Thoughts on the weight points in 2012 rules

[Mmagus]

Greg,

A question from the guy who can't balance a checkbook

Wouldn't having a car listed higher than it actually is be even more tough on points? Especially if we ever decide to actually weigh cars.

For instance. The manual on my car lists it as 81 pounds lighter than the 2012 rules say it is. Lets then say we decided to weigh my car and found it to be what the manual listed. I would then have to take points for being 31 pounds below the free limit, with a bone stock car. This is of course compounded if the weight listed in the rules is drastically overweight.

Or am I just screwy in my thinking?

[JERRY B]

The weight chart in the 2012 rules is not correct, A 924s weight is less than a 944 not more, Sorry Mr. Bray /Brown I had to do it
The one on the nasa page is better http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/time_trial_rules.pdf page # 20
87- 88 924s # 2734
83-87 944 # 2778
88 944 # 2844
89 944 # 2866
87-88 944s # 2975

[Mmagus]

No apology necessary to me Jerry. I informed the folks who are overseeing this about that a while ago. They will get everything straightened out I am sure. I dont envy their job at all and greatly apreciate their efforts.

Mark

[Jad]

Greg,

A question from the guy who can't balance a checkbook

Wouldn't having a car listed higher than it actually is be even more tough on points? Especially if we ever decide to actually weigh cars.

For instance. The manual on my car lists it as 81 pounds lighter than the 2012 rules say it is. Lets then say we decided to weigh my car and found it to be what the manual listed. I would then have to take points for being 31 pounds below the free limit, with a bone stock car. This is of course compounded if the weight listed in the rules is drastically overweight.

Or am I just screwy in my thinking?

If I understand what Greg said, your base points would be about 30 lower because of the higher weight resulting in a lesser power to weight ratio which counters the 31 lbs (81 x .4 = 32 points). So theoretically, the car would be in the same class regardless of it actual starting weight as the final power to weight ratio is what is important. Makes sense if it works. and it is a good argument for not messing with the weight formula.

[Otto]

Greg wrote:

quote

Remember the perfection is unattainable

I believe that most of the complaints will be people who feel that the GGR weights are too high, or at least higher than their owner's manual number.
In the past, ideally you wanted your car's listed weight to be as low as possible, so that when you took weight out of the car, you were not penalized for it.

Under the new rules, it is a two-edged sword.
1: A low listed weight would allow you to have a lighter car without needing to take weight modification points
but
2: A low listed weight would increase your power to weight (PW) ratio and increase your basepoints

Remember that the weights listed were what was used to calculate the PW and the subsequent basepoints. If you decide to change the weights, then the basepoints would also have to change, likely ending you up where you started from. The weights do not need to be 100% accurate for every car, (no listed weight will cover all options and possibilities) they just need to be fairly accurate for the model.

There is probably more variation in power output from car to car, but since we don't pull the engine and dyno them and get a crank HP, and rarely even check on a chassis dyno, we live with the variation.

This is another reason to use the PW and calculated points for your weight penalty, it limits gaming of the system.

unquote

Greg, you have been by far the strongest advocate of the new 2012 Rules and Weight Sheet as it stands but you conveniently fail to mention that your 911 SC is favored by that totally flawed Weight Sheet by a whopping 204 lbs UNDER the CURB WEIGHT shown for the 911 SC in the OWNER'S MANUAL. That is equivalent to a "gift" of no less than 80 points under those new rules. Should anybody wonder why you are pushing the status quo so much? On the other hand there are cars like my 1986 944 Turbo which according to that flawed Weight Sheet is 99 lbs HEAVIER than the CURB WEIGHT shown in the OWNER'S MANUAL, equivalent to an additional penalty of 40 points. Is that fair? Please bear in mind that our new 2012 Rules regarding WEIGHT MODIFICATIONS clearly state that the starting point for any calculation of WEIGHT MODIFICATIONS is CURB WEIGHT (not just "weight") and that can be no other than the CURB WEIGHT indicated in the BASE CAR OWNER'S MANUAL as it has always been for us. Consequently, to be impartial and fair to everybody the Weight Sheet has to be corrected to reflect the CORRECT CURB WEIGHTS according to the BASE CAR OWNER'S MANUAL.

The current Weight Sheet was shown to us only after the new 2012 Rules had been adopted. Otherwise we would have commented about its inaccuracy before adoption. Weights are all over the place when compared to CORRECT CURB WEIGHTS, some higher, some lower, some accurate. If those are in fact the weights that were used by Zone 7 (GGR) for the calculation of BASE POINTS (???) then the BASE POINTS should be recalculated using CORRECT NUMBERS (and that includes HORSEPOWER) to reflect correct BASE POINTS, wherever the chips may fall. If we are going to use that BASE POINTS formula, a very basic principle is to use CORRECT DATA, otherwise GARBAGE IN - GARBAGE OUT. Even so, important to note is that in the BASE POINTS formula, weight is one of many factors affecting the result whereas in our WEIGHT MODIFICATION CALCULATIONS, that starting weight is key in determining the WEIGHT MODIFICATION POINTS, something that Zone 7 (GGR) does not deal with as they do not consider weight in pounds in the assessment of MODIFICATION POINTS.

Anyway, what we should shoot for is using accurate OFFICIAL numbers, nothing more, nothing less, so that every competitor is treated fairly and impartially.

[Mark Garriott]

A better weight points formula would based on percentage of weight change, rather than absolute weight loss.

As Steve G pointed out, dropping 200 lbs from a '73 911S, '83 928 and a '01 986S results in a penalty of 60 points. (I added the 986S because its weight falls about midway between the 911S and 928.)

By % the reduction is:
911S -- 6.5%
986S -- 5.3%
928 -- 4.4%

A percentage-based formula could be this:

(lbs reduction - 50) / listed curb weight * 1140

For the 911S
(200-50) / 2310 * 1140 = 74.026. Round to nearest 5 = 75.

For the 986S
(200-50) / 2850 * 1140 = 60.001. Round to nearest 5 = 60.

For the 928
(200-50) / 3375 * 1140 = 50.667. Round to nearest 5 = 50.

*The 1140 is a calculated modifier to keep the slope/gain of penalty points the same as the old formula, using the 986S as a baseline. It takes the same # of points using either formula. It would probably be better to determine the modifier by mean weight for all cars in the list.

On a side note. It looks as though the mid-engined cars do not have the +25 modifier points included in their base points.

[ttweed]

The current Weight Sheet was shown to us only after the new 2012 Rules had been adopted. Otherwise we would have commented about its inaccuracy before adoption. Weights are all over the place when compared to CORRECT CURB WEIGHTS, some higher, some lower, some accurate. If those are in fact the weights that were used by Zone 7 (GGR) for the calculation of BASE POINTS (???) then the BASE POINTS should be recalculated using CORRECT NUMBERS (and that includes HORSEPOWER) to reflect correct BASE POINTS, wherever the chips may fall. If we are going to use that BASE POINTS formula, a very basic principle is to use CORRECT DATA, otherwise GARBAGE IN - GARBAGE OUT. Even so, important to note is that in the BASE POINTS formula, weight is one of many factors affecting the result whereas in our WEIGHT MODIFICATION CALCULATIONS, that starting weight is key in determining the WEIGHT MODIFICATION POINTS, something that Zone 7 (GGR) does not deal with as they do not consider weight in pounds in the assessment of MODIFICATION POINTS.

Anyway, what we should shoot for is using accurate OFFICIAL numbers, nothing more, nothing less, so that every competitor is treated fairly and impartially.

Otto has a valid point here. There was no mention of this change from "owner's manual" curb weight to the chart of weights listed in the new rules in the previous discussion and comment period for these rule changes. A lot of the work done in creating the hybrid version of GGR classifications combined with Zone 8 modification points which constitutes the proposed 2012 rules was done in a vacuum, on the fly, in a hurry, relative to all our past rule change revision processes. I don't think there is any denying that fact. It is one of the reasons the new rules were proposed to be implemented only in 2012, rather than this season. This actually gives us a year to discuss some of the "arbitrary" decisions made and get our suggestions/comments in for the next revision period before they go into effect. There's obviously no turning back, we have been set on a new path, so let's make the most of the opportunity.

I think there have been valid arguments raised about the weight modification points issue here regarding the base weight chart, whether mod points should be calculated as a percentage or as an absolute value, and whether the scale of the current penalty is appropriate or not. I hope we can gather some empirical data this year to support some of the opposing opinions about what would be "correct" or most accurate in "leveling the field" before the next rule revision process begins.

Some other issues we might be considering during this time is whether or not we are going to consider different penalties for autox vs. TT modifications, as GGR does, and whether we are going to develop/maintain a more accurate BRI (and if it is going to have separate indexes for TT vs. autox as our old one has had).

We also might want to revisit the engine swap horsepower calculations vs. displacement increase and individual engine mod points, which I have always thought were out of whack.

There's a lot of work to be done to get this right.
TT
(NO, I'M NOT VOLUNTEERING)

[Don Middleton]

Anyway, what we should shoot for is using accurate OFFICIAL numbers, nothing more, nothing less, so that every competitor is treated fairly and impartially.

Otto, based on my understanding of Greg's explanation, your car's additional base weight would have reduced it's base points by approximately 40. Greg's lower base weight would have added 80 points to its base points. If I'm not missing something, the end result is that this weight issue seems to all come out about the same, i.e. base point change versus modification points is a net zero. Am I missing something?

[Otto]

Don Middleton wrote:

quote

Otto, based on my understanding of Greg's explanation, your car's additional base weight would have reduced it's base points by approximately 40. Greg's lower base weight would have added 80 points to its base points. If I'm not missing something, the end result is that this weight issue seems to all come out about the same, i.e. base point change versus modification points is a net zero. Am I missing something?

unquote

No way Don, weight is only one factor in that GGR-sourced formula which calculates BASE POINTS and our WEIGHT MODIFICATION RULES and applicable points have no connection with GGR (Zone 7) Rules as they don't have anything like it. Our WEIGHT MODIFICATION RULES are based on CURB WEIGHT and so, logically and properly, the CURB WEIGHT used has to be the CORRECT one in the first place and that number can be no other than the CURB WEIGHT spelled out in the BASE CAR OWNER'S MANUAL that we have always worked with.

Granted, the weight used in the BASE POINTS formula ought to be the same CURB WEIGHT of the respective vehicle indicated in the OWNER'S MANUAL as that is an OFFICIAL number supplied by Porsche. I have no problem using that CURB WEIGHT number to recalculate BASE POINTS. What I am insisting on is that in any case we use OFFICIAL numbers as provided by Porsche in the OWNER'S MANUAL and that includes numbers for horsepower, wheel width and other variables that are part of that formula, instead of the bizarre numbers shown in the current Weight Chart, some of which make no sense at all.

[Steve Grosekemper]

Greg, you have been by far the strongest advocate of the new 2012 Rules and Weight Sheet as it stands but you conveniently fail to mention that your 911 SC is favored by that totally flawed Weight Sheet by a whopping 204 lbs UNDER the CURB WEIGHT shown for the 911 SC in the OWNER'S MANUAL

Wow... That's pretty interesting coming from a guy that that we have never beat at a Time trial without two spins on two consecutive timed runs...
But since I drive this car as well I feel compelled to comment.
Speaking of gifts, how about this one?

H. Increased or adjustable boost, or modifications to the wastegate or turbocharger 70

Let me get this straight, you can install a different waste gate or add 2 pounds of boost for 70 points or change the entire turbo charging systen and an extra 2 bar of boost and a couple hundred horsepower for the same 70 points?
Do I have that correct?

[rshon]

Otto has a valid point here. There was no mention of this change from "owner's manual" curb weight to the chart of weights listed in the new rules in the previous discussion and comment period for these rule changes. A lot of the work done in creating the hybrid version of GGR classifications combined with Zone 8 modification points which constitutes the proposed 2012 rules was done in a vacuum, on the fly, in a hurry, relative to all our past rule change revision processes. I don't think there is any denying that fact. It is one of the reasons the new rules were proposed to be implemented only in 2012, rather than this season. This actually gives us a year to discuss some of the "arbitrary" decisions made and get our suggestions/comments in for the next revision period before they go into effect. There's obviously no turning back, we have been set on a new path, so let's make the most of the opportunity.

I think there have been valid arguments raised about the weight modification points issue here regarding the base weight chart, whether mod points should be calculated as a percentage or as an absolute value, and whether the scale of the current penalty is appropriate or not. I hope we can gather some empirical data this year to support some of the opposing opinions about what would be "correct" or most accurate in "leveling the field" before the next rule revision process begins.

Some other issues we might be considering during this time is whether or not we are going to consider different penalties for autox vs. TT modifications, as GGR does, and whether we are going to develop/maintain a more accurate BRI (and if it is going to have separate indexes for TT vs. autox as our old one has had).

We also might want to revisit the engine swap horsepower calculations vs. displacement increase and individual engine mod points, which I have always thought were out of whack.

There's a lot of work to be done to get this right.
TT
(NO, I'M NOT VOLUNTEERING)

Yes, my original understanding was that the GGR-style points system was only going to be used as a trial for this year, but the SDR TT team adopted it (with all its flaws) as the official points system for 2011.

[Otto]

Steve wrote:

quote

Wow... That's pretty interesting coming from a guy that that we have never beat at a Time trial without two spins on two consecutive timed runs...
But since I drive this car as well I feel compelled to comment.
Speaking of gifts, how about this one?

H. Increased or adjustable boost, or modifications to the wastegate or turbocharger 70

Let me get this straight, you can install a different waste gate or add 2 pounds of boost for 70 points or change the entire turbo charging systen and an extra 2 bar of boost and a couple hundred horsepower for the same 70 points?
Do I have that correct? Steve Grosekemper

unquote

Steve, since you question my winning, hasn't it occurred to you that it might have something to do with driving to the limit a properly-prepared car? That is what our competition should be about and you guys can do it too.

With respect to the "gift" you are talking about, you know better that what you are suggesting is a recipe for disaster and won't work. Will for sure have to think of something to be competitive in the class I have been pushed into by the new rules that has me racing against the likes of Jad in his 996 Koni Challenge race car and an assortment of GT-3s. You see, I am willing to try it and I am not asking for concessions, just rules based on accurate numbers and honest classification of all cars involved.

[Greg Phillips]

Boys, boys, boys
Take it easy. This is supposed to be fun

I don't have an owner's manual for the SC, if someone does, can they scan the specification page with the curb weight and send it to me, along with any other owner's manual pages they have access to.

I did not pick the weights used by GGR, and I don't know how they came about, but they are listed as the PCNA official curb weights.
I was in favor of these rules before I knew what their weights were.

Assuming that weight listed for the SC is 200 pounds too low, the power to weight ratio would change from 14.8 to 16 and the basepoints difference would be 20 points.
Under our present 2012 proposed rules, the difference of 200 pounds would incur a 60 points penalty (200-50 x .4=60)
So I would theoretically have a 40 point gain under the current 2012 rules.

But if you have been following this thread you will note I am recommending that the current 2012 weight points formula be changed. Under my proposal if I started with the 2752# (2552 +200) and PW =16, the basepoints would start out 20 less. If I then removed 200 pounds to 2552, my PW would change to 14.8 and I would have to take a 20 point penalty. In other words, no gain.

I will throw another wrinkle into the mix. Assuming we decide to use the weight from the owner's manual, then likely each year could have a different weight, usually the newer models being heavier.
What is to stop me from using the backdate rule to pick the lightest year from the series for my weight

Again, perfection is unattainable

Greg

[Steve Grosekemper]

Steve wrote:

quote

Wow... That's pretty interesting coming from a guy that that we have never beat at a Time trial without two spins on two consecutive timed runs...
But since I drive this car as well I feel compelled to comment.
Speaking of gifts, how about this one?

H. Increased or adjustable boost, or modifications to the wastegate or turbocharger 70

Let me get this straight, you can install a different waste gate or add 2 pounds of boost for 70 points or change the entire turbo charging systen and an extra 2 bar of boost and a couple hundred horsepower for the same 70 points?
Do I have that correct? Steve Grosekemper

unquote

Steve, since you question my winning, hasn't it occurred to you that it might have something to do with driving to the limit a properly-prepared car? That is what our competition should be about and you guys can do it too.

With respect to the "gift" you are talking about, you know better that what you are suggesting is a recipe for disaster and won't work. Will for sure have to think of something to be competitive in the class I have been pushed into by the new rules that has me racing against the likes of Jad in his 996 Koni Challenge race car and an assortment of GT-3s. You see, I am willing to try it and I am not asking for concessions, just rules based on accurate numbers and honest classification of all cars involved.

Otto,
I am not questioning your whining and did not even call it whining; that is a conclusion you came up with all on your own.
I question your sense of fair play to call out a "Gift" rule when you have been basking in the prosperity of the turbo boost rule for as long as I have been running with you since 2000. Back then you had Autothority Stage-II software which gave you an additional 45 HP for 7 points (in the old rules). There is no way I can get 45-150 HP for 7/70 points. I agree with you that that the policing of the turbo boost rule is near impossible... But that doesn't make it any less a gift. And yes I could throw on a set of slicks and be more competitive, but I wouldn't be having any more fun because I would be uncomfortable about the cost to speed ratio. That and it would ruin the satisfaction of finally beating you in an inferior car.

That being said; if you are expecting a perfect rule set that is fair for everyone you will spend your life banging your head against the wall...Just like this guy.
The goal is to make it as fair as possible for as many as possible.

As far as running against Jad you truely have my condolences. But don't blame the car: in equal equipment I don't think anyone in our TT series could beat him.
I have just seen him do the impossible too many times in whatever he happens to be piloting; 911, Kart or LMP2 car.
If he wasn't such a great guy I would probably hate him.

[mrondeau]

As far as running against Jad you truely have my condolences. But don't blame the car: in equal equipment I don't think anyone in our TT series could beat him.
I have just seen him do the impossible too many times in whatever he happens to be piloting; 911, Kart or LMP2 car.
If he wasn't such a great guy I would probably hate him.

Maybe we should bring back the voodoo doll.