GGR vs Z8 Rules Thought Experiment

[ttweed]

However, most of the complaints I've heard on the forum are not about the philosophy of the rules, rather they are nitpicking this or that points amount for one particular modification or another.

My posts on the subject concerned the "philosophical" differences as well, Tom. For instance, how are safety requirements integrated into their classification system? Where are our rollbar, 5-point belts, steel lug, driving suit, fire extinguisher requirements, etc. integrated into their classification system? Are they required in GT classes only, or somewhere further down? Are they different for autox than for DE/TT events? Are you even maintaining their two-tiered class system (different points for autox vs. TT) with your new hybrid proposal? I don't see that mentioned anywhere. What about our update/backdate provision vs. theirs?

I have to agree with Greg that you have omitted the tire size penalty points from your calculations of base points for cars in your examples, and that it is an essential part of their system. A car that comes stock with 6" rims and 195 tires can end up in the same class with one that comes stock with 11" rims and 295 tires in their system. There has to be a way to balance that performance benefit. Your proposal to use our 2 or 4 point penalty for rim width (multiplied by some factor yet to be determined) does not do that equitably, because classes are no longer limited to similar car configurations, as they are in our present system.

I like your suggestion of using some modification of our performance penalty points with their class structure, but I think it would need a lot of work still, and is not as simple as you suggest--i.e., just applying a multiplier. I don't like the way they deal with the weight issues, because they simply penalize all weight savings and offer no benefit for weight ADDED by installing safety equipment. Retaining our weight penalties in some form (penalized for deviation from stock weight) is better, I think. Of course, I've always thought it should include driver weight, but that's another argument...

It may seem like a simple solution to classify according to HP/weight ratios, but this is more difficult to do than to say. It would require everyone having to submit current, certified dyno sheets and weight slips. Are we ready to do that? I don't think so.

If I had to make a SWAG as to which multiplier would work best at this point, I would choose 7.5, but I don't really have enough info according to what you've proposed here to actually analyze the question accurately, so I would reserve final judgment until I had a better understanding of the full proposal.

My $.02,
TT

[Don Middleton]

I don't suppose anyone has ever considered actually talking to the GGR people to find out what issues they have and what they would do to change their system if they could start over?
Just my $.02

Brilliant, Chuck! It would certainly be good to know what types of complaints the GCR system generates from its current users. It might help help us avoid a few in our implementation.

By the way, Tom, it seems that the higher your "factor", the more distorted the ranking is for older cars versus the new ones. I'm voting for the lower end of your scaling factors.

[tb911]

I don't suppose anyone has ever considered actually talking to the GGR people to find out what issues they have and what they would do to change their system if they could start over?
Just my $.02

So far my emails to them have gone unanswered, but they have been using this for four years, so if they don't appear to hate it

[tb911]

My posts on the subject concerned the "philosophical" differences as well, Tom. For instance, how are safety requirements integrated into their classification system? ........... What about our update/backdate provision vs. theirs?
...........
I have to agree with Greg that you have omitted the tire size penalty points from your calculations of base points for cars in your examples, and that it is an essential part of their system.
My $.02,
TT

Hmm, from what I can see, tire width comes under modifications, not base points, yet you and Greg both see those as additional base points. What am I not reading correctly? My whole premise was swapping our modifications for theirs. Not because I think it creates a perfect system, but because all the compliants seemed to assume "either/or" thinking. We don't need to take their system as a whole, we can change it. That is why I labeled this a "thought experiment," to try to get people out of black and white thinking.

I got emails like "We can't switch to GGRs system because I don't like how they treat weight" (or whatever). Well, what about switching and also "fixing" that issue? That is my point.

You are also very concerned about safety equipment, which of course is very important. But I think we can discuss new ways to classify cars before we decide which classes require roll bars. I see that as two different issues. Are there lots of details to work out? Of course, always. I just wanted to generate some more conversation on this before we go into the meeting.

[tb911]

I would suggest using the GGR system as is and making small adjustments from that as needed rather than "patching" the system and then making adjustments. It will take a year or two just to figure out how the system is working for us anyway. This would make it easier for the rules committee, give us a baseline to start from, and give everyone a chance to try out a slew of new excuses for why they woulda, coulda, shoulda gone faster

I understand the motivation to use it "as is" and maybe that is what we do. And maybe not. My motivation is maximum customer satisfaction while improving (not stagnating). Keep using & patching what we got? Switch completely to GRR? Invent something brand new? Take a modified GGR system? What makes the people happiest? Is there a God? Is the moon made of green cheese? What is the meaning of life? Does life need meaning? What happens when you die? These kinds of questions all have no answer, I'm sure.........

[ttweed]

Hmm, from what I can see, tire width comes under modifications, not base points, yet you and Greg both see those as additional base points. What am I not reading correctly?

Maybe my explanation above was not clear enough? What you are missing is that base (free) tire size changes from class to class under our current system, on a relative scale according to the "stock" size for the class, and modification points are determined by deviation from the "stock" size for the class. Under our modification scheme, an A,C, or F-class car takes two points for running 225s, while a P or Q-class car can run 315s for the same 2 points. An R-class car can run 315s with NO PENALTY at all. Under the GGR classification scheme, any of these cars can end up running in the same class, depending on the other modifications they have. A highly modified early 911 can end up running against a mostly stock GT3. No A/C/F class car would ever be competing directly against a P/Q/R class car in our system. Thus our Zone 8 tire penalty scheme does not "translate" to the GGR classification system fairly by simply multiplying our existing tire mod points for our current class.

Anything larger than 6" rims gets modification points in GGR's rules, on a linear scale, regardless of base class. A GT3 running 11" rims w/ 315 tires would get 100 points under their rules (10 points for each .5" over 6" width). Under your proposal, they would be free, because an R-class car would have no mod points for tires under our Zone 8 modification point scheme. Their rim-size rule really is a "base class" addition, not modification points. It applies to every class equally, while our scheme allows larger sizes for newer/faster cars that come stock with larger rims and tires for free. Is this discrepancy clearer now?

The base class points in GGR rules are really a HP/weight approximation of the performance potential of the stock Porsche model line. The rim size rule is added to equalize the increased grip potential offered by the increasing stock rim and tire sizes available over the years between older and newer models. It really is a base class augmentation and not a modification penalty. There is no correspondence to our rules--it is "apples and oranges." Some corresponding element would have to be added to our mod points to equalize this "grip" factor between the classes before they could be conflated, combined, or merged fairly, as the GGR system does.

TT

[tb911]

Yes, I see your point.
But I also remember that even in the 100% GGR system a major complaint was that the older modified cars seemed to be treated more harshly than the newer cars. So nothing is perfect! No surprises...........

[ttweed]

Yes, I see your point.
But I also remember that even in the 100% GGR system a major complaint was that the older modified cars seemed to be treated more harshly than the newer cars.

Yes, I am one of those who think this is true, but your proposed solution would only make it worse, by adding an additional advantage for the newer cars to be able to run much larger tire sizes than the older cars WITH NO PENALTY, widening the gap between them. If our mod points structure were to be integrated with the GGR classification system, where classes are merged together, then our tire size chart (section 1A on the tech form, section IIIA of the rule book) would have to be replaced with something that is not class-specific but universal. GGR uses rim size to do this, but I think that's a mistake, for a couple of reasons. One is that it encourages people to put an oversize tire on a narrow rim (which is detrimental to performance, wear and safety) and it allows a loophole for cantilever slicks (very wide race tires that are designed to work well on a very narrow rim). I actually think tire size would be a better index for penalty points than rim size, and wonder why they chose that metric. Anyway, We would have to substitute a chart that listed tread size from 205-355mm (or any foreseeable width for the largest possible tires commonly used or produced, which includes race slick up to 14" wide) and assign appropriate penalty points across the range in a similar manner to the rim width penalty GGR uses. What number of points would be appropriate across the range would depend on what multiplier you ended up using for our other mod penalty points.

I think your "thought experiment" approach has merit, but as I have said before, I am a fan of evolutionary rule change and not revolutionary. To try to combine our Zone 8 system w/ Zone 7's is a daunting task, and would require some other adjustments besides tire size. If models across the entire range are going to be competing head to head, then our existing update/backdate provision that is limited only to narrow model ranges would have to be liberalized to match GGR's as well, I think. It seems you are not attempting to duplicate their two-tiered (AX vs. TT points) scheme either, is that correct? One of the things people have complained about in our mod points is that they have to take penalties for things like aero and brake improvements that have little effect in AX but pay off in TT events.

Thanks for all your work on these issues at any rate, Tom. It is obviously a pretty "thankless" task that is bound to piss off somebody regardless of what you do.

TT

[lagrasta]

I'm with Mark and Chuck on this one. I think we ought to just start using it and see what we need to adjust after some experience. And picking GGR's collective brain can't hurt either.

Just please keep the separate classing for TT vs AX.

[Mmagus]

Yes, I see your point.
I actually think tire size would be a better index for penalty points than rim size, and wonder why they chose that metric. TT

I really agree here and it might be afairly simple fix. For any given model just use the largest factory tire option as the base line and assign points progressively as the width went up.

OR

Use a more modern "standard" size as as the begining baseline, perhaps a 215 and go up from there?

[Cajundaddy]

Hey Tom,
I got in touch with John T. who heads the rules team at Zone 7 PCA-GGR. He is very interested in a meeting of the minds regarding a more consistent classing system and is very open to your input. How do I reach you with his contact info? PM?? email?? If you send me your email in a PM I will forward his contact info.

[ttweed]

Hey Tom,
... If you send me your email in a PM I will forward his contact info.

Tom posted his email in the first message on this thread: tb911@tbsoftware.net

In general, any member of the forum can email any other by simply clicking on the person's user name and going to their profile, unless the user has turned off the preference to allow other users to send them email (default value for receiving email is "yes").

TT

[Carl Vanders]

Just thought I should share, I have talked with a couple of people involved with GGR and one of the key differences in their rules vs are rules is their treatment of weight or weight removal. Their Philosophy behind pts for weight (or very low pts) is it is basically a mod that does not cost very much to do, so lets make it free. Its a given you need to gut the car in most classes.
This is quite contradictory to our rules and philosophy. There are also posts on the weight issue in their rule proposal forum (link). There are many other complaints/thoughts on GGR rules etc but you need to search. Also, many are active on ggr rules on 914 and boxster forums.
http://comp.pca-ggr.org/phpbb3/viewtopi ... =pax#p4153

GGR region runs very short mostly very technical with only 1-2-1-2 gear courses which average ONLY 35 seconds. Thoughts are the car to have is the gutted light weight 914. In addition, they also can run canti slicks on 15x 7 inch wheels for very low points. Basically they equal a 275-285. vs a 195-205 on stock 7 in wheel.
If we do adopt this system, I propose adopting our system of using tire width would be better and safer- For example, I have heard people stuff a 285 on a 7.5 wheel. As mentioned, For a better equalizer on weight pts maybe a fraction multiplier based off stock vs current weight? or maybe adding our current weight system adjusted to GGR.

I also think our current system and rules are well thought out. Maybe looking closely at all classes and results, we could combine more classes. Then just a bit of massaging on the BRI and were done!

[gocart]

Since the issue of weight came up. I think our rules overly penalize weight reduction. 4 points per hundred pounds? I think that is excessive.
During the last autocross I was only about one second faster without my student. If he weighed 200 lbs that should have been equal to 8 points!

[Greg Phillips]

Since the issue of weight came up. I think our rules overly penalize weight reduction. 4 points per hundred pounds? I think that is excessive.
During the last autocross I was only about one second faster without my student. If he weighed 200 lbs that should have been equal to 8 points!

Removal of weight, per 100 pounds (0-50lbs = 0-pts, 51-150lbs = 4-pts, 151-250 = 8-pts, 251-350 = 12-pts etc.) Curb weight is defined as the weight of the base car in the owner’s manual; ready to drive with all fluids (gas, oil, etc) full, tools, spare tire, etc in the car but no driver.

Of course it could be argued that what else could you do to gain a second.
The other debate is whether taking 100 pounds out of a 3000 pound car is equivalent to taking the same 100 pounds out of a 2000 pound car

Maybe we should be looking at your percentage weight loss?
Are the weight points excessive, or are other points too low (such as tire sizes)?
The goal of the Zone 7 system is to try and equalize the modifications, so that there is no obvious modification that is the best way to spend your points. If everyone agrees a modification is the best use of points, then that modification is undervalued. Ideally, increasing tire size, or softer tires, shorter ring & pinion or decreasing weight should all improve you the same amount if they are the same points.

That is currently not the situation in our rules.
Taking 6 tire points (wider & stickier) will make you much faster than the 6 points added non-stock ring & pinion or gears.
Taking 7 points for increased boost on your turbo is likely to make you much faster than 10 points for cam changes and non-stock heads
Greg