Classifications , one more time.

[Dave Barker]

The poll re " Too many classes " hasn't seem to give us much in the way of answers as to how to procede or even IF we should make any changes for next year. Only 23 have responded with only 12 giving clear cut answers including only 2 who like the status quo .

During my previous post Rob McAuley came up with an alternative classification system that utilises all the CCCs hard work done on the performance indices while scrapping the family system of classification ( certainly an arbitrary sort of thing ) .

When looking at Chris Sorensen's PDI file of all the cars classified and their performance indices ( PI from now on ) we can see a range from 87.6 down to 5.5 but we could effectively use a system with 10 classes of 5 points spread between 25 and 75 with a class for PI of over 75 and one for under 25 giving us a total of 12 classes . Presently most classes have a range of PI from 12 to 15 with the exception of C1 which has a relatively small range of 8 . If we were to adopt this system the base cars would always have a narrower range of cars to compete against but might find themselves up against cars with lower PI that have been improved . I would suggest an increase in performance index of 2 points for every prep point .

This system handles the issue of how to deal with the class A1 supercars and leaves more flexibility for lower classes . Presently an A 3 car can run up to 8 points in ASS2 but if he only wants to run a few points in ASS2 he is very unlikely to be successful . We all know there is no purpose in running ASS1 only to be propositioned by an A1 car . The advantage of this system is that there is a much wider variety of improvement classes that a driver can run in without having to go to a specific number of prep points ( and $ ) to be competitive in a class. A car with a mid pack PI might go for a small improvement and not even move up a class or go for larger improvements that might move him up just one or up to 6 classes depending on what he wants to do.

The calculation or the PI might need some massaging and would have to be standardized as opposed to weighted differently in different types of cars . Did you all know that a Type R integra has a PI of only 46.5 which is LESS than a 2000 Chev Impala , a Toyota Avalon and a V6 Mustang ??! . ( I'm sure Acura / Honda would be devastated to hear their hot car is the performance equivalent of a Beretta ) This is not a problem as long as all C class cars have their PI calculated similarly as we do now but won't work with the above suggested system .

The weakness of this system is that a lower car may improve its performance more for a given number of prep points than a car that is highly tuned out of the box such as an S 2000 or Z06 but as we've seen no system is perfect if its simple ( and certainly not if it's complicated )

In summary this system would have
1) fewer street car classes meaning better population
2) narrower performance indices per class
3) offer a wider variety of improvement levels for a car to slot into and
4) utilise the performance index to classify all future new cars and not their body type .

Do anyone besides Rob and myself think this is worth persuing ??

[Chris P]

This is basically what i already said...........


And i know people will give the argument. "What if my car ends up at the bottom of the class?" Or should i say "what about all those poor cars that end up at the bottom of classes".

Well, with the current system we already have that problem. Live with it, choose your car wisely. if you want to just come out and have a good time atleast you'll have a full class to do it in. When your ready to be compedative, get the "right car".



Boy, don't i wish i had the "right car", not some 76 hp cube from the 80's.

[Taylor]

Nothing for Nothing Chris but you can't just up and say "Buy the right car". That's the/a problem with the current system. People in C class don't want or can't afford a $30,000 TypeR, just as A class people would rather not to have to spend $70K (or whatever) on a Z06 to be competitive. What I want to see is a system that puts you in competition of cars with similar performance numbers (PI) so it's driver and setup skill that separates the competitors, not the ability to throw down cash on a class dominating car. I'm more in favor of this proposal than that of the current system. However if the TypeR's PI is set below that of a Toyota Avalon, obviously the system for establishing a PI index has got some serious deficiencies. I can only assume the Avalon is above the TypeR is because the index is based largely on HP and Torque, which as Honda shows time and again, is not everything. Obviously then the PI rating becomes very subjective and likely to cause it's own problems, question is, are the once that'll complain a worse problem than the ones that are already complaining? Maybe not, at least it looks as if we'd have well populated classes.

I think we should keep in mind that anyone new to the sport is already going to be at a disadvantage due to their lack of experience and undeveloped skill, is it fair that they also have to be penalized for not having a class competitive car? Although SCCA has the participation, I think it's primary success is that you can show up with a STREET STOCK car and be competitive, of course you can also show up with a hybrid and kick some ass.

I ran 4 events and still managed 2nd place in BSS2. There's just something not quite right about that.

[tanney]

Hey, why not concentrate on talking some of your buddies into coming out and bring up the numbers at each event and give the current classification system a chance.

One season is hardly enough to determine whether or not it will work, specifically with the competetor numbers being down 24%.

If the numbers were in the 70-75 range at each event, the classes (with the exception maybe of mod classes) would be better populated and then there might be competition.

Sure there probably is room for improvement in the current system, but until it is proven the it does or doesn't work with the right numbers why bother rearranging the whole thing again.

That's my 2 cents worth!

[Taylor]

Originally posted by tanney
Hey, why not concentrate on talking some of your buddies into coming out and bring up the numbers at each event and give the current classification system a chance.

Who are you specifically responding to here? Dave, Chris or Me?

[tanney]

I am not bashing anyone nor am I saying quit whining. I am posting this to the entire Solo 1 community and specifically those that do not think the current classification system is working.

It seems that the people who are voicing their opinions here are the ones without a class or those who think their car is classified incorrectly. The people who want class population should encourage their friends or associates with similar cars, or any car in good working order, to come out and have a fun day at the track.

I am not saying that the current system is perfect. I think that there are some specific issues that need to be looked at. I personally got my butt kicked all season and had a great time getting kicked, although I have to admit sometimes it is frustrating, but, oh well.

24% decline in competitors is substantial. In my opinion (not that it may be worth much) is more competitors, we need more competitors to fill in the classes.

[turboawd]

I think we're getting somewhere now. Sounds much better.

I would also like to see some sort of option for cars without a full class to get full points, even if it means moving up a class with some multipling factor.

I believe the downturn in attendenance is partially due to the classification system itself. Many people dropped out because they found it frustrating to have no class or be totally uncompetitive. The above suggested changes may bring back some racers.

.... later.

[Christian Sorensen]

You cannot compare the PIs from one family to another.

As can be seen on the Tables tab of the spreadsheet, the weightings used to calculate the PIs differ for each family.

This is explained in the rules on 7.0.1 H and illustrated in table 7.0.5 (mislabelled 'Handling Indexes', really 'Performance Index Weightings').

If one were to use the A family weightings for all cars the Type R would have a PI of 58.81 and the Avalon's would be 47.68

Chris

[Dave Barker]

Chris P . the beauty of this system is that
a) the maximum spread in PI in any class is 5 , not the 12 to 15 found in our present system and
b) if your car is at the lowest PI in the class then you can put a couple of points in your car and stay in the same class . As it is now in some of the lower classes , to move up to an SS2 class involves alot of points and $ or else you do nothing and stay totally stock .

Chris Sorensen , a PI of 58 seems pretty reasonable to me for a type R . higher than a 3 rd gen camaro and lower than a 4 th gen . so maybe recalculating on the same basis is feasable for all cars .

[Taylor]

Well if we can shuffle the classes so there is less of them and less of a gap in vehicle performance in them, that that essentially covers mine, and apparently everyone elses concerns. So if the PI numbers need to be based on Family with a weighting to make them more common-sense-accurate then why not use that method of calculation?

Course, I'd have a word or two to say about weightings along the likes of those seen in regional Solo 2 to calculate PAX.

In a nutshell, as it was explained to me as Tony McGrath was kicking everyones ass in his Forced Induction Miata, myself in my Stock S2000 needed to go something like 2.5 seconds faster to equal his pax time. However I was told that looking at the pax numbers it essentially meant was that if Tony got in my car, he would only be 1 second slower. So that meant I had to be within 1 second of the forced induction miata with a tuned suspension to beat him (in Pax #) in my stock S2000. Riiight.

Guess no system is perfect and some cars will be at a slight disadvantage and some at a slight advantage. (Hence the 5 point gap suggested at the start of this thread). It's the huge gaps that really chew ass. You know.. like a E46 M3 in the same class as an E36 M3.

[Dave Barker]

Wes Tanney and Nino M , I know of at least 2 competitors who only ran a few events this year as opposed to almost the whole season in 2000 due to the fact that their cars had a much lower PI than the class leading cars and they knew they didn't stand a chance ( and they were right )

Also if we subtract the carts and mod cars the best we could run is 65 cars in 18 classes for an average of 3.6 per class vs 12 classes for an average of 5.4 per class . Personally I might prefer only 10 classes but the PI spread per class might get too large which is definitely a complaint now .

[Rob McAuley]

Dave's suggestion of coming up with a point spread to put the right number of cars in a class is interesting, and reminded me of my daughter's swimming competitions.

The competitors are seeded (based here on stock model and prep points to generate a PI), then broken into "classes" of 5 competitors. You may run against different people from event to event. For some, you may have the highest PI, for others, you may find that you are at the bottom. Regardless, all competitors should be closely matched. Good drivers should gravitate to the top over the season, even if they don't win every event.

The only problem is the guy with the fastest car, who is always at the top of the top class. But if he's the series sponsor, then that may be okay.

[Chris P]

Dave's system sounds good.....how do we implament it?

[Dave Barker]

Chris , at this stage there are only 19 respondants to the poll but there seems to be strong support for utilizing the performance index . If enough people vote in favour then I would think the CCC would have to listen . I hope we can have more responses before the workshop next wkend . Considering all the work the CCC has done already , implementing this would be a cinch .

[tony mcgrath]

The proposed idea of ranking all the cars based on a PI is a good one and should be persued further. This same type of system was discussed in 1994 but it was felt that the formula used to come up with the PI for each car was too subjective. Reading some of the replies on this topic I see that this feeling still exists. How do you decide which weighting system to use to determine the *most* accurate PI? I'm glad some "bigger brains" are working on the problem than the ones we had back in '94
There are some cars that will tend to outperform their PI indexes because they have some extra factory engineering that seems to defy normal formulae. Most Honda products come to mind, consistantly outperforming in real life what their basic horsepower , torque, weight and wheelbase numbers would suggest that they should be capable of.
You may find a few models that are turning times beter than cars with a PI 5 points higher. Also, Good luck in drawing the lines that will separate the classes!

On another note, Taylor mentioned he had a problem with the PAX system for SOLO 2. I think it is more of a lack of understanding than anything else.
He mentions that his stock S2000 was uncompetitive against a street prepared Miata that I was driving that day. What he fails to realize is that the Corvette Z06 is also in class A1 with his S2000. The handicap for each class is based on the fastest car in that class, so the PAX for his class was based on what a Z06 could do on a given course in A1. Eric Juraschka was driving a stock Z06 at that event along with the owner Blair Duguid. Eric bumped himself up to "street prepared" so as not to interfere with Blairs chances of getting into the finals in A1. However if you look at Erics time in the Z06 and PAX it in A1, it would have had a slightly*better* time on index than the Miata I was driving. This actually proves that the PAX indexes are bang on between these classes.

For a more in depth discussion please email me directly ...
Tony McGrath