Can Challenge cones cost 1 second instead of 2?

I agree that the unlimited (countable) runs were a problem. I tried to point this out in the drivers' meeting, but nobody seemed to grasp the issue at that time.

As a side note, I love driving. Unlimited fun runs should stay in place.

Well, whatever the consensus about 1 second or 2 seconds is, I think it's imperative that they go back to only your first six runs go towards the final results. It may have been addressed in the town hall....I dunno as I wasn't there.

And to that end set up two staging lanes. One for those who hadn't gotten in their six runs yet and one for people who had but we're doing fun runs. With priority given for those who had not gotten their six counting runs

Run wise- the pros should limit their time in each car- so that everyone gets their benefit. And limiting the scored timed runs to 4-6 would deal with that just fine.

Unlimited runs- at the end of the day, I see no reason why people should not be able and flog their cars. They are just fun runs at some point. And it's pretty easy to set up a grid like Ovid_and_Flem suggests- one for cars that have official runs left, and one for fun runs. And bias the runs always to the official runs.

It's been 4 years since I've been to an autocross, but I doubt anything has actually changed.

In reply to SVreX:

Granted, this is just the opinion of an outside observer with no official horse in this 'race', so take it for what it's worth.

Killing a cone to gain an advantage isn't about making a decision on the fly during a run. It's about planning and calculating it out during the course walk or between runs, and doesn't require a very exceptional driver to see the potential and try it out once...Just a reasonably intelligent one. And all it takes is one driver to figure it out, before all the others will follow suit. The only way to prevent this with +1 cones is to place more burden on the event organizers, and the course workers.

As far as see it, a 1 vs 2 second penalty does nothing to make the cars any more or less equal, nor would it equalize anything for the drivers. A correctly designed course with +1 cones will have to place multiple cones at high impact areas rather than one, thus completely negating the supposed advantages. A professional driver in a controllable car may be able to just clip one of a group of cones to their advantage, while a novice or an uncontrollable car will likely destroy them all or lose more than that completely avoiding contact with any cones in that same spot.

So then instead of placing the responsibility on the builders to build a controllable car and the drivers to drive within their abilities...You're placing the extra burden on the organizers to buy, bring, set up, take down, and more carefully plan a course with more cones, as well as having course workers chasing down more cones on a live course.

And to what end? I've never met a 'novice' driver who wasn't already multiple seconds behind the best drivers at any autox event...Regardless of which car each was driving. I've never been a particularly great driver by any means, but I've beat novices in Dodge Vipers in a mostly stock Nissan Sentra on street tires. Changing the cone penalty isn't going to significantly alter this 'unfair' reality, especially if the course is designed as noted above.

Not to mention, the availability of pro drivers already takes the driver out of the equation as much as possible, thus making your concerns about driver skill in a builders competition a moot point anyways. Barring organizational shortcomings (unlimited runs, too few pro drivers, etc), if you choose not to use a pro driver because you want to drive the car yourself, then you are the one who has chosen to make it a drivers event rather than a builders event.

Speaking of making it more of a builders event and less of a drivers event, why is your focus on novices drivers and cars ill suited to a given event only in regards to autox? Do is there not also skill in getting a good drag time? I've never driven on a drag strip and don't know how to best launch my car to get the fastest possible time out of it. Would I not be at a disadvantage in the drag event as well? An autox oriented car may not launch very easily and consistently compared to a more drag focued car either. Shouldn't we similarly change the drag event to negate these advantage for more experienced drag drivers with better hooking cars? Maybe make the drag event a (clutch-fully-engaged) 5mph rolling starts rather than lanunching from a dead stop? Maybe subtract off the 60' time from the total time? They could also let FWD cars reduce their time by 1/2 second?

Even better yet take the driving events entirely out of the equation...Since this is racing for a magazine, would it not be appropriate to simply get rid of the dynamic events all together and judge it purely on the builders' specs?

I don't see that the Challenge favors either drags or autocross. Fastest drag was a 10.2 and slowest nonDNF was 21.7 for a difference of 11.5 seconds. Fastest autocross was 38.1 and slowest 49.5 for a difference of 11.4 seconds. I think that's pretty even. I yield the floor to others that want to make more math sense out of this.

Best dynamic 51.6 and slowest 65.8 for a difference of 14.2 seconds.

I did point out early in the day that the course design was bound to lead to a lot of downed cones. (I believe it was a J.G. design.) I was working with Paul the first session, and large sections of cone walls were being taken down. I think the response back to me was along the lines of that they were aware, and that people should drive with caution knowing that they might take out a wall.

When I design my courses I consider it a big success if there are not a lot of downed cones. Oh, and 2 seconds is the standard. There's no way I see us deviating from that.

In reply to Stampie:

I don't think you can do the math like that.

The autox and drags are added together for the dynamic time. On this year's course, a fast car would have been 12 sec on the drags, 40 sec on the autocross. That means a total of 52 sec (for example). 80% of that time is autocross time, 20% is drags. That makes everybody second on the autocross worth 4X a second in the drags.

Plus, drag seconds are much harder to come by. A second can often be found on the autox with a little better driving and no changes to the car. A full second on the drags is VERY difficult to find, and probably needs significant changes to the car.

I think that's good. But it's certainly a reason to favor the autox (and the reason my builds HAVE favored the autox for a few years since the dynamic scoring was put in place)

If the event did not favor the autox, I would not have been on the podium with Andrew Nelson last year. I can't do what he does. I got there by using a different strategy then he did.

In reply to SVreX:

But you do get the idea that a 13 second range drag and an amazing autocross car can put one very high in the results. Which is what I would shoot for if I did it again.

Either a as fully prepared CSP Miata + NOS or the ultra simple retro Miata with some power boost. Or even a Turbo E85 Alfa- if something magically comes back my way.

But it would be HEAVILY biased toward the autocross.

In reply to SVreX:

You say that autox is easier for you to get lower times but I'd be willing to bet that Andrew Nelson thinks drags are easier. It depends on the skills of the builder. Over the last few days I've been thinking about plans for our secret that may solve both issues.

In reply to Stampie:

Andrew doesn't think cutting a full second off a drag time is easy. The man thinks in hundredths.

He came this year planning to set a new Challenge record. 10.2, which he did.

But he first "held back" and laid down a 10.7, because he didn't want to "show all his cards". He wanted to first see if anyone would undercut his 10.7 (because he knows a few tenths is very significant)

That's half a second between his "holding back" and his record setting run.

A 11 second car is not a 10 second car. You can't drive around it.

SVreX wrote: I don't think you can do the math like that.

The same argument applies (more accurately) to any math that claims one second to be worth more than another second. That's like saying a ton of bricks is heavier than a ton of feathers.

In reply to SVreX:

My point was give you and Andrew identical cars and identical budgets his will be faster in the drag and yours will win the autox. But bet both of you better stock. Btw my money would be on Andrew overall.

In reply to Driven5:

Um, no it's not. It's not that the seconds are WORTH more, it's that the event is weighted toward the autocross (as it should be)

80% of the dynamic score is autocross. 20% is drags. You can call it whatever you want.

I don't understand. The collective voice says the event should be weighted toward the autocross. When I point out that it is, your answer is about tons of feathers vs tons of bricks??

If my total dynamic score is 53 and I want to make it 52, it's a very easy choice.

An improvement in dynamic score is an improvement no matter where you get it. It really depends on the car. The Tercel was amazing on the autox this year. Doubt they can improve that much but bet they can improve their drag time significantly.

I was trying to build more for the drags this year. Other than getting power down I did well. But I will focus on autox next year because I think I can gain more in it.

Autox isn't 80% vs drags. They are equal because it's weighted with the dynamic. Didn't matter if you gain 1 second over 40 seconds or 1 second over 15. A second is a second.

SVreX wrote: It's not that the seconds are WORTH more...

SVreX wrote: That makes everybody second on the autocross worth 4X a second in the drags.

Well, make up your mind.

Outside of DNF'ing or getting lost/spinning out on course, the proportion that either event contiributes to the dynamic score is mostly irrelevant to the supposed "weighting" each has. A second slower or faster at the drags has the exact same effect on the dynamic score as a second slower or faster at the autox. Period.

I suspect that the event only seems "weighted" towards autox, because the fastest autox cars have to be able to do everything (accelerate, brake, and turn) reasonably well already. It's simply the nature of the beast. Thus, a maxed out autox car should inherently be capable of doing at least decently at the drag strip too. Meanwhile the best all-out drag cars have no such requirements for turning, and thus compromise as much turning (and braking) as necessary to maximize acceleration. This has nothing to do with the dynamic scoring values though...nor, as far as I can tell, would this be significantly improved by going to 1 second cone penalties.

Is there some competitive advantage to Andrew sandbagging early on? It sounds to me a lot like choosing to drive a little more conservatively to ensure getting a solid/clean run in before going for broke...Which could just as easily be applied on the autox course to similar effect.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Driven5: Um, no it's not. It's not that the seconds are WORTH more, it's that the event is weighted toward the autocross (as it should be) 80% of the dynamic score is autocross. 20% is drags. You can call it whatever you want. I don't understand. The collective voice says the event should be weighted toward the autocross. When I point out that it is, your answer is about tons of feathers vs tons of bricks?? If my total dynamic score is 53 and I want to make it 52, it's a very easy choice.

For you, thats a great choice(i know which way you're looking)

For me, with my background, and my Datsun, i'd go the other way solely based one knowing one change(provided i could make budget room) can net me another 1.2+ drag seconds. If i were working with a different vehicle set up better for drag launching i would go more toward handling. I have one minor change on each end and could have a serious overall dynamic score contender.

I'm not looking to bring the car back though, i gather they'll bore of ot 3 years in a row.

It does make me feel good that in your "fast car" example only 2 cars knocked down an autocross time 40's or better and 12's or better in the drags

When i was in the pit prepping my car for its first drag pass i heard JG say from the tower that one of the quicker cars yet to run was mine, and they were expecting it to be in the 13's. So i went up there and gave them what he asked for, a straight solid 13.3. Then i dropped a 12.16 on them. Sometimes it's all about the showmanship.

In reply to patgizz:

Yea I ran against you in that 13 second run. As we crossed the line I thought hmm I didn't do so bad. When I looked at the ticket and saw your time I knew something was up.