Current Car Classifications vs Performance- Fact or Fiction

[LUCKY DAVE]

Dave, he beat you by 1.3 seconds at the last event? Only data point I used, but it seemed ballpark correct to me. 951's are not optimum for AX as we both know.

True on both accounts. The last track layout was unusually fast, which helps a 951 (or doesn't hurt as much ), the time difference is typically much larger.

[Don Middleton]

...Perhaps we should examine the existing rule set with a nod towards refining car classification to more accurately reflect the performance advantage of new engineering.
In my opinion the amazing electronics and advanced suspension designs of the latest cars are more of an advantage than we are giving them credit for..

Great point, Dave, and exactly one of the issues in the current classification system that prompted to Bill to look for another way. The current system doesn't just fail to credit newer models for the their advanced technology, it doesn't really even attempt to resolve the issue (from what I can see).

[Bill]

I'm sorry Jad, but I don't understand your arguments.

But with the current system you have a VERY GOOD idea of about what time a good driver should get it a well prepared car.

Apparently you believe good drivers in well prepared RS America's (247 hp), 2010 Boxster's (255 hp), 993 C2's (285 hp), 911SC's (180 hp) and 924S's (160 hp) belong in the same class (which they are) and would be competitive. With regard to putting these in the same class, you have to also believe that 15 years of Porsche development (1978-1993) is only worth the points assessed to a muffler or minor suspension change (see base points calculations).

..but your handicap system completely removes skill from the equation more than any other system I can think of and actually rewards lack of skill.

Apparently, you don't think times on the track are a measure of skill? The proposed system classifies people on comparative times; the current system on arbitrary, subjective, and in many cases indefensible points. I'm not sure that it's the right kind of skill to be able to manipulate the system to give you an uncompetitive advantage to win your class. But you've been doing this longer than I have.

I don't know how to answer these objections. As I said before,

Opinions are fine, but opinions supported by facts and data are better.

Bill

[Cajundaddy]

Just for fun I pulled the TT results for SOW in Feb. Both the top 10 finishes and top 10 BRI are populated with mostly older Carreras and 911sc. I would think a Cayman might be at an advantage on this highly technical track. No Caymans or Boxsters in either top ten. There is a 996 banging the top of both lists though, out-performing several cars in classes above his own. Perhaps he is an exceptional driver.

Very similar results can be found in the Jan CW results. Older 911s are consistently outperforming newer cars within their class at the track. I am having trouble finding these gross rules inequities that favor newer cars. Empirical data is contrary to the hypothesis being presented here.

http://results.pcasdr.org/

[Jad]

I keep giving you facts and examples that you ignore.

No, time on the track does NOT represent skill. Getting a stock 356 to do a one minute lap time at the AX would take TONS of skill, getting a Cup Car on warmed slicks would take very little skill.

Just because it 'seems' wrong to you to have RSA's and 924's in the same class does not make it so. Having one RSA win everytime against the same 924S, does not make it unfair either.

A few years ago, the KS/KP/KI class had a 3.0 l 16V 4 cylinder, 8V 2.5l turbo and 3.6l boxer all compete very evenly as they moved up class by class with various mods. Doesn't 'seem' like they would, but they did.

MANY years ago, in the GSS class, 911E's and 944 were together. EVERY event, 2-3 911's beat 4-5 944's by a decent margin. They changed the rules after a couple of years of data showing they were not equal even though the 944's were newer, 'better' technology.

The FACTS show the current system is close to fair. In you next response, PLEASE explain how it is more fair that my 320 hp 996 on DOT tires should be in the same class as a 997 Cup Car on racing slicks?

[gulf911]

Just for fun I pulled the TT results for SOW in Feb. Both the top 10 finishes and top 10 BRI are populated with mostly older Carreras and 911sc.

http://results.pcasdr.org/

older carreras , and 911SC's... like they were driven off the showroom floor with all of the CA smog and air conditioning attached...

These cars are mostly trailered to the events...not even resembling a stock car , in motor or suspension or aero. So yeah a Cayman with a newbie might not
show up right away. Lets keep the data at least somewhat accurate.

[gulf911]

The 911E had a bit more hp at 165 vs 147 on the 944. weight was a factor but sorry , the 944 was way easier to drive fast than an *** engined 911. And the rules were changed , again making my invisible point of you cant just change your car to fit
anytime the rules change , like some think can be done. No easy answers and probably shouldnt throw the baby out with the bath water , but they are flawed as is.

[Greg Phillips]

At least we have more eyes on the FORUM

I think our present CAR classification system works well for its intended purpose of putting cars of similar performance in the same class. It is not perfect and perfection is not attainable, too many variables, but it overall works well.

That being said, driving a car of similar (same )potential does not make you as fast at the track as another driver in the same class; as I am reminded at each event

There are lies, damn lies and then statistics, so there is no use having graphs

If you feel there are too many classes, the easy answer would be to get rid of the SS classes. These were included to make it simple for drivers in stock cars, but all of them can also be classed onto a CC class as well. The only difference is that SS is limited to the type of tires they can use but they can still be classed to a CC class. That would get rid of several classes at the AX, but less at the TT.

Also, how do you handle the problem of bringing a different car?
I have driven my 968, 928 and my track 911SC at different autocrosses. How would I be classed in the different cars? Same class for all, different class for each car?
More fuel to the fire.

Greg

[Jad]

To paraphrase David Hobbs, if we had a perfect system, we would not need to run the events. There is no perfect system, no perfect predictions, and that is why they run the race.

[Greg Phillips]

In case you were wondering if there was any logic or thought into the present CAR classification system. Here is the rationale behind the present formula:

Guidelines for Assigning Basepoints to New Models
Basepoints are determined by using power to weight ratios and other known data as a starting point,and may also include subjective adjustments to account for real world performance. It is recognized 
that a newer carof equal powerto weight ratio to an older car is likely to have a performance advantage due to evolutionary changes in chassis, power characteristics and suspension.  It  is 
recommended that, when assigning basepoints to new models, they be scrutinized using these criteria.
Step 1: Assigning "Initial Basepoints"
"Initial Basepoints" are assigned based on a formula using the car's power to weight ratio, model age and the width of its standard‐equipment wheels.  A car's power to weight ratio (PW) is calculated by 
dividing the PCNA published curb weight (lbs.) of the model (equipped with a manual transmission) by its PCNA published horsepower. The calculated PW ratio is then used to determine the appropriate 
Initial Basepoints using the following formula:  
(4000 / PW) + (year of model introduction ‐ 2010) + (5 x (width in inches of one front + one rear standard‐equipment wheel ‐ 12 ))   =  Initial Basepoints  

Explanation: This formula takes the inverse of the PW ratio and multiplies it by 4000 (creating a steepening curve that assigns progressively higher and higher basepoints for each incremental 
improvement in PW ratio, then subtracts one point for each year since the model's introduction prior to 2010 (to grant a modest discount for age and, in future years, assign one additional basepoint per 
year for models introduced after 2010), and then adds 5 points for each inch greater than 12 of the car model’s standard‐equipment wheel‐widths (this serves as a rough proxy to capture design and 
performance advantages inherent to models that were engineered to utilize wider wheels, and conversely the limitations of vehicles designed to use narrower wheels). 

Again not a perfect system but not a random event.
Power to weight is a good number for performance, but the factory is not always good at sharing accurate power and weight numbers for different years.

Greg
PS if some of the X cars would like to see where they stand, they could plug in their data to the formula and see where they stand. Corvettes, Ferraris or Lotus or M3's basepoints? Add tire points and you have your unmodified class
For sporty cars it should work out well, use for an SUV or pickup would likely not work well

[Don Middleton]

...Also, how do you handle the problem of bringing a different car?
I have driven my 968, 928 and my track 911SC at different autocrosses. How would I be classed in the different cars? Same class for all, different class for each car?...

Greg, good feedback on the issue of driving different cars. These are the wrinkles we were hoping would be flushed out. They would need some "ironing". I would guess a different car would mean a different index and different class, just as we have now.

The current system is definitely an improvement over the former, at least in my mind. The former system lacked competition with so many classes. But, it didn't suffer from as many inequities as the current one. The current system has more competition with fewer classes. It's more fun, but there are a few cars that fall through the cracks into the wrong classes.

Bill was trying to say, if we all drove the same cars, we would have pure competition. Obviously, that's not possible. So, he looked for a way to avoid the issues with the current system. He came up with the concept of measuring and classifying the CAR-DRIVER rather than just the car. It has merit. We might show the results for the last couple of events BRI-style and see how they compare to it. I think of it as TPoD (top performer of the day).

[Bill]

I appreciate Greg showing the 'rules' but it just emphasizes the point. Look at how the modifications are assessed points,

subjective adjustments to account for real world performance

modest discount for age..... (year of model introduction ‐ 2010)

(15 pts for the difference in Porsche improvements over 15 years)

In all the previous responses defending the current system there has not been a single comment on the validity of equating 15 years of Porsche improvements to an exhaust change, no comment on assessing 40 modifications points for a single digit change in DOT ratings, no comment on how a midengine performance improvement is worth a minor suspension mod, and on and on. Not one. When I have tried to find out the basis for these modification points all I got were blank stares, comments like "no system is perfect", "we copied them from someone else", or they were "subjective" with no basis in fact. What I believe they are telling me is that it is an almost impossible task to objectively equate car parts with performance. I don't disagree. While Greg says that these subjective assessments are not a 'random event', when I look at the some of the specific examples above, they are not much better. I am not trying to offend anyone (Dave, Jad, Greg, et al) but my training, admittedly scientific and not philosphical, was to focus on facts and ask questions, not to simply accept something on faith. Apparently in this group I'm in the minority.

I have one final comment and that is to reread the original post where I said,

This is NOT to suggest there be an immediate change. In part, it is to get everyone thinking about what the current rules are, whether they believe they are valid, and, perhaps, to begin to take a more active role in their development.

I still believe that but with this, I am resting my case.

[Jad]

Bill,

I see you have again chosen not to address my question of how it is more fair for my 996 to be classed with 997 Cup cars.

You want more specific issues with your proposal:

What happens when I put R-compound tires on my car? Do I dominate for 2-3 events until you decide to move me up?
Then what happens when I share a friends car to help them? Do I run my normal class even though I may be in a stock 944 or a GT3?
What if I only do 1-2 event a year? What class do I run?
If I bring multiple cars as Greg suggested?
Just decided can't afford the R-compounds or didn't have time to switch tires for this event, what class now?
Dave did better at the last AX in his 951 so does he move up in class for the next slow tight AX that he will do worse in?
How do you have track records for classes that change based on everyone else's performance?
IF I had run at Fontana, the TTOD would likely have been 3+ seconds faster. Should that really change all other peoples results? Yes, it should change my class, but not others???

Thank you for the time and effort you clearly put into this, but I strongly feel the currently system is close and should be tweaked, so Zone events, other clubs, etc can understand and play with us, not throw out the current proven 'good' system for a system that to me seems flawed by rewarding poor driving and improvement WAY higher that good driving.

[Greg Phillips]

I appreciate Greg showing the 'rules' but it just emphasizes the point. Look at how the modifications are assessed points,

subjective adjustments to account for real world performance

modest discount for age..... (year of model introduction ‐ 2010)

(15 pts for the difference in Porsche improvements over 15 years)

In all the previous responses defending the current system there has not been a single comment on the validity of equating 15 years of Porsche improvements to an exhaust change, no comment on assessing 40 modifications points for a single digit change in DOT ratings, no comment on how a midengine performance improvement is worth a minor suspension mod, and on and on. Not one. When I have tried to find out the basis for these modification points all I got were blank stares, comments like "no system is perfect", "we copied them from someone else", or they were "subjective" with no basis in fact. What I believe they are telling me is that it is an almost impossible task to objectively equate car parts with performance. I don't disagree. While Greg says that these subjective assessments are not a 'random event', when I look at the some of the specific examples above, they are not much better. I am not trying to offend anyone (Dave, Jad, Greg, et al) but my training, admittedly scientific and not philosphical, was to focus on facts and ask questions, not to simply accept something on faith. Apparently in this group I'm in the minority.

I have one final comment and that is to reread the original post where I said,

This is NOT to suggest there be an immediate change. In part, it is to get everyone thinking about what the current rules are, whether they believe they are valid, and, perhaps, to begin to take a more active role in their development.

I still believe that but with this, I am resting my case.

Thanks for resting your case :^)

Because you could not figure out where the points came from does not mean they are a random and because a system is complicated does not mean you should ignore it.

The initial system came from Golden Gate Region in Zone 7. We kept their base points and took a different approach to tire points and also modification points.
They used wheel size rather than tire size for their point, we felt tire size was fairer and gave more flexibility.
We used a similar system for modification points but did not use the same as GGR. We tried to incorporate our knowledge from our previous system as to what changes would be worth and also make it easier to implement in our region.

Yes a single digit change in DOT could make a 40 point difference but that is only if you could find a tire with a rating of 49 and 50. The reality is that there are 40 treadwear tires then 80 & 100 TW tires then 140 and then 200 and up.
Unfortunately the tire ratings are not objectively tested either. At one point the Toyo RA1 was a 50 treadwear tire and then was changed to 100 with no apparent change in the trad compound or construction.
Tire width is also a source of problems, 225mm width is not always the same as 225mm from different tire manufacturers.
But we do know that new slicks are faster than new 40 TW tires that are faster than new 100 TW tires. But even with tires of the same TW rating there are differences.
But that does not mean there is no objectivity to the system, just more variables to be aware of.

If you would like a data hunt, it would be interesting to compare the top times of each class at an event or group of events and see how linear that graph might be
You argue that you can't put a number on 15 years of Porsche performance.
I argue that we can. We might not have the correct formula but it does not mean we should stop looking for it

Greg

[Cajundaddy]

Dave, he beat you by 1.3 seconds at the last event? Only data point I used, but it seemed ballpark correct to me. 951's are not optimum for AX as we both know.

True on both accounts. The last track layout was unusually fast, which helps a 951 (or doesn't hurt as much ), the time difference is typically much larger.

Dave Ummm,
Only a 1.5 sec difference on last months AX. You remember that tight nasty track with all those 180s? That was a turbo death trap and It should have heavily favored the Cayman but it did not. You gave him a good run for it on a very unfavorable track for your car.

Bill,
The real facts... the hard, irrefutable, empirical data posted in the event results pages each month tell us that the current rule system does a pretty good job of creating a reasonably level sandbox to play in. This big picture view looks like the ruleset works with a generous variety of car types in Top 10 and BRI. Skilled drivers can compete in nearly any car type and win their class or place highly in BRI. Old 911 cars with "overbearing exhaust mod points" happily outrun modern Caymans with on-board electronic gyro-wizardry in the same car class with very few exceptions as long as a skilled driver is at the wheel. I see no evidence that the system is broken.

Carefully prepare your car to optimize it to the rulebook for your chosen class, develop your driving skills to a high degree, and win. This is Motorsport.