Author Topic: 2016 Rule suggestions  (Read 7909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vipertgb

  • Posts: 34
    • Trevor
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #15 on: Thu Jul 09 2015, 1:08 PM »
Unless I'm missing something, JUST getting rid of SMST doesn't solve the problem of tiger champ coming from the largest class, as opposed to the best driver. If we got rid of SMST, Bonafede couldn't possibly be tiger champ (with his vette) because there are no other SS cars.

Offline vipertgb

  • Posts: 34
    • Trevor
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #16 on: Thu Jul 09 2015, 2:45 PM »
So I could win a 10-car ES and also have the best PAX time in the street category, but I would only get 3 bonus points because the total is capped at 48?  Sounds like a socialistic "you don't need more because you already have enough" system.  Rewarding the best of the best while trying to keep tight reigns on points to ensure a close fight are conflicting goals. Let's choose one or the other.

In order to not cap points, I'd say 25-50% of max possible points would have to be from PAX, which I would be completely on board with. I want something where winning the biggest class doesn't automatically put you in the hunt for Tiger and where dominating the crap out of EVERYBODY that shows up DOES.

I would then predict that the stock classes (ES especially, maybe CS...but STX too) would be the place to be for Tiger Points instead as they are heavily subscribed.

Street classes also have the most competition for top PAX, so I'm doubtful someone would be able to win street PAX consistently. (This year the we've had 5 people take #1 street PAX in 6 races - Jake Engstrom, Gerardo Bonilla, Jason Stroud (x2), Robert Palmblad, and Trevor Renson). Those are some very heavy hitters, plus Matt Feratusco and George Bonafede have been VERY close as well. It might even be the MOST difficult category to win Tiger champ in without some kind of a points cap.

STX does indeed seem like a pretty promising class without a points cap...

Offline M@

  • Posts: 203
    • Matt
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #17 on: Thu Jul 09 2015, 10:54 PM »
If the SCCA would stop adding a new class for every new car and every complaint, the classing wouldn't be so diluted. Rather than eliminate the popular SMST classes, if we just consolidated the classes and cut the list down by 50%, then we could go back to the old days when there were 10 cars in every class. There's your TP solution. But I digress, because that's all fantasy talk.

Most of the squirrels that I've seen blindly and eagerly run into the road have gotten run over. I'm trying to save you from the splat, dude. Take all the rope you want though!
« Last Edit: Thu Jul 09 2015, 10:55 PM by M@ »

Offline SSwartz

  • Posts: 71
    • Scott Swartz
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #18 on: Fri Jul 10 2015, 11:10 PM »
The biggest problem with using PAX at MSCC for anything (points, trophies, etc.) is that very few, if any, club members build their car to the limit of their class rules. Most are here for fun, and most don't care to dive that deep into the rulebook. PAX is a fun reference point for bragging rights, but less suitable for the MSCC crowd than the SCCA crowd as anything more than a reference point. We tried a PAX class and it was empty at most events, and may have been voted out.

From my experience it was not the "pax" class itself that kept people away, it was the fact most people had a better chance of getting a trophy in their regular class.  The pax class started out with quite a few people (one of them was me), but I believe they eventually dropped out to run their regular class because the "fast" people in the class (not me)  spanked them and they had no chance to trophy.  They went back to where they had a chance to win. Everyone here runs for fun, but most "want" to win and will spend $ to to do it if they have it. I do not understand how pax is affected by not building your car to the limit of the class?  Money buys speed no matter who you run with or how you accumulate points.   How worn out your tires are affects the cars performance as much as the millions of $ you have sunk into your car to gain 1/2 second.  Should we have a "My tires suck" class?   No..... And the SCCA is no different than Martin.  The same fast guys kick butt in SCCA as they do at Martin, as in Jason (Good luck in Atlanta!) , Robert P.,  Dat, etc etc.  Also, on a side note,  no matter how well a car in a slower class does, he will not make the "top 20".  A bad driver in a fast car can make the "top 20".  It would be nice to have a pax report instead.  Anyhow, I agree with Bob as to removing the SMST* classes.... OR..... Another option is to put the multiplier of 97.5% (or whatever the going rate is because of the better tires now)  on the SMST* classes and let it rip.  No class is paxed perfectly, it is all an estimate.  Look at the pax on GS & HS now with all the turbo cars...no one is whining, but it obviously is not fitting perfectly into the scheme of life of cars.  "Rube Goldberg"   (google him if you do not know who he is) would be proud of the current Tiger system in my humble opinion.  I have no stake in it, just voicing my opinion on how simple we "could" make it just based on a pax system with bonus points for the non-driving related stuff. This would totally eliminate the problem with how many are in your class...everyone is running against everyone......with or without the SMST* classes......      :)
« Last Edit: Fri Jul 10 2015, 11:13 PM by SSwartz »

Offline moparkarel

  • Posts: 103
    • Karel Schneider
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #19 on: Fri Jul 10 2015, 11:36 PM »
Bracket autocross may be the answer!  Fast against slow, driver against driver, after two timed runs the driver posts his projected time, the closest to the time wins.  Post a 37.653 and run a 37.652 is a break out 2 second penalty.  The pax system is nice to the drivers who can afford to cherry pick their class, but a bracket class would even out the whole field......perhaps give an advantage to those who do NOT improve with each run, but what the heck the improving drivers could dial in their time. 

Offline moparkarel

  • Posts: 103
    • Karel Schneider
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #20 on: Fri Jul 10 2015, 11:46 PM »
Bracket autocross may be the answer!  Fast against slow, driver against driver, after two timed runs the driver posts his projected time, the closest to the time wins.  Post a 37.653 and run a 37.652 is a break out 2 second penalty.  The pax system is nice to the drivers who can afford to cherry pick their class, but a bracket class would even out the whole field......perhaps give an advantage to those who do NOT improve with each run, but what the heck the improving drivers could dial in their time.

That being said, what I'd really like to see is our own brand of King of the Hill.  KOH street, and KOH race.  Street on street tires and race, well if street guys want to be there okay, but race meaning any thing goes, slicks, blowers, alcohol, (fuel not beverage) the SMRT, but you could take off stuff---except the doors.

Offline vipertgb

  • Posts: 34
    • Trevor
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #21 on: Sat Jul 11 2015, 11:27 AM »
Unfortunately with bracket racing we run into the inevitable problem of sandbagging. Even at a large event there are still classes where a good driver can simply dominate the class if he drives at 100%. All that driver has to do is run fast enough to barely beat the rest of the competition. BAM all of a sudden you can beat your dial in by 2 seconds easy. Even more so for people in their own class. The only way to do it would be to have the top X people in pax do a bracket race that way sandbagging during the regular event means you don't get into the brackets. Ask the people who went to Moultrie how they feel about that system. I know that David Lineberry beat Chris Hammer (same class, same car setup) by running over a 1/2 second slower than Hammer. It turns into rewarding consistency over skill.

Offline moparkarel

  • Posts: 103
    • Karel Schneider
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #22 on: Sat Jul 11 2015, 12:18 PM »
Bracket racing solves the 'problem' of sandbagging.  With bracket racing every competitor dials in, if you sandbag and miss your number ....  You have basically thrown that run out.  Don't worry about it though, this idea has been soundly rejected. 

Offline ucfquattroguy

  • Posts: 68
    • Justin Cady
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #23 on: Sat Jul 11 2015, 3:22 PM »
Just because it has to be tossed out there: NASA classing. 8 classes. Done... *runs and hides*

Offline moparkarel

  • Posts: 103
    • Karel Schneider
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #24 on: Sat Jul 11 2015, 3:42 PM »
Just because it has to be tossed out there: NASA classing. 8 classes. Done... *runs and hides*

8 classes, 80 drivers, 10 cars per class, sometimes math is fun!  BTW with bracket racing, faster than dial = DNF.

Offline MRSIDEWAYS

  • Posts: 226
    • Ian Stewart
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #25 on: Sat Jul 11 2015, 3:59 PM »
Commonly in other forms of autocross where bracket racing is used it's not a DNF but instead your Dial in gets multiplied by 1.5x. It's not a DNF for that round, but it's likely a DNF for the next round. Cost me at the Match Tour last month. I dropped my Dial in by .6 on my first run. I was eliminated the next round. 
I now drive a car that won't get sideways.

Offline MRSIDEWAYS

  • Posts: 226
    • Ian Stewart
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #26 on: Sat Jul 11 2015, 4:12 PM »
Just because it has to be tossed out there: NASA classing. 8 classes. Done... *runs and hides*

So I know the moment I endorse something it's good as dead. But the NASA classing structure is brilliant. An autox club up in Ohio Adopted it and loved it (so I was told by doug mccabe). However it has it's problems for a run of the mill autox group.

1. The points structure is relatively complicated, you would need dedicated individuals at registration to help with all newbs registering.
2. It's extremely easy to cheat by not telling about parts you have. And without having a dedicated director that checks cars (we have Mark Mckay at NASA events, but he only has to check 8 or 10 cars.... not 80). For 80+ cars you would need to provide everyones points forms and allow competetiors to look over vehicles. Otherwise the cheating will run wild.
3. TT1-TT3 require Dyno Sheets. Most Newbs aren't going to show up with a NASA specific Dyno sheet. So a lot of people would get lumped into the unlimited class of TTU. Guys that have been running NASA for years opted to pull parts off their car to get down into TTB rather then go through the effort to get a legit Dyno sheet. TTB isn't a very fast car (Steven Hughes car is TTB legal). Bascially anything faster then his car needs a dyno sheet or they go to unlimited in TTU.
4. SCCA guys. Your going to loose them, they aren't going to want to show up to run some "weird" classing system where they can't see where they stand overall in PAX.

All that said, I love NASA classing. I think it is amazingly well done and easy and very evenly matched. But to make it work for autoxing you need to reserve the dyno reclass stuff for engine swaps, and turbo changes and actually classes the fast cars like NASA use to have it. It's an easy change in the rule book. You just can't take the NASA book and move it straight over.
I now drive a car that won't get sideways.

Offline MRSIDEWAYS

  • Posts: 226
    • Ian Stewart
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #27 on: Sat Jul 11 2015, 4:41 PM »
Quick issue i had with the bracket racing they did at the match tour was that i was eliminated in the bracket round by the guy i beat in my class who was in exactly the same equipment. Not because he beat me. He ran .6 slower then i did. But he got closer to his dial in. Well if you think about it, its easier to run slower.
I now drive a car that won't get sideways.

Offline moparkarel

  • Posts: 103
    • Karel Schneider
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #28 on: Sat Jul 11 2015, 6:44 PM »
Quick issue i had with the bracket racing they did at the match tour was that i was eliminated in the bracket round by the guy i beat in my class who was in exactly the same equipment. Not because he beat me. He ran .6 slower then i did. But he got closer to his dial in. Well if you think about it, its easier to run slower.

Maybe it's 'easier' to run slower, but that is one thing that is an equalizer in bracket racing, I believe that a breakout should be a DNF just like drag racing.  You get to choose your dial, hit it and win!  That way the newbie in the VW has a chance against the veteran in the 'Vette.

Offline MRSIDEWAYS

  • Posts: 226
    • Ian Stewart
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #29 on: Sat Jul 11 2015, 8:14 PM »
Other then the fact that we are trying to give the award to the best driver. So in theory the word newb would mean he shouldnt have a chance.
I now drive a car that won't get sideways.