Truefully I should be in Class D if I want to be competitive but that's where my choice in mods or engine components (i.e. boost pressure in my case) will come into play.

Basically I gain back 6 PIP's from my base+mod PIP's over a dyno calculated based + body+suspention PIP's. Frankly I feel this is accurate as I mentioned the modification to my stock turbo really doesn't do a heck of a lot but effect spool up time. My whole point in doing it was I had a turbo with 150,000kms on it.. I was going to need a rebuild, no one sells rebuilt OE ones with stock internals. Gains (or Losses!) are sub 5% on stock which is about 165hp or <8hp. This is really a 1 or 1.5% PIP mod for my application.

This system allows us to accept virtually any new competitor and give them the ability to be competitive day one (presuming they can actually drive). Of course this system should also give us better populated classes and battles that were unheard of (impossible) before.

Not only does the new system make the sport more exciting, it makes it more fair too.

As for implementation for 2003. I beg the community to implement it now. I know the CCC has spent time plugging in data from last year to see where people ended up in classes and such and it all makes sense. Since they seem perfectly content in integrating the system this year, I trust in their knowledge of the system that it's at a level where its worthy of implementation.

I fully expect a bit of tweaking here (it was done with the last system too) and there but this is basically the only future proof system that was presented, that I can think of, and that can also allow stock cars at the bottom of a class be competitive with the top dogs in their class with a few inexpensive and carefully chosen modifications. Which is basically the only fair thing you can do when everyone isn't rolling in the bling-bling and buying Type-R's, M3's or Z06's.

Kudos to the team. I look forward to my new home.. somewhere in the top of D or the bottom of C. Err. I mean Grand Sports 2 and 3.

[Dave]

Hehe...Taylor you have a point about the naming of classes. At first we had it numerically labelled (ie. Class 1, Class 2, etc.), then we switched to alphabetical (ie. Class A, Class B, etc.) and then at the last meeting we thought it might make things easier to remember if we used actual names like Grand Touring and Touring or whatever. Anyway, it's easy enough to change back to a numeric or alphabetic system if this is the preference of competitors. And now that you mention it, using SGT or Super Grand Touring would make more sense than Grand Sports since this would align our names a little more with the new GT Touring Car Challenge road race series.

[Dave Barker]

Originally posted by rpr
Is that crank HP or wheel HP?

We used manufacturers crank HP in our calculations and for the Dyno rule we will plan to account for drive train losses of 14 % to calculate crank hp from wheel hp. This can then be used to calculate a new PI and therefore class.

[Dave Barker]

After all the work we have done in the past few months the CCC would really like this to be implemented this season. We feel that the wide variety of choice of classes and the narrow range of PI in each class means that no one will need to make drastic changes to their car prep if any. We also feel that there will be no obvious class winners or class winning cars which will be an improvement over the last 2 years. Last year's rules were changed well into late January and considering that this proposal gives more flexibility , not less, then there should be a move to promote this immediately .

[andrew1984]

its a great idea. :thumbsup:

[Chris P]

Using letters to label the classes was just plain confusing......


personally i find numbers the simpliest but its lacks a certin zing.

A vote maybe?

[ADAM]

hi taylor,
glad to see you like the system,

re: turbos i was the resident turbo guru, and we tried to rate them fairly, we had to assume that if someone was changing the turbo they would drop in a power maker

like a nice t4 ect....or mid size frame turbo...you are correct just a compressor change is not that much of an improvement...you should have mabey clipped it as well ...but the dyno option is still there..and i think its a great option....

adam

...i like the funky names...for the classes