SCCAForums.com

Newbies are no more likely to understand a points-based classing system than the one we have now.  They need to understand that the driver is the most important part of the equation, especially at the regional level.  Even if they happen to have the top car for their class when they discover the sport, it's likely it won't be prepped to the limit of the rules, so there is going to be a learning curve for them on several levels early on regardless.

As for our current classing system itself, when you have a limited number of classes in which to place hundreds of different cars, there will unavoidably be a range of performance within each class, which means by definition that a few cars will rise to the top of the class and others will be seen as uncompetitive.  A  points-based system won't change this given the same number of classes.  And if you're going to have a "fudge factor" and plan on moving cars from one class to another at the end of every year because the points assigned to some of them didn't accurately predict their Solo performance, you're doing pretty much the same thing that's being done now, just with a different set of criteria to make those decisions.

GH

GH Sharp wrote:

Newbies are no more likely to understand a points-based classing system than the one we have now.  They need to understand that the driver is the most important part of the equation, especially at the regional level.

Ooh.! Ooh! Ooh!  I know!

Let's class the driver, then!

Much easier to do that!

"You newbies suck, so you are in HS"

"Hey, that guy's got one of them there fancy jackets.  That makes him SS."

--Andy

Didn't they try that with Russ Wiles?

They do.  They're called the Novice and Ladies classes.

(puts on flame proof underwear).

---

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

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.

My points exactly.  This would add stability to the classing and once the stability is established, I doubt we would have the issues with people getting upset about classing that we do now. 

There will always be probably 1-3 preferred cars for a class.  At least this way, people will probably see the new preferred cars coming.  This is similar to what we have coming with CS right now.  Several people think the newer cars will be faster.  Until now, the preferred car was the '99 Miata.  Everyone knows the guard will possibly be changing with the new Miata and Solstice coming in.  There isn't any uproar that I have noticed about the new cars coming in.  This is totally different from what we are seeing with the DS/GS debate. 

---

Mark Pilson
owner of STS2 Honduh
co-driver of HS Subaru (race tires rule)

GH Sharp wrote:

Newbies are no more likely to understand a points-based classing system than the one we have now.  They need to understand that the driver is the most important part of the equation, especially at the regional level.  Even if they happen to have the top car for their class when they discover the sport, it's likely it won't be prepped to the limit of the rules, so there is going to be a learning curve for them on several levels early on regardless. As for our current classing system itself, when you have a limited number of classes in which to place hundreds of different cars, there will unavoidably be a range of performance within each class, which means by definition that a few cars will rise to the top of the class and others will be seen as uncompetitive.  A  points-based system won't change this given the same number of classes.  And if you're going to have a "fudge factor" and plan on moving cars from one class to another at the end of every year because the points assigned to some of them didn't accurately predict their Solo performance, you're doing pretty much the same thing that's being done now, just with a different set of criteria to make those decisions. GH

I agree completely. 

I think the points system would be too confusing, although, I do appreciate the new line of thinking.  I think if we are to make the system better, we need to do it for everyone, not just the veterans that understand the system.  The way to attract new people to the sport is to make it as easy as possible for them to get involved.  Classing that is easy to follow and makes sense to the average, not necessarily mechanically inclined, person plays a large part in this. 

---

Mark Pilson
owner of STS2 Honduh
co-driver of HS Subaru (race tires rule)

I'm not suggesting the SCCA put the formula out and let each driver class their own car. The list of eligable cars for each class would still need to stay. The formula would be a published process for classing the cars so anyone wanting to run the formula will be able to ACCURATELY predict where a new car will be classed. No more guess work or speculation. I'll admit, it does have the potential to be very confusing particularly since there would be the possibility of different option packages on a single model ending up spanning two classes. Maybe we have to add the caviate the only the best of breed will be classed by the formula and all lesser option packages are automatically classed the same as long as the engine is the same.

---

Mike Minear

LOL...nice one Andy. Looks like I"m going to CS again :-)

I'm gonna tell Karter you said he sucks. :-p

David "Scrub" Hedderick

Andy Hollis wrote:

GH Sharp wrote: Newbies are no more likely to understand a points-based classing system than the one we have now.  They need to understand that the driver is the most important part of the equation, especially at the regional level.  Ooh.! Ooh! Ooh!  I know! Let's class the driver, then! Much easier to do that! "You newbies suck, so you are in HS" "Hey, that guy's got one of them there fancy jackets.  That makes him SS." --Andy

---

David Hedderick
Pearland (Houston), TX
http://www.hyperfuels.com
09 VW Jetta TDI SSC racer
08 Mazda 3s
02 Mazda Protege (automatic tow vehicle)
92 Miata SE - Fun half-arsed STS2 Car

<jabbering>
Anybody been to any BMW events in his area lately? I haven't seen him since an event in like 02 when he was warming up for the O-fest in Texas. :-) That was  fun double header event. We drove out butts off. :-) Boy what a nice guy!
</jabber>

David

GRMPer wrote:

Didn't they try that with Russ Wiles?

---

David Hedderick
Pearland (Houston), TX
http://www.hyperfuels.com
09 VW Jetta TDI SSC racer
08 Mazda 3s
02 Mazda Protege (automatic tow vehicle)
92 Miata SE - Fun half-arsed STS2 Car

Howdy,

Back when I raced motorcycles, the "stock" classes were pretty damn simple. It was done on displacement. You got a 4 cylinder 600cc? Its in 600cc superstock. Doesn't matter if its this year's zx-6rr or a hurricane from 10 years ago.

The difference was that the hurricane owner didn't expect to be able to run with the top dogs and would have been laughed at for suggesting that his bike should be classed somewhere else.

Sometimes I think we should go to something like that. Stock classes are:

fwd 4 cyl.
fwd 6 cyl.
rwd 4 cyl.
rwd 6 cyl.
rwd 8 cyl.
awd 4 cyl.
open

And if you really wanna follow the motorcycle classing lead... Allow folks to change springs/bars at each end in addition to the current allowances.

Sure would ease all of these classing debates. No confusion as to where a new car is going to go. And if a manufacturer comes out with something that obsoletes everything else... Well that's not much different than if the SEB classes something into GS that obsoletes everything else either, eh?

And heck, compared to the current class system, there's one less class above, so you've got one class to "play" with and can create a protected spec class... Like spec '99 sport or whatever.

Mark

(yes, I know this will never happen. Thank you for pointing that out in advance. I also know that its not "fair". And yet it seems to work in the motorcycle racing example...)

GH Sharp wrote:

...And if you're going to have a "fudge factor" and plan on moving cars from one class to another at the end of every year because the points assigned to some of them didn't accurately predict their Solo performance, you're doing pretty much the same thing that's being done now, just with a different set of criteria to make those decisions.

I was wondering if there is a known set of criteria that you have mentioned above for the existing classing situation in Stock? Could we know what is used to say that car A will go to this class X because of this and not to class Y because of that?

Thanks


Fedja

---

95 AWD #34 SM or ESP
"Let boost be with you...
...and bring some timing too!"
http://www.geocities.com/esp_er

marka wrote:

Howdy, fwd 4 cyl. fwd 6 cyl. rwd 4 cyl. rwd 6 cyl. rwd 8 cyl. awd 4 cyl. open

Hmm, right now there are also AWD cars with 6 cylinder (R32, GT3000/Stealth, Audi A4/A6, Skyline pretty soon, I hope , and few more) and some that using all 8 cylinders (several Audis (S4, RS4,...), Magnum I believe comes with AWD as well, and few more too).

Then, to bring fun to even higher level, there are those darn turbo chargers that could come to the aid regardless of the number of the cylinders and those where not mentioned above, but do have tendency to mix things up a bit!!

Fedja

---

95 AWD #34 SM or ESP
"Let boost be with you...
...and bring some timing too!"
http://www.geocities.com/esp_er

I have to say I think the current stock classing works pretty well. Sure, it would be great to have some more clarity in the system, which is something that the original poster (with the formula approach) and Mark Andy are both getting at with their proposals.

There are a lot of reasons that the formula type approach (which also encompasses Mark Andy's motorcycle classing idea) won't satisfy people and I won't go through all of them, but I will mention two areas in which the current SEB system, flawed as might be, really excels.
1) The SEB system largely succeeds in classing the maximum number of cars fairly. A formula type system is likely to leave many cars in classes where they have NO CHANCE of competing.
2) The SEB system takes into account the relative attractiveness of owning a particular car when making classing decisions. With a formula system, you are going to end up with the "car to have" possibly being some car that no one really wants to own or drive - like a Tempo V6 in HS or RX-7 in AS.

For those of you who hate the current system, it will all be over soon - there likely won't be stock classes in another 10 years anyway. (My own personal opinion is that driving aids will become so prevelant and intrusive that no one will really want to autocross a stock car.)

- Nick

---

Just two guys in a Miata - what's everyone looking at?

Mark P,

Not to hammer my point too hard, but easily understood (read: simple) classing = rigid rules that would need to be followed almost without exception.  As Nick pointed out, this would result in more cars that were uncompetitive in their assigned class.  Believe me, if there were an easier, fairer method of classing, the SAC and SEB would be the first ones on the bandwagon.  Hey, we could abolish the SAC...and the SCCA would save a bundle on conference calls, and our dues would go down.....well, maybe not. :-)  And our correspondence load would go WAY down, since we'd just point out to everyone that once your car is classed, that's it.  No class changes.  If you DIDN"T enforce it that way, it wouldn't be simple anymore, and you'd be on the path back to the system we have now.

Mark A,

Fedja had the same thought I did about splitting the classes up by FWD, RWD, AWD, and engine size.  Not enough places to cubbyhole everything we have now, plus you still have the same problem as above.

Fedja,

Yes, the SAC and the SEB have some general guidelines that we try to follow when classing cars.  Calling them a "set of criteria" (IMO) would imply that they should be adhered to rigidly.  And the reason we don't publish the guidelines, or whatever you'd like to call them, in the rulebook is that there are too many situations that arise...either in classing a car initially or proposing to move it to another class later...that simply defy our strict adherence to them all.  Sometimes you just have to look at the big picture.  Example: BMW 330Ci vs Acura Integra Type R.  These 2 cars have competed equally on a wide variety of courses at the national level for several years.  They ended up together in DS in sort of a roundabout way, but what sort of guideline or classing system would lead you to automatically put a heavy, RWD sedan in the same class with a light, FWD sport coupe... much less expect them to be equal competitors?

Nick, nice post.  :-)

I don't expect the Stock classes to go away, even in 10 years, assuming the fuel situation doesn't get so critical that no one can afford to drive to events anymore.  Electronic stability systems certainly won't be the culprit.  Yes, some of these systems are VERY intrusive, but the better ones don't step in until you're pretty close to the edge of the envelope already, and nearly all can be substantially or completely defeated by the driver's pushing a button (you DO have to remember to push the button :-) ).  The least intrusive systems are usually on cars that the mfrs know are going to be driven spiritedly (and correspondingly are the kind of car that people like to autocross) and design the systems accordingly.  I think they'll only get better in that regard.  There *are* a few car companies still out there that know there are people who don't want an electronic nanny preventing them from enjoying driving the car at its limits....BMW, GM (in the case of the Corvette at least), Mazda, and Porsche come to mind....and they all either make the ESC systems optional or defeatable, or program them to accommodate more aggressive driving before  they step in to save your rear. :-)

GH

Howdy,

GH Sharp wrote:

Fedja had the same thought I did about splitting the classes up by FWD, RWD, AWD, and engine size.  Not enough places to cubbyhole everything we have now, plus you still have the same problem as above.

Yeah, I understand the problems and wouldn't expect this to ever be seriously considered.  I _like_ the fact that a c4 or a 2nd gen mr2 has a place to play that's competitive in our current system.

As much as anything, I was just trying to point out that different philosophies exist and are used.  They also have their drawbacks.  Nobody on the motorcycle racing scene would expect their 600 hurricane to be competitive in superstock, but that's a luxury us folks in autocross often have.  The downside to that luxury is that we rely on people to make the same decisions we would, and that's impossible.

The main advantage of "the motorcycle system" is that its rigid and easily understood.  The main disadvantage is that its rigid... :-)  The only 4 cyl rwd car that's gonna be competitive is the Elise.  Previously it woulda been an S2000.  Etc.  In the motorcycle racing world, when the 'Elise' gets released, everyone sells what they have and gets the 'Elise' or just sucks it up and does the best they can.  But not too many people *** about it, because the accepted system is very rigid and its ingrained in the competitor/fan base.  It also doesn't hurt that the manufacturers very much want to do well, and all have racing as a priority for some of their bikes.

Mark

(btw, you could do some combining... :-)  Like, awd 4 cyl turbos w/rwd v8, fwd v6 w/rwd 4, etc.  Again though, not like you aren't just trading one set of problems for another.)