SCCAForums.com

Agreed, the more I got into writing the system, the more complex it seemed to be. It was fun to try and figure out though. Hopefully also interesting to read and try to rank your own car.

---

Mike Minear

The RX-8 scores as follows:

lbs/hp = 12.2 = 5pts

lbs/wheel = 90.6 = 6 pts

camber = 6pts

RWD = 8pts

suspension = 20pts

Size = 3-4 points (a guess)

Total = 48-49 points. 

Writing my letter for a reclass to C Stock as we speak. 

---

John Vitamvas
1990 GTUs - STS fodder

i think your RX8 scored higher than my SM2 Toy Starlet

---

Ed
SM2 82

This sounds a lot like the NASA class structure:
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/nasa-x_tt_classes_update.pdf

---

1999 Miata 10AE (C-stock)

mitchman wrote:

This sounds a lot like the NASA class structure: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/nasa-x_tt_classes_update.pdf

I agree, or similar to NCCC.

A non-Z06 C5 is 53 points...BS!  Yeah...no more Z06s and Elises to compete against!

 

 

---

Ted

2003 C5 AE Coupe AS
2004 Z16/Z06 SS

WRX STi = 37 points - ES

I like the approach, in fact I went through a similar exercise a year and a half ago. I found that the class leaders were very close when considered on a power to weight ratio. i.e. SS thru HS had a consistant and slowly decreasing power to weight for the class leaders. Most of the older cars (non Miata or Corvette) had a disadvantage in power to weight, likely because they didn't get reclassed even as the average stock car got faster.

I think the max tire you can squeeze in the fenders definatly needs to be a factor, and some of the others need some tweeking (I gave up on my effort when I couldn't get a "performance index" calculation I was happy with). But much better overall than some commitiees opinion of "performance potential" that rarely gets reevaluated.

I also like the NASA approach in that it doesn't force you down a specific modification path. I.e. you can do some significant engine mods without imediately being bumped into a full race class as long as you aren't heavily modified elsewhere. But that is more a class progression issue rather than an initial stock classification issue.

---

Bruce Funderburg
#95 Spec Racer Ford
'04 Subaru WRX STi - STU

It will be of little avail ... if the laws [or rules] be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood...
Alexander Hamilton

Opps, didn't see the wheel factor before.
STI = 43 points - DS

Catogorized factors in order of importance (for autocrossing)

Wheel/tire size factor - 10 points
Suspension factors - type front & rear, availible camber - 30 points
Acceleration factors - Power to weight & drive type - 20 points
Size factor - 10 points

This suggests the wheel/tire size factor definately needs a heavier weighting. And the suspension and acceleration factors less weighting.

Assuming 100 point maximum - what do you think of this weighting?
Wheel/tire size factor - 35 points
Suspension factors - type front & rear, availible camber - 25 points
Acceleration factors - Power to weight & drive type - 20 points
Size factor - 10 points
Fudge/competitive adj factor - 10 points

---

Bruce Funderburg
#95 Spec Racer Ford
'04 Subaru WRX STi - STU

It will be of little avail ... if the laws [or rules] be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood...
Alexander Hamilton

I like that in general, and I agree that the weighting needs work. However, I think you've gone too far on the wheel/tire factor. I see wheels, power and suspension more equal than you have them. Having power, putting it down and turning are all very important aspects and only the very best cars generally do all three well. That's why we also need the LSD catagory. Maybe use wheel/tire at 20 points and 5 points per LSD (AWD with front, rear and center would get 15 points here).

---

Mike Minear

'93 Geo Storm GSi (H Stock)

17.5 lbs/hp = 0 points
102 lbs/in = 5 points
Camber 10 points
FWD = 6 points
Struts = 6 points
Struts = 6 points
38.45' = 3 points

Total = 36 points

ES = 35 to 39 points

Yikes!!!

Way too many points for mostly useless (rear) camber. Also the presence of a large rear sway bar is a large factor for FWD cars and missing from this list.

---

Matthew Huizing
1995 Saturn SC2 - H Stock
1993 Geo Storm GSi - Sold
1999 Buick Century - Family Car
http://www.furrin.org/

I completely agree on class philosophys... If the RSX-S with 200hp can't keep up with other similar on paper cars to bad, so sad. Reclassing a slow car to a slower class is senseless to me. The best few cars within the spec range for the class will be the ones that win. I really don't see a problem with that.

It is very common for people to ask "What is ES?" or "What is DS?". There really are no clear cut guidelines and because of that things change constantly.

00 SS wrote:

I like that in general, and I agree that the weighting needs work. However, I think you've gone too far on the wheel/tire factor. I see wheels, power and suspension more equal than you have them. Having power, putting it down and turning are all very important aspects and only the very best cars generally do all three well. That's why we also need the LSD catagory. Maybe use wheel/tire at 20 points and 5 points per LSD (AWD with front, rear and center would get 15 points here).

The wild success of the Miata demonstrates that (forward) accelleration isn't a big factor in autocross.

Compare the Pax for equivalent vehicles in Stock and Street Touring and you will find that the stock cars with R compounds are significantly faster than cars with serious suspension mods but on "street" tires.  This demonstrates the overriding importance of tires to performance.

But yes, I agree that more tweaking is needed, I was just trying to rank the importance of the various factors more than anything.

---

Bruce Funderburg
#95 Spec Racer Ford
'04 Subaru WRX STi - STU

It will be of little avail ... if the laws [or rules] be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood...
Alexander Hamilton

"Compare the Pax for equivalent vehicles in Stock and Street Touring and you will find that the stock cars with R compounds are significantly faster than cars with serious suspension mods but on "street" tires. This demonstrates the overriding importance of tires to performance."

That's not entirely true, but I see your point. An example of the opposite situation is the Camaro Z28. In FS it's PAX is 0.805, but in STU it's 0.818. For the most part, the ST mods don't allow for much of a power increase, but they do allow for a substantial suspension modifications.

Btw, I think the reason for the Miata's success is due to how easy they are to drive. It's small, light, good suspension (not great), is well balanced, has an appropriate amount of wheel width and it can actually put down every HP it can muster even on street tires.

There are many cars that have more power, but can't use even as much as the Miata does due to other inadequacies.

---

Mike Minear

ericdc wrote:

I completely agree on class philosophys... If the RSX-S with 200hp can't keep up with other similar on paper cars to bad, so sad. Reclassing a slow car to a slower class is senseless to me. The best few cars within the spec range for the class will be the ones that win. I really don't see a problem with that. It is very common for people to ask "What is ES?" or "What is DS?". There really are no clear cut guidelines and because of that things change constantly.

If a first time autocrosser asks me what ES is, I'd rather say, "cheap older sportscars" rather than "cars with 30 points, based on this equation where you need to know how much camber you can get, and what the exact dimensions of the car are, and what size wheel width you have."

I think people would rather race against other similar cars to theirs based on the style of car rather than a points scale determined from an alegbra equation.  ES and FS are a good example.  Very similar pax and results, but it would be severely course dependent, moreso than most classes are right now.

---

Jesse
-2002-2006 E-stock 93 MR2 (sold)
-2007-2008 XP Spyder

On the otherhand, helping newbies to understand what vehicle attributes are important in this sport might not be such a bad thing. Besides, once the bugs are are worked out, I doubt that the makeup of most classes would change much if any, certainly not the top cars in each class. Although, the name of the class may change unless we varied from the strict decreasing point progression.

---

Mike Minear

00 SS wrote:

On the otherhand, helping newbies to understand what vehicle attributes are important in this sport might not be such a bad thing. Besides, once the bugs are are worked out, I doubt that the makeup of most classes would change much if any, certainly not the top cars in each class. Although, the name of the class may change unless we varied from the strict decreasing point progression.

This would actually be a plus.  Keeping to a straight numeric or alphabetical progression would also help the newbies.  It's always annoyed me that some rogue sub classes didn't follow the general fastest to slowest (1 to 10, or A to Z) progression.

---

Bruce Funderburg
#95 Spec Racer Ford
'04 Subaru WRX STi - STU

It will be of little avail ... if the laws [or rules] be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood...
Alexander Hamilton