SCCAForums.com

marka wrote:

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.

As opposed to our world where everyone gets a sense of entitlement once a car reaches the top of a class.

Good analysis.  Right on the money, as far as pros and cons of the systems.

--Andy

 

We've all heard the trade-off truism about wheels (light, cheap, strong: pick two). All complex engineering solutions involve trade-offs, and classing solutions are no exception.

I think it boils down to: simple, fair, flexible: pick two.

The current system balances these criteria pretty well, but it's a compromise, so of course there will be situations it doesn't handle well. In fact, every proposed classing system will be a compromise, so finding something better by the process of floating an idea and seeing if anyone can shoot it down is doomed to failure from the outset.

A more systematic approach would be to come to a consensus on the relative importance of the three criteria: complexity, fairness, and flexibility, then assign a score for the current system and the proposed alternatives. If any of the alternatives look substantially better than the current system, we'd then do a cost/benefit analysis to determine if changing systems is worthwhile.

Another problem is that the system has to accomodate competitors of all levels from casual dabblers to regional contenders to divisional contenders to national contenders. Sacrificing simplicity for fairness and flexibility accomodates the more serious participants, but alienates casual participants and newbies. If we could apply different rules to both groups we wouldn't have to have a one-size-fits-all classification system.

For example...say we adopt a points-based system like the one proposed earlier in the thread with point ranges for each class based on stock configuration and allow some small additional points for certain mods (race tires, swaybars, exhaust, etc). Such a system would be pretty fair and flexible, and certainly not too complex for a serious competitor, but might scare off someone more casual. If we classified drivers as, say, "sport" or "competition", where sport drivers use a simplified classing mechanism like looking up their car in a list (as we do now) but aren't eligible for championship points, that would allow them to compete head-to-head with the more serious drivers without affecting the overall championship standings.

I think the formulaic ideas discussed here have great merit. They don't need to replace anything necessarily either...they can just be another datapoint...or something more. After all, when classifying cars the spec sheets are considered...



If you wanted to get some more data...standard courses (such as an EVO Phase 1) could be used. Yes you can allow for surface grip differences once you had some data.



Motor Trend magazine's figure 8 is not too far off of a standard course type and you can get a sense of things from such a test were cars prep'd to SCCA rules run.



Another issue is different course dependencies...you can wind up with similarly pointed cars and yet they will behave differently from one another on different courses.



Here are a few MPH traces for an Elise...note that a slalom course such as Devon needs less motor grunt than the Bristol course. Bristol has a series of on-the-mat straight elements as you can see. If a car like the Elise does run into a course with lots of acceleration zones where you are floored for some time....if they occur in MPH ranges where the car hits the high cam sweetspot, then the extra 15-20% urge can be put to work. Sometimes the Elise's short length allows it to fit through tight course elements better than some rival car...so this can help cut the accel deficit too, since there is less need to regain speed in the first place. A standard course would need an element or two like that I'd think.

GH Sharp wrote:

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.

I agree that under my proposal, the rules would be rigid.  I don't agree that this would necessarily make more cars uncompetitive.  As I said, you could classify different cars in the same class under a different set of criteria.  Thus, you have a combination of RWD, FWD, and AWD all in the same class.  The difference being that each drivetrain layout has a different set of criteria.  The current DS setup is a good example. 

You could create a criteria similar to what I proposed in my letter for the FWD cars.  As you stated earlier, you have the BMW that appears to compete well with the ITR.  Thus, your criteria for RWD could be open differential 200hp and no capability for camber adjustment in the front. 

Certainly, I don't think you guys with the SEB/SAC aren't thinking about classing but sometimes some alternative views can help.  I think this proposal would certainly be easier.  I'm sure there are arguments that can go both ways as far as fairness goes.  However, if we are creating a rules set for classification that everyone knows and understands and that is consistently followed, I think that would be as fair to all competitors as possible.  Right now, we have a situation where members can guess where a car will go but nobody knows for sure until it is classified by the SEB.  For example, I don't think many people would have guessed the Mini JCW would be going to BS, unless they figured it should go to a class where it won't be a threat. 

Even if the SEB were to implement something similar to my proposal, would it be a bad thing if we abolished the SAC?  :-)  Just kidding.  Honestly I think there would still be plenty of things for the SAC to discuss besides classing particular cars.  Just because a system requires a lot of input, doesn't mean that the system works well. 

Just a side note to the concerns expressed about cars being competitive that are older, why is that a problem.  We currently have an entire stock class dedicated to older cars.   Under my proposal, there wouldn't necessarily be a class designated for older cars unless you wanted to create a criteria for a class that stated the cars must be 10 years old.    I think that the V6 Tempo example is a bit extreme since I have actually driven a one and thought the suspension felt like mashed potatoes but for the sake of argument, what is the problem with taking a $500 car and making it competitive?

---

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