RacerRay52@aol.com wrote:
>
> ...in the hope that there are a few out there who are willing to offer a bit
> of thought to a question that has nothing to do with the big-event SCCA level
> of autox. This list isn't exclusively for discussion of that level of the
> sport, is it?
No. It isn't. But is hard to consider changing national rules without
considering "big-event SCCA level". We have discussed regional
methodology before. I think we have discussed before that a region can
create their own local classes. We had a bunch of MR2s show up at an
event and the event created a special class for them. Everyone had fun.
> As I've mentioned, I don't wish to purchase special purpose, autox only
> tires. We have had a street tire class locally for a few years now. All Stock
> and SP cars lumped into one class and the PAX index used to determine the
> order of finish.
As someone else said, using a PAX index will have some inequities,
specially if applied to street tires.
> Here is a little sample of what happens over a period of years using
> the PAX to determine a competition:
-snip-
> If a street tire class is a sort of throwaway joke that isn't important
> enough to organize in a stable, consistent way so that the outcome reflects
> driving accomplishment and progress, then it doesn't matter.
I think that Street Tire classes in the regions that support them are
not considered a throw away joke. I think it is more that it is
difficult to make a perfect method for dealing with this. I have not
heard the solution yet. If you do not like how it is working out, does
not mean that an attempt to create a street tire class is a "throw away
joke".
> If the class is intended to attract drivers who like to compete in at
> least a semi-serious contest and who do not wish to invest in race tires then
> it deserves a format that reflects a bit more attention to the formula that
> decides the outcome.
I agree. But, consider that whatever formula you come up with will have
some problems, and someone will not be happy. Not to say a region should
not try, but there is a problem in just how you stated it.
"semi-serious" is very slippery. Is that fair to the
"less-than-semi-serious" autocrosser? What happens when the
"a-bit-more-than-semi-serious" autocrosser shows up?
I think we really need to define what it is you are trying to do. In
other words, define the problem. Is it "create a classing system for
street tires that is fair for everyone"? And if that is the case, then
the question I would ask is what is the problem that this classing
system addresses?
I offer this in the spirit of dialogue Ray, not as a flame. But, I don't
see the problem that you see. As a newbie, my times were horrible, but I
set my sights on not being last in class. Then I set my sights on
finishing midpack. "Winning" has always been a relative thing.
I find that we have various types of individuals that come to autocross.
Some come, not caring much about trophies/winning. They show up in their
humpmobile and have a blast, focusing on their driving. Some show up
expecting to kick butt and walk away with their tails between their
legs. I think that these folks would not drive well regardless of the
classing, since they need seat time and an attitude adjustment.
Then, there are the folks who want to win and get a rule book and start
prepping their car (or as you said, buy another car) to make that
happen.
And there is the middle ground that is semi-serious. This divides
further into the semi-serious that finishes mid-pack and is content and
the semi-serious but really wants to win a 1st place trophy. Now, if
that is true, is the percentage of drivers who are semi-serious but want
a 1st place trophy bigger than maybe 1-2% total? And would they still
get beat by the driver who is more serious and buys special shaved
street tires?
> A suggestion that one purchase a car that the PAX favors would go
> against one of the reasons the class was created in the first place -- to
> provide a low cost class for those so inclined. Buying the hot car each year
> as the PAX defines it would hardly be low cost.
True, but often serious national Stock Class requires serious
investments. Locally, this is not true. You only have to have a car for
the class that locally wins, if that is what you want to do. We have a
large local region, but I guarantee that there are plenty of "easier"
classes locally one could run in and win a 1st place trophy.
AND...does the guy who is winning (and perhaps bought that car for that)
feel the same way you do? Does this SS guy think that HS had an unfair
advantage before and now is more evenly indexed?
> It is just as bad to be in the SS car and know that you are having an
> advantage handed to you that gets bigger each year as it is to be on the
> short end in HS. It is the instability and constant changing that makes it
> unsatisfying to compete, whichever way it goes.
The constant tweaking (spoken as someone in CS the last 9 years) has an
impact, but for me, it never made autocrossing less satisfying. I think
we have a different perception of this. Having a trophy at the end of
the day does not determine my satisfaction at a local event (it does at
a national event for me). I judge (and have always judged) how well I
did based on other drivers that I considered benchmarks.
Let's take what you said about having an advantage handed to you or
taken away from you. To me, if I am in an "unfortunate" class, I just
look at how well I drove in spite of it. I did this for years driving
the wrong car for my class. Happily.
> My suggestion has been to let the street tire cars compete in their
> regular classes right along with the R tire cars but use a percentage
> handicap to even the competition. At first I thought about 5% was a good
> number. The RTP index in the factors for ST and STR makes a difference of
> about 4.5% between those 2 classes in which the tires are the only
> difference. Being based on some data from a number of events that is probably
> a better number.
Here we have some agreement. I think that this is a good idea locally. I
have often told the street tired competitor "hey, great run,
considering that your tires probably made a 4-5 second difference!".
> I have read of some regions that do something like this but use a flat
> 2sec difference. That doesn't take into account that 2sec on a short 45sec
> run is a bigger difference than on a longer, say, 65 sec run. A percentage
> handicap takes care of that.
I agree that a set time is not the best idea.
> This percentage idea will draw fire from the R tire contingent because
> they will say that the money they have spent for tires will be wasted and
> negated by giving street tire cars a handicap.
What contigent? I think this is a worthy idea. My only qualm is that all
classing is based on max prepped cars. There is no perfect percentage
that can equally apply to all classes and be fair. Consider a horsepower
course and a new Corvette on street tires, the % may be too much. But a
tight or slippery course with a low horsepower car may not be enough
percentage.
Still, it may be a good idea locally. The inevitable inequities is why I
would think it would be a bad idea nationally IMHO.
> So I'm asking for some ideas, if anyone has any to offer, as to how the
> street tire class could be organized in a way that makes sense, and is stable
> and fair.
Sorry this was so long. I still wonder about the what exactly we are
trying to do here and why. I am for anything that helps new drivers out
and that makes thing more competitive locally.
Randy Chase
|