SAC classing proposal - seriously?

SCCA's stock classing committee has put forth the following proposal:

Move all B Stock cars into C Stock

Move all A stock cars into B Stock

Move a bunch of currently non-competitive models out of SS and into AS

Interesting - Last year the BS winner's time was 82.6, with the average of the top 5 at 83.2. The CS winner's time was 81.9, with a top 5 average of 82.5. So it appears the the B Stock cars are at least a half second slower, assuming weather wasn't a factor. I wouldn't have expected that to be the case.

Opinions?

were you there at nationals?

BS ran first heat Tuesday/Wednesday CS ran Second heat Thursday/Friday.

so CS had much more rubber down on the course. Take a look at per course averages.

Taking those same top five drivers (may not be the top five times on each course) West Course BS 43.301 CS 42.469

East Course BS 39.917 CS 40.010

So on the East course (where BS did not run first car on course) BS actually beat CS. While on the west course (BS was the first set of cars to run the course) CS beat BS.

I remember that one of the courses favored narrow cars but don't remember if it was east or west right now without my course map.

Sounds to me they might be a little course dependent but should be fairly close.

I wouldn't want to be the one answering all the classing complaints at SCCA. They've created a monster, and they can't reel it in. There are way too many classes, and only a few cars that dominate.

No matter what changes are made, there will still be one or two models that constantly win every class.

SCCA should assign a PAX to each individual car/model/year/modification. Then make fewer classes.

Kramer wrote: I wouldn't want to be the one answering all the classing complaints at SCCA. They've created a monster, and they can't reel it in. There are way too many classes, and only a few cars that dominate. No matter what changes are made, there will still be one or two models that constantly win every class. SCCA should assign a PAX to each individual car/model/year/modification. Then make fewer classes.

There are only 9 stock classes. In each class of cars there will only be one or two that rise to the top given the allowed modifications. It's just the way things work - take a room full of people and divide it in half. There will be one person in each half that can run the fastest. That's all classes do - they are just divisions of cars. One or two cars in each class will always be the fastest.

As for assigning PAX numbers... PAX is not an SCCA thing. PAX is maintained by one person in Chicago out of the goodness of his heart. And think about the work effort to create and maintain a list of individual cars like that. It's not worth it for anyone.

Go back to my original example of a room full of people - would you like to create, maintain, and assign indexes based on height, weight, shoes, leg length, etc.?

Not that it will ever happen, but an approach more like NASA uses for TT classification would open up a bit of variety.

billy3esq wrote: Not that it will ever happen, but an approach more like NASA uses for TT classification would open up a bit of variety.

Given a class and a set of rules, there is only one car that will be the fastest. All NASA did was open up the list of cars that would need to examined and how well each measures up in class - a stock Corvette vs. a highly modified Civic. NASA created a ruleset so complex that there is no obvious "top car" in a class. The fact that the top car isn't obvious, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Or worse, is course dependent - because I would hate to walk up to an event, walk the course and know that I have no shot at winning that day because the course isn't conducive to my car with my mods. I won't even get into the hell that the NASA point system creates for enforcement.

I would argue that within each SCCA class that every car has a chance of winning locally. It's not until you get a bunch of drivers with similar (very high) skill levels in the same class that the car starts to matter.

RobL wrote: Given a class and a set of rules, there is only one car that will be the fastest.

That's only true if every car in the class is permitted exactly the same modifications with no adjustment. Where you have essentially open modifications, allowing a car to be modified to fix it's particular weakness (with appropriate points penalty), you can have two cars that are as equal as possible (certainly more equal than their drivers) even though they may get there a different way (e.g., faster in the straights vs. faster in the curves).

On any given day, on any given course, some car will be faster, but that's why we run the race--to find out.

Not to mention the nut behind the wheel.

Even in "spec" classes you can't get cars to within a few of tenths of each other, I can't see how having different cars with different modifications gets them "equal." I won't try and change your mind on that point.

But, what fun is it really to walk up to a course and know that you are going to get beat because there are "too many straights." Sure we race to find out, but those of us at the highest level of the sport already can predict the outcome.

I'll give you an example - I race in a pro class on index against other classes. There is a Formula 500 driver that is my main competition. When he designs the course, there are many elements that favor his car, like slaloms offset in a good way. He'll beat me by over 1.5 seconds. When someone else makes the course and it's more fair and I'll beat him but by not quite as much. Walking his courses, I know the outcome ahead of time. It removes the fun because the outcome is predetermined and it has nothing to do with how well we each drove.

RobL wrote: Even in "spec" classes you can't get cars to within a few of tenths of each other...

Never seen an SRF race, have you?

RobL wrote: ... I can't see how having different cars with different modifications gets them "equal."

Never seen a touring car race either, huh?

RobL wrote: I won't try and change your mind on that point.

Good, because it's very difficult to convince me that "A" is true when I've seen "not A" in person with my own two eyes. Especially when "A" is also counter-intuitive.

RobL wrote: But, what fun is it really to walk up to a course and know that you are going to get beat because there are "too many straights."

I agree, it's a lot more fun to just stay home and know you're going to get beat because you have a G-stock car that isn't a MINI Cooper S.

/sarcasm

RobL wrote: ... those of us at the highest level of the sport already can predict the outcome. I'll give you an example - I race in a pro class on index against other classes. There is a Formula 500 driver that is my main competition. When he designs the course, there are many elements that favor his car, like slaloms offset in a good way. He'll beat me by over 1.5 seconds. When someone else makes the course and it's more fair and I'll beat him but by not quite as much. Walking his courses, I know the outcome ahead of time. It removes the fun because the outcome is predetermined and it has nothing to do with how well we each drove.

The same thing is true in non-indexed competition. Take two national caliber drivers, put one in a fully-prepped (G-stock) MINI S and put the other in a fully-prepped anything else in G-stock, and I can tell you who will win. I don't need to walk the course, or even look at the course map (and I'm not even at the highest level of the sport). The outcome is predetermined and has very little--I won't say nothing--to do with how well either one drove.

What it boils down to is that you like the current system, which is fine. I don't have a dog in the fight, but just observed that something different (which I admit has no chance of happening) would create more variety. You've spent all your time on this thread arguing about how it's impossible and/or impractical, despite the fact that competitive motorsports from the club level to professional touring car racing employ such systems. Even the ALMS has elements of this, where things like rate of fuel delivery during a pit stop is used to create parity between the diesel and gasoline prototypes.

Moreover, I have actually observed local clubs that have classing systems more like NASA's TT classification system (base classing with points for various modifications and upclassing). Their autocrosses have more variety at the top on any given day and are generally regarded as more fun by all but the hard core competitive SCCA autocrossers (of which you appear to be one).

Most of the hard core competitive types seem to derive more enjoyment from winning than participating. In fact, you said yourself that you can't have fun if you know you can't win. Imagine what it must be like to know you can't win, not just today, but for so long as you continue to drive a car that isn't one of the nine anointed.

I'm in a different camp. I don't really care about winning. There's plenty of competition in my day job, I'm not interested in more on the weekends. I derive more enjoyment from seeing a bunch of different cars prepared in whatever way does the most for that car, with a bunch of drivers going at it. This is why I spend my motorsports participation time, money, effort, and energy on open track days.

In any case, I'm certain I'm not going to convince you of anything either, which is also fine.

SCCA classing is ridiculous. Granted, NASA-X is in its infancy, but after spending a good amount of time last night studying the rules and classing my car out, there seems to be a lot more parity.

For example, my DSP GTI is right at the limit of points allowed in NXC, which would be equivalent to an S2K CR on V700's, or any other lower tier race tire, with no other modifications. I think that's a pretty fair benchmark overall.

There are too many issues with SCCA classing to fight the tide, and too many people with too much money tied up in the classing to see the common sense (or lack there of) in it.

For example, why is the FWD Audi TT in CSP, while the Integra Type-R is in DSP? Anyone who's had even a modicum of experience with either knows that if there's a FWD car that's going to keep up with a prepped Miata or CRX, the better shot is the ITR, and not the TT.

Fighting the powers that be is like fighting the tide. I hope our local NASA-X region has more weekend events this year, and look forward to seeing their upcoming national championships, as their rule set makes so much more sense to anyone who hasn't put their entire life savings into an SCCA ruleset.

billy3esq wrote: Never seen an SRF race, have you? Never seen a touring car race either, huh? Good, because it's very difficult to convince me that "A" is true when I've seen "not A" in person with my own two eyes. Especially when "A" is also counter-intuitive.

And each of those races are conducted on basically static courses. I would also contend that the cars are similar but you will always have cars that are faster due to fresher engines, better fresher shocks, new tires. Unless you can really tell me that the fastest car in grid at a local SRF race is the same speed as the last car - oh wait... let's use a spec class with a lot of cars - Unless you can really tell me that the fastest car in grid at a local Spec Miata race is the same speed as the last car, you will not convince me that there is parity in spec classes.

Touring cars are limited to a small and finite number of cars. You can make competition adjustments based on how fast certain cars go at the top levels of the sport with the best drivers. And let's face it, road racing is a bit easier than autocrossing (I know - I do them both) It get infinitely harder to class cars and keep the rules current when you have to class and make competition adjustments on every new model and every option package that enters the marketplace.

billy3esq wrote:

RobL wrote: But, what fun is it really to walk up to a course and know that you are going to get beat because there are "too many straights."

I agree, it's a lot more fun to just stay home and know you're going to get beat because you have a G-stock car that isn't a MINI Cooper S. /sarcasm

See below - A Nissan Spec-V is just as fast.

billy3esq wrote:

RobL wrote: ... those of us at the highest level of the sport already can predict the outcome. I'll give you an example - I race in a pro class on index against other classes. There is a Formula 500 driver that is my main competition. When he designs the course, there are many elements that favor his car, like slaloms offset in a good way. He'll beat me by over 1.5 seconds. When someone else makes the course and it's more fair and I'll beat him but by not quite as much. Walking his courses, I know the outcome ahead of time. It removes the fun because the outcome is predetermined and it has nothing to do with how well we each drove.

The same thing is true in non-indexed competition. Take two national caliber drivers, put one in a fully-prepped (G-stock) MINI S and put the other in a fully-prepped anything else in G-stock, and I can tell you who will win. I don't need to walk the course, or even look at the course map (and I'm not even at the highest level of the sport). The outcome is predetermined and has very little--I won't say nothing--to do with how well either one drove.

Your observation is vastly different than mine. As you suspected, I am a national level SCCA autocrosser. And I watched National drivers, one in a Spec-V and an other in said Mini, compete all season long and you could never predict who was going to come out on top. The Spec-V finished tenth in Nationals that year only one second over 2 days behind the leader. People flocked to Mini for the Mini money but there were just as fast cars out there. G-Stock is anything but a "spec Mini" class as you lead people to believe.

billy3esq wrote: What it boils down to is that you like the current system, which is fine. I don't have a dog in the fight, but just observed that something different (which I admit has no chance of happening) would create more variety. You've spent all your time on this thread arguing about how it's impossible and/or impractical, despite the fact that competitive motorsports from the club level to professional touring car racing employ such systems. Even the ALMS has elements of this, where things like rate of fuel delivery during a pit stop is used to create parity between the diesel and gasoline prototypes. Moreover, I have actually observed local clubs that have classing systems more like NASA's TT classification system (base classing with points for various modifications and upclassing). Their autocrosses have more variety at the top on any given day and are generally regarded as more fun by all but the hard core competitive SCCA autocrossers (of which you appear to be one).

Um, because the "hard core competitive SCCA autocrossers" didn't build cars to those rules and typically get lumped into higher classes because of mods (most specifically r-compound tires) that were done. I've run NASA-X events and at the ones I was at there was blatant cheating and the organizers didn't care. To me it always comes back to "why keep score if it's not competitive."

billy3esq wrote: I'm in a different camp. I don't really care about winning. There's plenty of competition in my day job, I'm not interested in more on the weekends. I derive more enjoyment from seeing a bunch of different cars prepared in whatever way does the most for that car, with a bunch of drivers going at it. This is why I spend my motorsports participation time, money, effort, and energy on open track days.

If you don't care about winning, why argue? My motorsports participation money goes to National level autocrossing and roadracing. I'm competitive and would always rather be beaten by a driver than beaten by a car. Being handed a Civic and told it's as fast as a Corvette because it has a turbo and mad suspension (yo!), is complete BS in my book.

Panzer wrote: For example, why is the FWD Audi TT in CSP, while the Integra Type-R is in DSP? Anyone who's had even a modicum of experience with either knows that if there's a FWD car that's going to keep up with a prepped Miata or CRX, the better shot is the ITR, and not the TT.

You mean the Audi TT FWD Turbo? Where all boost and emission restrictions on the turbo have been lifted and you can bolt any diff on the car you want? I'd take that over an ITR. You could get, what, ~300hp out of the TT engine while I think that the ITR was pretty well maxed from the factory and might make 25-30hp more with SP mods.

Panzer wrote: For example, why is the FWD Audi TT in CSP, while the Integra Type-R is in DSP? Anyone who's had even a modicum of experience with either knows that if there's a FWD car that's going to keep up with a prepped Miata or CRX, the better shot is the ITR, and not the TT. Fighting the powers that be is like fighting the tide. I hope our local NASA-X region has more weekend events this year, and look forward to seeing their upcoming national championships, as their rule set makes so much more sense to anyone who hasn't put their entire life savings into an SCCA ruleset.

You complain about the Audi TT FWD Vs the Miata in SCCA but in NASA-X classing they are put into the same class from the start so with the same mods done to both of them they would still end up in the same class? And that ITR that might be able to keep up with the miata's? It starts in NXD or the class the miata would bump to once it gets 20 points of mods.

Audi TT (180 hp)('00-'06) NXE

Mazda Miata 1.8L ('94-'97) NXE

Acura Integra Type-R NXD

If you want to see ridiculous you should see the list of "needed" things in the no points mods list if you were going to build a fully prepped NASA-X car (I hope the 09 rules remove some of them).

RobL wrote: If you don't care about winning, why argue?

Good point.

RobL wrote: If you don't care about winning, why argue?

That's one of the reasons I quit SCCA and joined NASA. Too much arguing, not enough racing.

I was referring to the FWD Turbo TT, as that's the only FWD TT there is. The FWD TT only came with the 180 hp motor, though since they're on the same line, you could swap in the 225 hp motor per UD/BD. The 180 hp motor is pretty maxed out at about 250 whp, and the 225 hp motor is maxed out around 270 whp.

The FWD TT is for all intents and purposes, a more stylish GTI, though it does have slightly better geometry in the front. Not enough to overcome its girth though.

If you really care about winning in SCCA, you just have to buy whatever car does best in a class, then expect to replace it every few years (unless its a prepared or modifed class). They are very careful to phase out any older cars, or cars that are difficult to find, so someone that doesnt know how to work on a car can go to the dealer and buy something thats competitive, and not have to find a "used car thats ready for the junkyard" as someone on another forum said (in reference to the fact that he felt 2nd gen mr2s needed to be phased out of ES).