Author Topic: 2016 Rule suggestions  (Read 6617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ParadoxD

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 363
    • Travis Turner
    • View Profile
    • MSCC Official Website
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #30 on: Sun Jul 12 2015, 12:48 AM »
PS - try not to rock the boat as a new club member! Just looking out for ya.  :)

I just wanted to chime in and say that I do no subscribe to this notion.  Matt, I know you're just trying to save him from the proverbial smack down that seemingly comes from all such "Tiger Points Reformation" discussions. 

However, without someone willing to "rock the boat", change will never happen.  Ideas and suggestions are valuable no matter where are who they come from, and no matter how long they have or haven't been autocrossing.  The great thing about this sport, and especially the MSCC family, is the diversity of backgrounds and individual strengths everyone brings to the table.

The fact that Trevor wants to stick his neck out there to change something that's been the same way probably since coke was a nickel should be applauded.  Granted, you've got some tough sledding ahead, but don't let it discourage you from trying to better the club!

1991 BMW 325i (DSP) - 2015 Scion FR-S (CS)

Offline MRSIDEWAYS

  • Posts: 226
    • Ian Stewart
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #31 on: Sun Jul 12 2015, 6:45 AM »
I just find it funny that every year this is brought up. Its brought up by different people. This means from the outside this has appeared broken for a long time...... and yet it remains unchanged.
I now drive a car that won't get sideways.

Offline BobsterS

  • Posts: 171
    • Bob Blucher
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #32 on: Sun Jul 12 2015, 6:13 PM »
This was never a problem at all until MSCC dropped classing cars and adopted SCCA classing.  Terry Keller and the Comp Board would massage the classing every year and did a very good job of it.  When Terry became less active with the club no one else stepped up to the task and here we are running too many classes.  Maybe we should merge all of the ST classes into Street Prepared and not allow R-comps? How about combining some of the Street classes.

I'm happy with almost any change as long as it doesn't require some type of stab in the dark multiplier.  did that and it didn't work.  Same with a PAX class.  Worked for 2 months then died.

Offline M@

  • Posts: 203
    • Matt
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #33 on: Mon Jul 13 2015, 9:35 AM »
I just wanted to chime in and say that I do no subscribe to this notion.  Matt, I know you're just trying to save him from the proverbial smack down that seemingly comes from all such "Tiger Points Reformation" discussions. 

However, without someone willing to "rock the boat", change will never happen.  Ideas and suggestions are valuable no matter where are who they come from, and no matter how long they have or haven't been autocrossing.  The great thing about this sport, and especially the MSCC family, is the diversity of backgrounds and individual strengths everyone brings to the table.

The fact that Trevor wants to stick his neck out there to change something that's been the same way probably since coke was a nickel should be applauded.  Granted, you've got some tough sledding ahead, but don't let it discourage you from trying to better the club!

Travis, I don't disagree with you at all. But I believe there are effective approaches to generating ideas and rallying support, and ineffective approaches. I've seen both for many years with this club and other organizations, and have learned from mistakes of my own. It is not effective to come out guns a'blazing with the same ideas and arguments that have been made year after year on hotly debated topics. Spending an hour reading those past discussions gives a far better starting point than starting from scratch with the same ingredients for an identical recipe. Doing the latter, and with high energy, generates more contempt than content, in my opinion. My repeated feedback in this thread has been to learn some history before sticking your neck out. The original post in this thread talks about a rule that doesn't even exist any more. Other points made in that post were beaten to exhaustion over the years. Would you agree that it would be far more effective to learn the history of those discussions, seek to understand the support and dissent, and to understand why change has not been effected?  Armed with that knowledge, could you not build a much better case?  That's all I'm saying. It's constructive feedback, not criticism.

Offline ParadoxD

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 363
    • Travis Turner
    • View Profile
    • MSCC Official Website
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #34 on: Mon Jul 13 2015, 10:09 AM »
Absolutely.  I agree a background is necessary to build a strong case and an insightful solution.

It's just that "don't rock the boat" looks a lot like "shut up noob", LOL.  I just didn't want Trevor (or anyone else) to get discouraged thinking the club wasn't interested in his ideas.  But thank you for the clarification - it's solid advice.
« Last Edit: Mon Jul 13 2015, 10:18 AM by ParadoxD »

1991 BMW 325i (DSP) - 2015 Scion FR-S (CS)

Offline ParadoxD

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 363
    • Travis Turner
    • View Profile
    • MSCC Official Website
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #35 on: Mon Jul 13 2015, 10:18 AM »
This was never a problem at all until MSCC dropped classing cars and adopted SCCA classing.

That would appear to be the case, looking over the 10 years prior to the SCCA classing adoption:

Code: [Select]
2008 Chris Wells F Prepared
2007 George Bonafede SMST
2006 Mikael Edstrom SMRT
2005 George Bonafede A Race
2004 George Bonafede A Race
2003 Jason Young C Race
2002 Jeff Dennie H Prepared
2001 Robert Palmblad SM?
2000 Robert Palmblad B Stock
1999 Mark Stockbridge C Stock
1998 Gerardo Bonilla C Prepared

I'm curious though, was it merely a case of different classing masking an underlying issue with TP being based on in-class competitor count?  That is to say, did the classes above happen to be the largest in their respective years?  I haven't been around long enough to know and admittedly I don't quite remember how the classes were managed then as I only ran under that format for a year or two.
« Last Edit: Mon Jul 13 2015, 10:24 AM by ParadoxD »

1991 BMW 325i (DSP) - 2015 Scion FR-S (CS)

Offline M@

  • Posts: 203
    • Matt
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #36 on: Mon Jul 13 2015, 10:43 AM »
Absolutely.  I agree a background is necessary to build a strong case and an insightful solution.

It's just that "don't rock the boat" looks a lot like "shut up noob", LOL.  I just didn't want Trevor (or anyone else) to get discouraged thinking the club wasn't interested in his ideas.  But thank you for the clarification - it's solid advice.

Point taken, and my apologies to Trevor for the lack of tact. I did not intend it to say that.

Offline M@

  • Posts: 203
    • Matt
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #37 on: Mon Jul 13 2015, 12:10 PM »
That would appear to be the case, looking over the 10 years prior to the SCCA classing adoption:

Code: [Select]
2008 Chris Wells F Prepared
2007 George Bonafede SMST
2006 Mikael Edstrom SMRT
2005 George Bonafede A Race
2004 George Bonafede A Race
2003 Jason Young C Race
2002 Jeff Dennie H Prepared
2001 Robert Palmblad SM?
2000 Robert Palmblad B Stock
1999 Mark Stockbridge C Stock
1998 Gerardo Bonilla C Prepared

I'm curious though, was it merely a case of different classing masking an underlying issue with TP being based on in-class competitor count?  That is to say, did the classes above happen to be the largest in their respective years?  I haven't been around long enough to know and admittedly I don't quite remember how the classes were managed then as I only ran under that format for a year or two.

I think Bob was referring to the classing issue separate and apart from TP: diluted classes weren't a problem because we had less than half the # of classes we have today. We also had a lot more drivers back then. I remember when there were at least 7 or 8 classes with 10+ cars. With that many classes offering max TP, driver skill was a bigger factor in determining the champion, but the TP story then was the same as now: the Tiger champ came from one of the largest classes that was consistently dominated by the eventual champion. It may not have been THE largest class, just one of them. Class stacking was a common game to ensure max TP, eventually leading to the 107% rule that was inspired by a similar rule in F1 at the time. Now we're using a classing structure that was designed for events that draw a thousand drivers. It's not optimal for a club with <100 drivers and its own points system. If we want a more "fair" points system, we either have to change it, or fix the classing. Both have supporters matched with an equal amount of dissent.  This debate will wage on until someone comes up a better and viable solution.

Offline MRSIDEWAYS

  • Posts: 226
    • Ian Stewart
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #38 on: Mon Jul 13 2015, 12:28 PM »
You know it would be fun to run NASA classing for the December Pointless Event. Issue is I won't be there to help with the classing as I believe it's going to be the same weekend as Nick and Meg's Wedding down at sebring.

For those Unfamiliar with NASA classing it's essentially 9 Classes and cars have a base class then move up classes based on Mods. All mods are worth points, Use X amount of points and you move up X amount of classes. For instance Hoosier A7's are worth like 13 points. Every 19 points is a class higher. Springs are worth 2 points. So in theory you could have a Fiat 500 that's lowered, with full suspension and Hoosiers running against a Stock 911 GT3 on the OE tires. They've done a very good job of making the cars pretty equal points wise. HOWEVER the top 3 classes are Dyno based, power to weight. That's a recent rule change. We could revert to 2 years ago when the top two classes were still points based. Current classes
TTU (unlimited) F1 cars on down to anyone who doesn't fill out the points sheet correctly
TT1 Really fast stuff
TT2 Still pretty seriously fast stuff
TT3 (my S2000 falls in this class)
TTB M3's and Evo's Start here, if you mod them at all they go to TT3
TTC Bolt on S2000's like Steven Hughes car
TTD Civic Si with Bolt ons
TTE Chris wells car runs here
TTF Rental cars and other really slow stuff.

Each car is given a Base Class and Base weight. The car will be given * or ** . Each * is 7 points. All turbo or supercharged cars receive an automatic 5 points to the base class. Points can be taken for weight reduction.

Car base classes can be found here. Starting on Page 19
https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/document/document/481/TT_Rules_2015--v12.1--1-15-15.pdf
« Last Edit: Mon Jul 13 2015, 12:48 PM by MRSIDEWAYS »
I now drive a car that won't get sideways.

Offline M@

  • Posts: 203
    • Matt
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #39 on: Mon Jul 13 2015, 12:45 PM »
I think you just said Chris's car is only one step above a rental car, lol!

Offline MRSIDEWAYS

  • Posts: 226
    • Ian Stewart
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #40 on: Mon Jul 13 2015, 12:49 PM »
I think you just said Chris's car is only one step above a rental car, lol!

Correct, Track Record in TTE is a 2:33.8 at sebring (I hold it). So basically the slowest class should run in the high 2:30's.
I now drive a car that won't get sideways.

Offline MRSIDEWAYS

  • Posts: 226
    • Ian Stewart
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #41 on: Mon Jul 13 2015, 12:51 PM »
Matt, Your 99 Miata would start in TTE at 2400lbs with no points used. So you would have 19 points to make it better then Chris's car. For Autox, I would put 225/45 15 Hoosier A7's on 15x9's and a Front sway bar. That's likely all the points you have.

Track Records in each class.
TTU   8       Daniel Goldburg   07 Elan DP-02           2:09.413   
TT1   333       Radomin Delgado   09 Ferrari F430 Scuderia   2:17.027   
TT2   180       Danny Sanzera   01 Chevrolet Corvette   2:20.319   
TT3   168       Ian Stewart     02 Chevrolet Z06    2:22.245   
TTB   321       Eric Armstrong   04 Porsche Boxster   2:25.072   
TTC   110       Ian Stewart     05 Honda S2000           2:26.541   
TTD   161       Ian Stewart           06 Honda Civic Si        2:28.914   
TTE   161       Ian Stewart        06 Honda Civic Si         2:33.902   
TTF   60       Joshua Feingold   86 BMW 325e           2:44.341   
« Last Edit: Mon Jul 13 2015, 12:55 PM by MRSIDEWAYS »
I now drive a car that won't get sideways.

Offline vipertgb

  • Posts: 34
    • Trevor
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #42 on: Mon Jul 13 2015, 1:14 PM »
The issue with NASA classing is that it is designed for track racing. Where 100+mph speeds are reached by even the slowest cars. Power to weight ratio is worth SOOOO much in track racing, the same can't be said for autocross. It's not irrelevant, but there are definitely more important factors.

Offline MRSIDEWAYS

  • Posts: 226
    • Ian Stewart
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #43 on: Mon Jul 13 2015, 1:20 PM »
The issue with NASA classing is that it is designed for track racing. Where 100+mph speeds are reached by even the slowest cars. Power to weight ratio is worth SOOOO much in track racing, the same can't be said for autocross. It's not irrelevant, but there are definitely more important factors.
100% correct. But the funny thing is that the classing seems to work pretty darn good for autox too. Like I said various clubs have adopted it and "so I've been told" it works great.
I now drive a car that won't get sideways.

Offline MRSIDEWAYS

  • Posts: 226
    • Ian Stewart
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Rule suggestions
« Reply #44 on: Mon Jul 13 2015, 1:33 PM »
I am by all means NOT suggesting a change to NASA classing. I think it would be a MASSIVE headache to make the change.... BUT it might be fun to do it for one even. Like the pointless event.
I now drive a car that won't get sideways.