Current Car Classifications vs Performance- Fact or Fiction

[Bill]

A few of us have been looking at the current classification system in the PCASDR and have asked the question whether this approach actually puts cars in comparable performance classes which are internally competitive. There has been concern in the past about the increasing number of classes and the way cars with wildly different performance standards end up in the same class. The top ten drivers compare their performances based on their times, apparently not their class. For everyone else, any comparisons have to be done by their CC class. Unfortunately, when one delves into it, there are some amazing inconsistencies and quite a few assumptions with no supporting data in these class assignments. To start to address this, one of us (BR) has compiled data with regard to the current system and has offered an alternative. The goal of any system should be to provide a balanced, competitive environment for each class. It is recognized that the system was just changed a few years ago and there isn't a lot of enthusiasm to change it again, even if justified. The attached pdf at
http://www.pcasdr.net/2013/misc/CarClas ... oposal.pdf
goes through some of the issues with the current system and shows how an alternative approach may solve many of these. 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. It is surprising how few drivers have read the rules, understand them, or know where they originated. To avoid the criticism that 'it's easy to complain without offering any solutions", a possible solution is offered. It has it's own problems but hopefully everyone will approach it with an open mind. It represents a substantial departure from the current system but has been carefully thought out and, unlike the current system, is supported with data. It would be interesting to hear constructive comments on both the strengths and deficiencies of the current classification system and the merits of the new proposal. Opinions are fine, but opinions supported by facts and data are better.

Bill Ripka

(with thanks to Don Middleton and Dave Diamond for helpful advice and constructive criticism)

[Don Middleton]

I want to encourage our drivers to review what Bill has done. It's an interesting way to look our competition. He got my attention when he mentioned handicapping the car-driver combination much as is done with golf handicaps.

The system can be used in several ways. But, first, it's important to note that the system takes a different tack. Rather than class cars, the system deals with the car-driver and its historical performance against TToD. The system can be used to classify TT or AX attendees for a full season of results and championship. Or, it can be viewed as another alternative to the car-class handicap of the BRI. I even see it as a possible third alternative to both our current classification system and BRI by creating new category - "Top Performer of the Day". BRI is supposed to do that, but it suffers from issues with the car classification system and its own index. Bill's system is not encumbered with any of theses rather subjective issues. Like golf, it uses "par" (in our case, TToD) to classify/handicap the car-driver.

Bill needs some good feedback to flesh out the system and fill any holes. Take some time and send along your questions.

[LUCKY DAVE]

(EDIT) I changed my mind after hearing the combined wisdom of the members speak.

I don't like it, even though I'm only a lowly autocrosser.
In my class (CC10) my 25 year old car is up against Cayman R's. I could have rocket engines and every mod on earth without EVER being competitive with the new engineering, the design is just too old.
Perhaps because of this, I only compare my performance to TTOD, where I can usually place (barely) in the top ten.
I could never beat a well driven bone stock Cayman R no matter what, I'm three seconds behind. An eternity in this game.

[Cajundaddy]

Hmmm,
I struggle with this idea Bill. I understand that you are more comfortable with a handicap rating system like golf or bowling, but this is not golf or bowling. This is competitive motorsport. In AX and TT it is racing against the clock. Whether it is auto racing, motorcycle racing, kart racing, or airplane racing, a competitor prepares his vehicle carefully to take full advantage of the ruleset. The fact that you can move up or down a class based simply on car development or tire choice is a feature not a bug with the current ruleset. If you are classed with a bunch of Caymans and you don't like it, run a different set of tires and change to a more competitive class for your car. It is both simple and inexpensive to move to a different class if you are not comfortable with your current one.

There are no perfect rules and they all have strengths and weaknesses. A competitive driver evaluates these rules carefully and develops a car that is capable of running at the top of his chosen class. The rest is up to him/her to both drive well and finish in order to win. Motorsport is not just a given performance on one certain day but it is preparation, car development and refinement, reliability planning, and rules strategy throughout a series. I am afraid running solely on a golf or bowling style handicap system would remove all of this off-track competitive energy and excitement. At first glance this proposal seems far too much like the "self-esteem" programs in public schools that were simply disastrous and removed all incentive to perform well.

Perhaps I am missing a big piece here and I am sure someone will fill me in shortly, but observing AX/TT top championship finishers in class and also top 10 BRI over the last 3 years, all drivers have two things in common:
1. They carefully developed their car and tire choices so they could compete at the top of their chosen class.
2. They drove consistently well week after week.

This to me is the definition of competitive motorsport. YMMV

[c4s4pcs]

Dave -

That is an outstanding, well thought out, and carefully written post - I agree with you 100%. Thanks for taking the time and thought with your post.

See you at Chuck...

Phil

[Jad]

Wow Bill you put a lot of time and effort into that! I like the creative thinking.

Unfortunately, with just having read it, I have several huge problems with the system if I understand it correctly:

1. You assume the current system is designed to make all cars in the same class competitive, it is not. It is suppose to ALLOW you to create a competitive car. You put 10 year old corded slicks on your car, you take the same points as for stickers, you decide for yourself which will help more.
2. Your system is very dependent on who shows up, so everyone has a moving target which seems to me as a bigger unknown than the changing track conditions you claim to fix.
3. Your system provides ZERO guidance on how good a driver you are. Should your GT3 RS be in RR5? Moving up to RR6 mean you are awesome and really improving? This is obviously not the case, but if you have a built 944 what class 'should' a good driver shoot for?
4. Haven't you effectively just removed all classes and just created a system of fastest to slowest, then artificially chosen breaks to create a 'class'?

Not trying to be negative as the creativity is cool, but this is just my normal advice to new students, "find a couple drivers with similar times, and see how you compare to them". Works great as a starting point, but really you need to compete with someone is a 'similar' car to see what kind of a driver you are. In your system, a 356 driver COULD compete with the GT3RS driver, but should they?

[Bill]

Dave, Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, it's not clear to me you read the pdf. The golf analogy was just that, an analogy. The pdf went into a lot of detail with regard to issues of the current system that you didn't mention at all. In fact, you said nothing about the classification rules or any of the obvious problems with them. When I asked you earlier where these adjustment points came from you responded you thought it was from 20 unknown drivers. Our Zone 8 representative said they were mostly subjective opinions or copied from other zones. I would think there would at least be some interest in whether the points that determine classes have any validity, independent of whether you think the system should be changed or not. From your comment,

"A competitive driver evaluates these rules carefully and develops a car that is capable of running at the top of his chosen class."

it's interesting that it doesn't bother you this strategy is based on a questionable ruleset.

Your focus seems to be on manipulation of the system not particularly on fair and balanced competition. I understand that is one way to view it. If you actually read the 2014 Rule Book for the PCASDR, however, it says the classes are determined by adjustment points to " better balance competition" (2014 Rule Book, p. 44). While personally advantageous, I'm not sure manipulating a flawed system results in balanced competition.

I have no idea what the reference to 'self esteem programs in public schools' is or what it's relevance is.

Whether you agree with this proposal or not, at least I had hoped it would cause people to question the origin and basis of the current rules. That may happen yet.

Bill

[gulf911]

Your focus seems to be on manipulation of the system not particularly on fair and balanced competition.
Bill

Now we are getting somewhere...

One other item that no one has mentioned is also the fact that the ruleset to build your car on , CHANGES. Which can and does put you at an instant disadvantage. Not to mention the current ruleset and flaw of AX to TT in a given class. Or new cars , like the Cayman , put into your class. So now what you buy a Cayman?

[Bill]

Thanks, Jad. At least I think you read the proposal! I would like to try to answer your comments:

1. You assume the current system is designed to make all cars in the same class competitive, it is not. It is suppose to ALLOW you to create a competitive car. You put 10 year old corded slicks on your car, you take the same points as for stickers, you decide for yourself which will help more.

This would be OK if you could actually 'create a competitive car' for a particular class by your choices. And this is probably true of cars within a certain year range or highly modified with engine changes, etc. However, as Dave M. pointed out earlier there is no way his car could be competitive in his current class no matter what modifications he put on it. This is true of other cases as well as pointed out in the pdf where modification points have to be used to bring an older car up to the handling standards of a newer car while having a major power disadvantage for that class. So the answer is, if the current system is suppose to ALLOW you to create a competitive car, it doesn't.

2. Your system is very dependent on who shows up, so everyone has a moving target which seems to me as a bigger unknown than the changing track conditions you claim to fix.

With the current system, with respect to your position in your class, it ALSO is dependent on who shows up. You only get points if you show up. At least one or more of the drivers who set the TTOD always show up so that doesn't vary that much. Actually you could set a TTOD for each track (based on an average or historical value) that would then be used to calculate the indexes so, in fact, it's not a moving target at all. That number doesn't really matter except that it be constant for a particular track. I understand 'perceptions' are very strong among drivers but you can see that from the data this is not an issue.

3. Your system provides ZERO guidance on how good a driver you are. Should your GT3 RS be in RR5? Moving up to RR6 mean you are awesome and really improving? This is obviously not the case, but if you have a built 944 what class 'should' a good driver shoot for?

I disagree - in fact, it's exactly the opposite. The system allows you to compare your performance with other similar driver/cars. This is EXACTLY what you TTOD drivers do. By grouping drivers by performance they are given explicit guidance on how good they are since they can directly see their improvement relative to their 'peers'. When they start to dominate in that class they move up. They then have set their bar higher and have a new goal. The way the current system is you can 'move up' to a higher class by buying a newer, more powerful car independent of your driving skills. The 'built 944' should shoot for a class where he is competitive with other driver/cars, i.e. performance. Why would he want to be in a class with no competition and where he dominates? What is his measure of improvement?

4. Haven't you effectively just removed all classes and just created a system of fastest to slowest, then artificially chosen breaks to create a 'class'?

This is a misconception that I understand and tried hard to address in the pdf and may be an unfortunate extension of the golf analogy. This does NOT remove all classes. What it does is create classes of driver/cars that are competitive in terms of actual, real world performance. It most definitely is NOT 'artificially chosen breaks' - it's the opposite. The breaks were determined by time differentials determined from data that defined classes by times that were competitive. There was nothing artificial about it. It came from data that can't be manipulated in contrast to the current system.

As I mentioned in my response to Dave H., I was hoping that at least this would cause people to reevaluate the current system. While you may not like the proposal, it should be compared to the current system which I believe has many more flaws.

Bill

[Cajundaddy]

I did read the entire pdf and found it both creative and interesting Bill. I just think it misses the point in motorsport. You are looking for the perfect golden fleece ruleset that equally balances performance of all modifications over a variety of cars and tracks. There simply isn't any. Z8 rules are designed to give everyone a reasonably competitive sandbox to play in. How you prepare for this sandbox is up to you. They are flawed just as F1, ALMS, Grand Am, Bonneville, SCCA, POC, America's Cup, PHRF, Top Fuel Funnycar rules are flawed. Rather than try to find perfection, top competitors in all these sports examine the rules carefully and develop a car or boat that can run at the top of their respective class. They are well aware there are flaws, loopholes, and pitfalls and ferreting out these and making the most of them is a significant part of the motorsport experience. I'm sure other F1 teams would like to slap a driver handicap on Rossberg and Hamilton right now but where is the fun in that?

We had a similar conversation here a few years ago with Adam Gill. He was driving Ruby very well but still finishing mid pack in his class and BRI. After much discussion he realized that a 993 C4 in relatively stock form is a difficult car to AX well due to weight and a lot of inherent understeer. He removed weight and the second driveshaft, had his suspension setup by an experienced shop and learned all about Comp tires. He developed his car to maximize it's potential in his class and proceeded to spank all comers. Adam continues to apply these lessons to Cupcake and has a giant-killer CC03 car that regularly finds a top BRI. Excellent driving + carefully developed car to the standing ruleset = Success

There is certainly no shortage of 911sc or older Carreras at the top of every time sheet so we know that they can be very competitive both in their class and overall wins. I don't see Paul Y, Eric K, Steve G, or Mark R in any hurry to go out and buy a Cayman because they cannot compete. These drivers seem to be doing just fine, cheerfully spanking well-prepared Boxsters and Caymans sharing their class at every event.. If you think there are specific glaring inequities in the rules and you have solid data to back it up, make a proposal to the rules committee for consideration. Don't throw out all the competitive energy that comes with preparing ones car to win.

[Jad]

Bill, just because Dave M agrees with you, does not mean his car is not competitive and 'doesn't have a chance'. While they are both very good drivers, could Hassan be better? and I am sure Dave would agree that sticker tires could have found him another second and I can guarantee you his drive was not so perfect that he, or Lewis Hamilton, couldn't have found a bit more time. Is it absolutely perfect, NO. Could Dave be at a few tenths disadvantage in his 951 to a Cayman R, of course. 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. Your system tells you nothing about your driving skills, only about how you compare to your average drive.

Do I compete for TTOD, yes, but also in class. So I would be in your top class, but when I lose at Fontana to Cup Cars, in my stock 996 (sorry couldn't resist), do I feel I just need to drive better? No, it is not at all fair to be in the same class even if our times are similar. I am pretty confident, Dave's 951 has a better chance against a stock Cayman R than my 996 would have against a Cup Car on slicks.

Sorry, 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. Again, the 356 driver with the same time as the GT3 RS driver, which one has the better chance of winning the class and moving up over time? A good driver, without changing their car, would ALWAYS go down the results over time as the new cars get faster. THAT is the most unfair part.

[LUCKY DAVE]

I seems this tremendous effort is driven by the newer cars, how they are slotted into the existing classes, and how much real world effect all the mods done to older cars make them competitive with the new cars (in most cases they don't).
Citing Erik, Mark, Steve, Hassan, etc as examples may be bit misleading as they are among the club "hotshoes" and would be fast in anything. 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. In motorcycle racing (where classes are based on engine displacement) older equipment has it's own class defined my manufacturing year, reflecting the advances in engineering as time goes on.
Whatever the club decides to do, I'll just keep on enjoying driving my car at it's limit and having fun

[LUCKY DAVE]

Bill, just because Dave M agrees with you, does not mean his car is not competitive and 'doesn't have a chance'. While they are both very good drivers, could Hassan be better?

Hassan IS better, anyone can see that, and I've never driven a perfect lap and never will. But he's not 3-5 seconds better. That's where the current system could be tweaked.

[Jad]

Bill, just because Dave M agrees with you, does not mean his car is not competitive and 'doesn't have a chance'. While they are both very good drivers, could Hassan be better?

Hassan IS better, anyone can see that, and I've never driven a perfect lap and never will. But he's not 3-5 seconds better. That's where the current system could be tweaked.

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.

[Jad]

Just quickly looked at the results from the last ax and the top 3-4 drivers in each class are usually pretty close, showing well driven cars in each class are relatively even. The bottom drivers in each class are all over the place. To me, that means the classes work, and those outlying drivers need to work on their skills.

The system does need tweaks, 991 are classed too low I think, but I much prefer what we have, to throwing it away and going contrary to every other racing organization from amateur to professional in 'hopes' of making things even.