Idea for revamping the classification of cars

[ajackson]

The point of putting cars into various classes is to put cars in similar groups based off the performance potential of the cars. This sounds nice, but the classes are based on models, not performance. The basic assumption is that a car show always be in an SS class when no modifications have been made. If we throw out that simple assumption, it allows for a huge variety of classifications that seem to make MUCH more sense.

For example:
The 996 is generally considered to be faster than the 993 even though they are in the same class. Splitting them up probably isn't a good idea (I think there are already too many classes). Maybe a 996 is in M class with 6 points to start out with. That way a 993 gets 6 points to "spend" in order to make it's performance more comparable.

Another way to look at it would be to use something like the BRI. If I look at the various class times, there seems to be several different classes that are basically getting the same times. Looking at the event times, there is probably a need for no more than 5-10 classes. Times for LOTS of events would have to be taken into consideration, but I can use the last AX as an example:

TTOD was 85 s.
Class A: cars capable of 85s runs
Class B: cars capable of 88s runs
Class C: cars capable of 91s runs
Class D: cars capable of 93s runs
etc


Advantages:
(1) More people per class, maybe spread more evenly (a couple classes have tons, most have just a few)
(2) Classification based on absolute perfomance, rather than having to start off with a base SS.
(3) Easier to deal with new cars, changes: just look to see what times a car is running (with a good driver of course).

Disadvantages:
(1) Have to throw out a system and adopt a new one: people hate that!

Comments? I'm not suggesting this be done and I don't even want to think of the logistics of implementation, I am merely trying to spark discussion...

[MikeD]

Disadvantage:
(2) Assigning a baseline performance to a car.
(3) As I become a better drivier I get bumped a class (no matter what changes are made to the car, if any).
(3.b) How many runs/events in sub-91s do I have to do before I get bumped from C to B?
(4) The goal of "sandbaggers" would be to get as close to 91 as possible without going under. An interesting competition for sure, but the point of an AX?

[ajackson]

The classes would be based off the performance potential of the car, not the driver.

IE:
Stock 996 generally runs within 10% of TTOD (I'm making data up) so it goes in B class.
Stock 944 generally runs within 30% of TTOD so it goes into D class.
911SC with 20 points generally runs within 10% of TTOD so it goes into B class (which could never happen now but maybe it should).

Disadvantage:
>(2) Assigning a baseline performance to a car.
We already do that by putting cars into *** - NSS etc

>(3) As I become a better drivier I get bumped a class (no matter what changes are made to the car, if any).
Put cars into class based off performance potential, try to take driver out of the current equation (same as we already do with current classes)

>(3.b) How many runs/events in sub-91s do I have to do before I get bumped from C to B?
Again, classes on cars performance not drivers. If you are in a 996, you are in a certain class, whether or not you can drive the car to it's full potential.

>(4) The goal of "sandbaggers" would be to get as close to 91 as possible without going under. An interesting competition for sure, but the point of an AX?
Same as above.



Generally, if you look at the top of a class over lots of events you can get an idea of what a car can do. I'm basically suggesting that we class cars based off performance strictly rather than the complicated setup we have now that requires cars of similar performance to be in different classes based on how they got there.

[MikeD]

The classes would be based off the performance potential of the car, not the driver.

The question is: How do you determine that "performance potential"?

Disadvantage:
>(2) Assigning a baseline performance to a car.
We already do that by putting cars into *** - NSS etc

But you are suggesting we throw away the class structure and start fresh. If the old system is faulty you can't really base the new one off of it. Otherwise the new one is just as faulty. So I my question is, how do you go about assigning the 996 to class B? 944 to class D? Etc.

TTOD is a moving target. Not always achieved by the same driver in the same car given a similar track layout. Do you take only the TTOD's from the West lot? South East lot? North East? Combine them all? Attempt to determine approximate track length and average MPH? What's the TTOD baseline?

Then once you decided on what TTOD actually is, or how to arrive at the "ideal" TTOD. You have to determine how far off TTOD the 996 *should* be. How are you going to arrive at that number? How did you derrive the 10% figure? Do we have the fastest driver in the club (who is that?) drive one? Does he/she then drive every car in the club to determine that cars "performance potential"?

Don't get me wrong, your idea sounds interesting from a statistical and analytical perspective. But how will it play out in real life? Seems like it would require a LOT more effort and time to get right than the current one.

Just my $0.02

[ajackson]

I agree about the difficulty of determining car performance potential, but that is a problem that occurs with any classification not just this one. For example, in class M I believe is the boxter S, 993, and 996. They all are slightly different and will have different advantages depending on the track layout. At some point someone decided that they are close enough to be put together. Same thing with the 911SC and 2.4L 911S, someone decided at some point that their performance potential was about the same and that they should be put together.

I just counted and there are 41 distinct classes. I think most of my thoughts arise from my belief that we don't need that many. The classes try group cars together based on weight/power/etc, but there is room for improvement. Rather than having A-N SS progress to A-N S, why don't cars progress from their base class to another class.

To demonstrate, I am going to make up some classes, please don't take apart the actual number, they are just for demonstration:

Base Classes
-----------------
E: Late model turbos
F: BoxterS, 993, 996
G: Boxter
H: 964
I: 911SC, Carrera (84-89)
J: 944, 914

Progression
---------------
4-10 points: Move up one class (J moves to I)
10-15 points: Move up two classes (J moves to J)
15-20 points: Move up four classes
20-30 points: Move up five classes
40+: Class A

Rational: this takes into account that some cars start off slower, but as perofmance mods are made, the car will start to match the stock performance of other cars.

Of course, the BRI tries to do something *very* similar to this, so maybe I would be better off just discussing the BRI and leave the classes how they are.

[ajackson]

Looking at the BRI, AM and JSS have virtually identical indexes. So why are they two separate classes? Historically, it looks like both classes turn almost exactly the same lap times. Why aren't they competing with eachother?

[kary]

In your last post you talked about times from events. Times are about the driver and car not just the car. If the driver is very poor then it is really about the driver and visa versa for a good driver. Your proposal is flawed in that you are using event times to match cars in a class. Those times are created mostly by drivers and are at best inaccurate representations of a cars performance.

Usually horsepower to weight ratio's determine a cars performance which completely excludes any driver from the equation. That is how POC classifies cars. It allows a driver to really deduce their driving capabilities.

[ttweed]

Looking at the BRI, AM and JSS have virtually identical indexes.

Alan-
AM has an index of 1.074 on the current BRI and JSS has an index of 1.008. These are hardly "virtually identical" numbers. The closest index to AM is MP, at 1.078.

I applaud your attempt to reorganize the classing structure, but you are liable to hurt your brain before you come up with the right answer. I think an evolutionary approach using the rules change process for Zone 8 would cause less pain than a revolutionary one.

TT

[MikeD]

Have you looked at the PCA Club Racing rules? They do (I think) what you are getting at. The stock class menu goes from A-K and then on to GT. My car as an example started in E, and now that I have made a "Prepared" mod it is in D. There are 11 "Stock" classes, and 19 GT classes.

I suggested we consider these classifications earlier this year but was told that it wouldn't work. But I wasn't convinced as to the rationale. I hold fast to the idea of using Club Racing classes for TT's as it would make for more competition. But I think most people just don't want to think about how to re-classify their car.

As an aside, one of the things I like about the Club Racing menu is that you are either on a Street tire (DOT approved) or a Race tire (non-DOT approved). Non of this treadwear of 0-49, 50-100 junk.

[ajackson]

Tom, you are correct, I tried to pick out similar numbers but missed a decimal point (I read it as 1.0074 and 1.008).

[gulf911]

Historically, it looks like both classes turn almost exactly the same lap times. Why aren't they competing with eachother?

What history are you looking at? I see up to a 6 sec difference between AM and JSS at the AX's this year.

[bryanearll]

As someone new to AX, with a stock 996, I LIKE the idea of picking and chosing what things to upgrade on the car, and the more possibilities for small point tweeks the better.

Clearly tires are a first choice, I surfed an entire evening last night educating myself on tire choices. Yokohama Advan A048 (4pts) I'm struggling here because I might get better performance with a slightly less impressive tire and a sway bar upgrade and still stay in the stock class.

Swapping the sway bar is another excellent choice. (4pts) But as I'm reading the rules, you can get away with a whole lot of other sweet updates for those 4 pts besides changing just the sway bar. Please further define "strengthening the suspension pieces", does this mean you can't change the shocks and springs? Or does this also include swapping the sway bar because in effect a larger diameter sway bar does strengthen the suspension?

Anyway, having options is always good, but having lots of competitors to beat is good too.

One performance driving school down and suddenly he's storming the track.
bryan

[Jad]

Leave the car alone, spend money on the driver. Do lots of events and get seat time. A totally stock 996 with a good driver could win the class easily and its a lot more fun driving than buying springs and sway bars, which actually can hurt at an AX, they tend to help more on big tracks. You need the flex to rotate the car at an AX.

[bryanearll]

Jad, thanks for your thoughts. I'll get the seat time in, that's a given, but riding in Chucks car this weekend was enlightening. Talent and sticky tires!!
bryan

[kary]

Bryan

There is no sustitute (no not Porsche ) for seat time as Jad pointed out. Once you learn your car though there are some key modifications other than tires that should be done for auto-x if you want to be competitive and win. Other than tires which are intimately tied to suspension, is suspension. Depending upon the tire you choose may require a suspension set up change to handle the tire appropriately. Some tires require more camber than others and most street cars with their street suspension set ups are not capable of getting the camber required for a tire. So be careful about the tire you choose, otherwise you will just wear out the outer edge of the tire before the rest of the tiire even gets close to being used.

Tiied to tires is the wheel. Most stock wheels are not wide enough to handle the amount of additional tire that can be put under a Porsche. So sizes become limited by the wheel sizes you have. For example my 993 came with 205 and 255 tires front/back. These were on a 7" and 9" wheel (17"). While you can put a 225 on a 7" front wheel what is really called for is a 245 and the rear needs a 285. This requires at least an 8" and 10" whell front to back. These tire sizes are maximums that provide the most contact patch which translates into better cornering speeds and braking speeds. All of which are necessary in atuo-x (and big track).

Suspension changes for auto-x are mostly around alignment but lowering the car is a great advantage in auto-x. Coming down 1 to 1.5 inches changes the entire handling characteristics of a 911 or any car for that matter. Adjustable sway bars are really there to allow you to dial in/out over steer or under steer. When I say only, it is very important if you want your car to handle well. A car that under steers, like most stock Porsche's, will not provide a good time in auto-x at all.

So that said there are a number of things to consider when trying to set up your car for auto-x and street driving. What I found that worked best in auto-x was this:

1. Bigger wheels (larger tires)
2. Aligment for tire choice.
3. Lowering the car. Different springs (no lowering springs are too stiff for auto-x)
4. Sway bars.


You can do this in steps but once you change the suspension it affect the alignment which effects your tire choice. So doing them together is useful and will save you money in the long run (though it will not seem like it at the time )

Good luck on yuor journey!