How to deal with class G?

[Native]

I think that's the most boring suggestion yet.

I win!!!




Jeremy, you make a good point about the idea I presented, but in an unnecessarily blunt fashion.

So the Chevy Malibu vs. S2000/rx-8/Elise/etc. is OK? But Miata vs. S2000/rx-8/Elise/etc. is unfair?

That would have been enough.

[Anonymous]

why don't you create a true novice class then? Split them evenly between all heats.

Because novice classes are a waste of time for improving drivers unless they run embedded with their regular class, where they're exposed to better drivers running similar, but usually better set up machinery. A catch-all novice class spread across the event is little more than a means of making one or two people feel good, then arbitrarily declaring them as experienced. That helps not at all.

Where did I say that novice classes improve drivers?

The point of this thread was to figure out how to manage class G. Since G has a large number of novices, it possibly would help.

[Agent]

My entire life I have been subject to the old attage, "Compete with people that are far better than you, and you shall become far better than they"... Now, I'm not saying my stock Miata is as good as a stock S2k, but I am saying, if I could get close to Jeremy's times in my Miata, I would feel pretty damned good about it, and if we were to run the same car, I have no doubts that both of our runs would be very close.

I would love to stay in G, unforntuantely, for me, driving a stock miata on the highway is just not exciting and I have to fix that if I am going to use the car for anything besides autocross. If it wasn't for that, I would stay in G, get an S2k next year, and give Jeremy (and Dave) a run for their money...

[Jamie]

Where did I say that novice classes improve drivers?

The point of this thread was to figure out how to manage class G. Since G has a large number of novices, it possibly would help.

Turning the solution into "get the #%^$^% novices out of the way so I can run together with the people I want." Or at least that's how it comes across. Tell you what...let me know by name who you need to run head-to-head with, and if it's necessary to split the group (by no means a certainty), I'll do everything possible to plug you all into the same group.

Leaving the topic.

[Anonymous]

That's not what I was saying. I have offered 4 or 5 other solutions, this was merely a suggestion.

[WAFlowers]

This may have been mentioned before, but, only with the purpose of "majority rules," should we consider a stock-Miata-only class? Splits up G nicely, and removes all issue with Miata vs. s2000/Rx8/Elise/etc. Shouldn't be an issue with too many novices. Elsewise, G stays as it is?

Looking at the distribution of class G cars that Dave posted the solution is simple and obvious:

Divide G into Mazda and non-Mazda cars!

OK, not quite the same thing as a stock Miata class, but close enough.

[miazda man]

that sounds good

[Dave-ROR]

Next month half of my runs will be in a stock Miata (albeit a Mazdaspeed, which as already pointed out is classed the same as a regular second gen miata with SCCA), the other half in my stock S2000 (save for a different set of tires since the original set died at Lakeland ), we'll see just how different the times will be (personally, I suspect a very small difference). If anything, the very old original tires on the Miata that have been sitting for a long while now will make the biggest difference in slowing down the Miata, but I'm not exactly going to request that the owner buy new tires Also, as the Miata isn't my car, I won't be launching it or driving it as.. enthusiastically as my S2000. The owner of the Miata will be doing the same, and I wouldn't be one bit surprised if he's faster in the Miata and slower in my car.

[Anonymous]

As far as what is fair and what is not fair. Here is what the SCCA thinks about how fast a stock class car is...

From fastest to slowest according to the 2008 PAX index. http://www.scca-chicago.com/solo/indexes/rtp2008.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

100
SS
Elise
Corvette C5 ZO6
911 GT3

99
AS
S2000
Corvette C4
Subaru STi

98
BS
Rx-8
350Z
Porsche 944S

97.9
CS
Miata (2nd/3rd Gen)
Solstice N/A
MR2 Spyder

96.9
FS
Mustang
Infiniti G35
Camaro z28

96.5
ES
Miata (1st Gen)
MR2 (2nd Gen)
Porsche 944

96.3
GS
Toyota Celica GT
Mini Cooper S
Civic Si (8th gen)

96
DS
Subaru WRX
Integra Type R
Mazdaspeed 3

94
HS
Mini N/A
Civic Si (all except 8th gen)
Mazda 3


Maybe we should replace the over under 3L displacement rule with a split possibly along the lines of the red and green cars above. The only difference is forced induction, instead of a multiplier you could just bump to the higher class (green) for any forced induction modifications.

I know that this would be much harder to keep track of since we would need an SCCA rulebook on hand to figure out where a car begins, but this would definitely solve the "not fair" issues people are having. Notice in the classing above displacement has little to do with speed on an autocross course.

Once again, this is just a suggestion, I don't mean to offend anyone. So no crying in my thread dammit.

If people don't think this is too stupid of an idea, I will look at some of our past results to see if this evens out the run groups, or if some will still be too large.

edit: Changed Civic Gen 7 to Gen 8.

[Solar]

Unless I'm reading this wrong, I think that info is a little off. I have a 7th Gen Civic Si (EP3) and there's no way that car can be "faster" than a Mazda Speed 3 or WRX, even a 8th Gen Si isn't going to be faster.

Just my 2¢, but, is there that many people in class G that have a problem with how it's classified? To me, your time is your time, no matter what class you're in. I could see if we were getting national points and there was trophy and money, but were just a small independant Auto X Club. I like the classing being easy with no confusing rules.

Just my 2¢ here, no hate here. 8)

[Anonymous]

Unless I'm reading this wrong, I think that info is a little off. I have a 7th Gen Civic Si (EP3) and there's no way that car can be "faster" than a Mazda Speed 3 or WRX, even a 8th Gen Si isn't going to be faster.

Sorry I got the gens mixed up. I changed 7th gen to read 8th gen above. Apparently the 8th gen civics are pretty good. I was looking through some results and they have some good finishes in G stock nationally.

Just my 2¢, but, is there that many people in class G that have a problem with how it's classified?

According to the poll, apparently 5 people do. I haven't voted, but I do think there is a small problem with the class. You have the fastest cars (Elises) running against the slowest cars (Malibus).

[Loren]

The problem is simple. Our classing structure was designed around events with 30-40 cars. We now regularly get 60 cars, and about 30 of them fall into ONE class. Obviously that is a problem.

I think the discussion should continue. Many good ideas are being presented. Ultimately, our grand poobah Steve is going to have to decide how to handle it. It's a decision that can't be made democratically, there are just too many varying opinions and nothing is ever going to make everyone happy. Steve will either need to make the decision himself, or draft a small committee to help him. (note that I said "small" committee)

Jeremy, I think it would be interesting to see approximate power/weight for each of the cars you have listed. I have a hunch that will be a major factor.

[Native]

The poll closed over a week ago, and yes the discussion has been good. And since it has been ongoing, I'm not rushing to move ahead just yet. The more that gets discussed here will hopefully make the work of the committee that eventually gets convened that much easier...or not, I dunno.

So when the discussion dies out, we'll move ahead. For now, no rush, let's keep the talk going.

[Agent]

You guys have all said that keeping track of a modified cars power to weight ratio is going to be too difficult. With that in mind, how about changing the stock classes to power to weight, and maybe have three of them for different levels. For each thing that a car has, any type of engine work, FI, suspension/brakes, the car moves up a class. After it has enough things done to the vehicle, or if its on race tires, it gets put in to a class with cars similar to it. This way, it would keep the classes similar to where they are now, but change who people in "stock" classes are racing against.

maybe 20lbs/hp up is a class
15lbs/hp to 20.. etc etc
10-15...

It doesn't have to be in those increments, but you get the picture.

Typically, a vehicle with a supercharger, or a turbo can put out between 1.5 and 2 times the vehicles stock power safely. So a car (lets use my Miata for an example) that originally puts out around 100 at the rear wheels would be now putting out 200 for arguments sake. That would come out to be 12.5lbs/hp. I would be in the latter class. If I had suspension work, I would go to the next one. Racing tires, the highest. And then you would have a class for open cars, such as karts, solo vees (which I still want, sssshhh, don't tell Brandi), and whatever else has came out (super 7's?).

Yes, it may take a little bit extra time to class, but if the options were added in to MAE, it doesn't really seem like the people who come out would be dishonest in putting in accurate information. I'm sure there will be a couple times when it would first start where it would be who of the chair to keep an eye on the cars in the class to make sure the are classified approximately. Honestly, how long does it take to figure out a stock cars power to weight? 30 seconds on Google? Kim and Christine are intelligent women, if they see a shiny spring, or perhaps a huge thing sticking off the side of the engine block and they can't determine what it is, how hard would it be to have someone take a look at at and figure out if they need to be jumped up ion the next class?

The biggest problem would be to penalize the modifications the same. EG, if you put a supercharger or a turbo on your car, you are assessed the same penalty whether it is running 2psi or 15psi. If you put new springs on your car, you probably should have put coilovers, because you can do either and still be faced with a bump to the same class.

This may or may not be the solution, but inevitably this is going to come down to power to weight, which is probably the only really fair way to set up the competition so that it is fair to everyone. Maybe even add in a Novice Only classification. All you would have to do is disable points for the novice class (people who cared about winning, like me and other people who may be a little out of the novice level, but not quite to the next one) wouldn't want to be in the class just because of that reason, and you would 95% eliminate unfair advantage in the class.

[Anonymous]

Power/weight is not a perfect solution. I think weight is more important than power. For example a Lotus Elise and Nissan 350z have similar power to weight. A Mazdaspeed3 and a s2000 have similar power to weight ratios.

A Cadillac CTS-V has a better power to weight ratio than a Lotus Elise, so it should be faster, right?

[Loren]

There are no perfect solutions... and the tidbits you've given are what I was interested in seeing... but not just the ones that you chose... all of them. There will always be exceptions to any rule, I was interested in the overall "trend".

My opinion is that we should try to avoid using the SCCA (or anyone else's) specific classing system. Any of us who have spent any time with SCCA know that their classing system isn't perfect, either. A reasonable "formula-based" classing system should be good enough for a club like ours, we just need to find a formula that works.

[Anonymous]

I can't see a formula based system being pulled off on event days. I mean, don't you already have enough to do? Now we have to search the internets and do math.

[Loren]

Just like SCCA classing, you let the competitors police themselves. WE don't have to do the math unless someone "protests" and asks us to.

The new competitor is given a simple formula.
"How much HP do you have? (if you don't know, guess or ask someone)"
"How much does your car weigh? (if you don't know, guess or ask someone)"
Add whatever else we come up with to the formula. FWD/RWD, tire width, "sports car" vs "economy car", whatever. Simple stuff.

Then give them a simple list of classes to see which one they fit in.

If it's wrong, someone will tell them and it will get sorted out. Keep in mind, we're a casual club. A little misclassing, especially of a novice, is not the end of the world.

How many times have you been to an SCCA autox where the newb classed himself in a stock class, and someone pointed out the error, and he got bumped to SP... or P... or even Modified? It's not a big deal to let the competitiors handle finding the errors. That system works.

[Dave-ROR]

Power/weight is not a perfect solution. I think weight is more important than power. For example a Lotus Elise and Nissan 350z have similar power to weight. A Mazdaspeed3 and a s2000 have similar power to weight ratios.

A Cadillac CTS-V has a better power to weight ratio than a Lotus Elise, so it should be faster, right?

I have to agree. A monster HP car that weighs 4,000lbs is going to be slower in most cases than an Elise.

There's far more to how "fast" a car is in autocross than power to weight. Power is nothing if the car can't handle for crap, or iof the brakes are so undersized that the car can barely stop/slow down for course elements, etc.

SCCA's classing is based on years of moving cars around based on their performance against other vehicles, and unless we want a system like that with a lot more classes you'll never have anything "fair". As Loren pointed out, that system isn't perfect either, but it is more balanced than some others.

Let's just keep it fairly simple, you'll never make everyone happy anyways.

[Loren]

I have to agree. A monster HP car that weighs 4,000lbs is going to be slower in most cases than an Elise.

There's far more to how "fast" a car is in autocross than power to weight. Power is nothing if the car can't handle for crap, or iof the brakes are so undersized that the car can barely stop/slow down for course elements, etc.

You can't class based on the cars that DON'T handle well. Anyone who shows up at an autocross in a 4,000 pound behemoth that doesn't handle can't be expecting to win no matter what class we put them in!

Every classing system is always based on "best of breed". In this case, it would be the BEST handling car of a certain power-to-weight. And if we want to add in modifiers for FWD/RWD/AWD or something simple like that, that would be easy, too.

If someone has the time, run some examples against this:

Stock Class A = <13
Stock Class B = 13-17
Stock Class C = 17-21
Stock Class D = >21

Formula: Weight/HP, +2 for FWD, -1 for AWD