PCA GGR Point System, Time to start figuring out how to fine tune it Options

[nine14cats]

A few of us run PCA events in the Golden Gate Region and Zone 7. This year GGR instituted a points system that took the place of the decade old system that had cars classed by type (mostly). This system needed updating and the points system addressed some of the updates, most notably incorporating the newer water cooled cars.

Unfortunately, the system needs tweeking to make it equitable. A glaring example would be Grant's current car in the same class as Andrew Blyhoder's ride. Both are in AX3. Or in Time Trials where TT8 has some cars that in technology and power to weight are very uncompetitive car to car.

I'm getting ready to respond to the Zone Rep in a PCA forum and encourage anyone wanting to join in the debate to do so. Go to www.pca-ggr.org and click on "online community". Just register and join in.

Here are some datapoints from my looking at it. I compared 2005 (the last season run under the old rules) and 2006 (the current season with the new points system).

I'll compare AX participants:

2005 = 227 different participants
2006 = 195 different participants

Number of classes where a minimum of (1) participant competed at least once:

2005 = 69
2006 = 23

Based on the above number the points system really was succesfull in cutting out the number of classes.

Now let's look at the number of classes that had enough particpants to qualify for the competition standings/year end awards.

Number of classes where particpants qualified for awards:

2005 = 26
2006 = 18

You could make the argument that people wanted someone to compete with, so they tried fitting into some classes under the old system.

Total number of drivers qualifying for awards:

2005 = 50
2006 = 53

Average number of drivers qualified for awards in each class:

2005 = 1.7
2006 = 2.5

This is a very interesting statistic. On the surface you would think that under the new points system that the average number of drivers qualified for awards would be substantially higher with the reduction in classes. I then decided to take out the biggest class in terms of number of qualified participants from each year (N class in 2005 and AX10 class in 2006), in case the number of drivers in these classes were skewing the data. Here's what I got for average qualified award participants:

2005 = 2
2006 = 3.1

Statistically, the percentage growth per number of qualified award participants was substantial, >30%. But in whole number terms....all this debate and we average 1 extra qualified driver per AX class? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif) One nice benefit we did see with the new rules is the reduction of single driver classes from 15 to 3. But the data says we moved that single driver into a class that had 2 drivers and made it 3.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)

It's my opinion that we need to make a few more adjustments with the new system.

Here's a few charts of what it looks like. The red bars show total particpants per class (even if just 1 time the entire season) and the blue shows the participants qualified for year end competition awards (in this case a minimum of 5 out of the 9 events).

Bill P.

[race914]

Bill,

Believe it or not, my 914-4 is in TT5 according to the current point system.

Anxious to see if changes can be made.

Greg

[grantsfo]

Yes it is an interesting system. TT is the most interesting given huge power to weight advantages in same classes. 165 hp 914-6's against 996 Turbos. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I'm willing to deal with mismatch in AX as power is somewhat equalized. However I wont be able to compete with Andrew or Steve N in AX unless I strip my car and throw on race slicks, install a LSD, etc but that would kick me up into AX2 or AX1! ..and they would still beat me as they are far better AX drivers than I. However I would at least like to have a chance from car capability standpoint.

If things dont change I'm just going to continue to build a car that gives me opportunity to shoot for top 10 places consistently at both track and AX regardless of classing.

Noticed the GGR classing system is down. Wanted to run my planned mods through to see where I end up in 2006 system.

[J P Stein]

Just for the hell of it (since I'm not involved) tell me what you're trying to accomplish.

A few things I learnt over the years....to your points, I hope:

Class inequities. We got those. The simple answer is RTFB. I would seem that NO ONE wants to run against Andrew......duh. Them guys didn't write the RB, but musta read it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Show up with a knife at a gunfight......who's to blame?

Awards. Sure, use the NASCAR ploy......show up & run. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Those are your hardcore AXers. Our local SCCA uses your best 7 out of 9. 5 minimun ain't bad.....

[Trekkor]

We talked about this for a minute at lunch on Sunday and I mentioned power to wieght as a factor.

It might be hard to get accurate data as not everyone will get their car wieghed or dynoed (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

In ax5, where I run, I was just a second off the pace. I blame that on my taking a hit due to my own mechanicals...I feel I can compete in my ax class.

TT...that's another story.
Dean Thomas is in TT8 with me and was clicking off 1:54's at Sears with me as a passenger. If he had open track, I see him running 1:50-52's.
Where am I ever going to find 10 more seconds?

He's in a mildly prepared 3.0 911 to my 2.0 914-6.
I *might* be faster in few corners, but his speed on the straights, esp to turn 7 just blow me away.


KT

[nine14cats]

We talked about this for a minute at lunch on Sunday and I mentioned power to wieght as a factor.

It might be hard to get accurate data as not everyone will get their car wieghed or dynoed (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

In ax5, where I run, I was just a second off the pace. I blame that on my taking a hit due to my own mechanicals...I feel I can compete in my ax class.

TT...that's another story.
Dean Thomas is in TT8 with me and was clicking off 1:54's at Sears with me as a passenger. If he had open track, I see him running 1:50-52's.
Where am I ever going to find 10 more seconds?

He's in a mildly prepared 3.0 911 to my 2.0 914-6.
I *might* be faster in few corners, but his speed on the straights, esp to turn 7 just blow me away.


KT

Hi Trekkor,

The power to weight for each car could be addressed from the stock base points level. The figures are published by Porsche. I don't think it would be that difficult to also just use a more educated swag on the points assessed or "groupings" of cars. Since there is no AX1....just put the zoomies there (i.e. myself, Randal, Andrew, etc). Besides, the DEC (drivers committee) are all race folks. Their collective wisdom could be used to tweak the system quickly and equitably. They only need to do it.

Bill P.

[nine14cats]

Just for the hell of it (since I'm not involved) tell me what you're trying to accomplish.

A few things I learnt over the years....to your points, I hope:

Class inequities. We got those. The simple answer is RTFB. I would seem that NO ONE wants to run against Andrew......duh. Them guys didn't write the RB, but musta read it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Show up with a knife at a gunfight......who's to blame?

Awards. Sure, use the NASCAR ploy......show up & run. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Those are your hardcore AXers. Our local SCCA uses your best 7 out of 9. 5 minimun ain't bad.....

Hi JP,

I'm all for one to pick your poison. And I'm a big boy and I run with the big boys. I have hardware that allows me to challenge for a top 5 at any regional AX I enter, so I'm not lobbying on my behalf. I'm lobbying for the other 90 to 100 folks that are coming out, or the newbies. In Grant's case, he drives to an event in his car in 2005 and he would have been GM, (modified street for cars past 2.2L but up to 2.7L, I think Grant has a 2.4). Andrew would show up and be placed in X (anything goes for cars up to 2.2L). Grant goes home for the winter and shows back up in 2006 and voila...he and Andrew are in AX3. He didn't get to read the rule book, the rule book is new.

It is my opinion that the DEC should revisit the points classifcation after year one and tweek what is needed. They have the history, they have the knowledge and more importantly IMHO, they have the responsibility. A new group led by others has to play catchup. And I'm not leading the charge to change much, just do a sanity check. AX is actually in the ballpark as far as calibration. The Time Trial points are much farther out of alignment. All you have to look at is Dan Thompson's 4 cyl put put going against 993 iron in the same class and you know it's not quite perfected yet. No offense to Dan, but he could consistently be a tenth faster in ever turn at Thill and those stock 993's and 6's are going to find him in their crosshairs in the straights and the high speed turns.

I'm after the DEC to finish what they started. They should be the ones publishing data, explaining what and why. Instead they cancel the only review meeting scheduled and stay quiet. It's an absence of leadership more than anything else. Other's will step forward during the next board election, but why wait another year. This thing ain't rocket science or brain surgery. It's mousenuts regional PCA crap for god's sake.

Bill P.

[DanT]

I was after the Adhoc Committee (they proposed the points system) for 3 years trying to get them to address the starting points values....they are grouped too closely together, yielding just what you pointed out in my class. I can hold my own but not against cars with 3x the horsepower...All the tracks GGR uses are HP friendly... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Going up the hill from 5-6 and 6-7 at Laguna is not going to be a fair fight between my car (even with the new slug) and the cars...(boxsters, 911s, 964s etc) in my class for TT.

At AX I think we are pretty close since HP is not as big of a factor...

Bill, the DEC is only there to pass judgement on the proposals presented to them each year...they are not there to write new rules or change anything....

If you or anyone perceives an inequity in our current points system, then they make a proposal to change them in some way like BillD did this year...
Our bilaws are not set up to enable the DEC to make wholesale changes...of course individuals of the DEC or the DEC as a group can detect inequities just like any of us and then make proposals to be discussed by us all and then voted upon by them...

THis is what happened in the early 90s....the Evolution Comm was made up of the DEC and some other interested folks and they came up with our old rules...

You are right the silence says volumes just as it did at the end of last season...
Larry is willing to concede that changes are needed and inevitable, David on the other hand is of the belief that things are just about perfect....but then again he and the majority of the Adhoc Comm that brought us these rules no longer run with us in TT or AX. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

[DanT]

Bill,
can't say I am surprised by the answer you got from David (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/w00t.gif)

[DanT]

wooohooo go Bill.

Now you are starting to get where Ken and I were about 2 years ago....
His responses are typical....unfortunately (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[race914]

I had several discussions with Andrew Forrest last year about dwindling GGR Time Trial turnout. We talked about the various reasons/challenges GGR is facing to financially make these events work out.

We did not however discuss the impact of the points system may be having.

What do you guys think? Is there a possible connection between current GGR car classes and TT attendance?

I remember back early 90s when I drove the 914 in the stock class "B" I was not too happy when an effort to reduce the number of classes eliminated all stock classes and I had to run with the 'improved' class "Bi".

With the stock classes, I didn't have to spend much $ to be competitive, the cars were more or less close to the same, and it was essentialy the driving that mattered. Not cubic $$s that were put into the car. The stock classes also gave the 'newbies' a place to start and not be completely embarrased by being compared to prepared cars. (helped new membership in my opinion)

By eliminating the stock classes, for me it meant keep the car as is and show up last in the timed runs, or.... spend a fair amount of $ to get competitive again. For awhile I took the third option and just decided not to run timed runs anymore. It was not exciting to always show up at the bottom of the list running against faster cars... Back then I had no motivation to "bring a knife to a gunfight". Eventually, I spent the $, upgraded suspension, tires, wheels, engine etc so I could have fun by at least being competitive with others in the class.

But at least back then, in the "Bi" improved class, after I spent the $, I was running against other 914-4s with similar improvements, not setup 911 track cars like with the current points system...

I know this probably doesn't play into everyones decision to run at a TT (Personally I just like getting the track time and seeing friends! (or is it just those lovey Motel 6 accomodations (IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif) ) But does anyone think the current points system may keep people from the TTs?

My position: I'm still going to run, and in TT5. Just not putting too much value on 'what other cars are in my class' in the timed runs. I'm going to continue to focus on improving my driving (with the help of TraqMate) and continue to gather data and make car improvements. I'm not going to worry how I can get my 914-4 to outrun track prepared 911 3.0s (which the current points system kinda pushes you into worrying about IMHO). The most important thing for me is having fun with the guys running around the same times, no matter what class they are in!

[nine14cats]

Hi Greg,

At this point in time I think the lowered attendance is due more with the fact of the increased alternatives (Trackmasters, NCRC, CDS, HOD, Leadfoot Adventures, etc) than the points system. And maybe from the fallout from the split that occured with the old CDI group and the successor group. I don't really see any of the old guard running anymore, maybe it was time to move on. I don't know. And several folks that were enjoying Time Trials moved up to W2W with PRC.

There have been alot of HPDE folks at the events this year. It has been filling up on the DE side (intstruction is maxed out). This coming year will be a telling year. If the TT series again declines in attendance, a new way to market itself will have to come into play. This in itself will probably make the point system debate secondary to the board. The TT series was a cash cow. At this point, it is not.

Greg, your car makes a great case for needing to review and tweek the rules. You can do all the suspension mods you want and coax a few more ponies out of that beautiful 4 of yours, but you're still going to give up more than 150HP+ to your competition. TT5 is the wrong class for the car. Power to weight you are probably TT8 and maybe TT7 with the suspension mods if you're looking at comparitive lap times.

I think the declining attendance is currently not the points system. I think it's a matter of GGR having to reach out to the market and having to appeal to the customer base for the first time. There are finally alternatives.

Bill P.

[ConeDodger]

I wish I had the time to really look over the AX rules and see what all is wrong. I have pointed out a few odd things I have noticed in the past but an exhaustive look is out of the question unless I had a miracle intern who was self-motivated, had good knowledge base, and.... awwww there I go dreaming again.

Since we seem to send a good number of competitive entries to Parade from this region every year, wouldn't it be a viable idea to use Parade rules for AX?

I don't advocate throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you guys who have taken a fair and exhaustive look feel there is something to be salvaged there... Again I have not looked it over exhaustively. I can just see something is smelly when I see 100hp cars in the same class with much higher hp cars.

[Chris Pincetich]

I really have no business in this debate, but am curious as to WHEN a decision is likely to be made. I was kinda flaky this year running in the fun group when I didn't stay out too late the night before and was within AAA tow range to home, but I want to register as part of a class next year in Zone 7/GGR. I have done enough reading around here to realize the RULES will dictate how to best spend time and $$ this winter.

I read the Parade rules and liked them, seems like a SCCA type thing. I would feel good running AX in an "Improved <2.0L class" especially since some 914s are going 2056 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) .

[race914]

Ok, another Monty Python quote "let's not worry about who killed who..."

Love it!

PCA is track time.... period. Real measure is with SCCA, IMSA, etc....

Who cares how PCA classes cars? It's not like you'll win or lose any $?????


Bye Now! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/poke.gif)

[grantsfo]

wooohooo go Bill.

Now you are starting to get where Ken and I were about 2 years ago....
His responses are typical....unfortunately (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Of all the people to turn into the poster child for class inequity! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) I dont even think I showed up for enough GGR events to qualify for for potential award in my class. I have never taken classing too seriously. But if helps to make a point I'm happy to help.

Next year I'll be showing up in a car that while not terribly radical should give me a better chance of going after top 10. I would much rather chase TTOD than win some abritrary PCA class. I have always gauged my success by picking a few drivers who have consistent results and compare my times.

[nine14cats]

wooohooo go Bill.

Now you are starting to get where Ken and I were about 2 years ago....
His responses are typical....unfortunately (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Of all the people to turn into the poster child for class inequity! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) I dont even think I showed up for enough GGR events to qualify for for potential award in my class. I have never taken classing too seriously. But if helps to make a point I'm happy to help.

Next year I'll be showing up in a car that while not terribly radical should give me a better chance of going after top 10. I would much rather chase TTOD than win some abritrary PCA class. I have always gauged my success by picking a few drivers who have consistent results and compare my times.

Hi Grant,

Hope you aren't mad I used your car classification as a "for instance". It was just such an easy one to use. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I don't think anyone will be arguing if we put the Hamilton Racing 914, Randal's Raby Silver Rocket, or Fritz in the same class and call it GT or AX1 for AX. But I'm pointing out to someone (whoever will listen) that some tweeks are needed from the initial rules design. It's a natural progression. Let's make it better if possible.

The TT classes have more of the inequities. My Spec Boxster for instance is in TT8 as it sits. A couple of 993's in there and several older 911's in various states of tune and modifications. Looking at a few of the TT8 911's, the older ones are going to have trouble competing with the Spec Boxster and the 993's. The mod points the older 911's get place them uncompetitive. It takes someone looking at it objectively to figure out whether to play with the base points on the cars or not.

I feel bad for the Ad Hoc committee members. Stick a fork in those guys, they're done. Not unlike many change agents they burned out long ago and no longer have the ability to listen or the desire to continue. Pretty normal, but a shame nevertheless.

I think the points system is here to stay and will work even better with some adjustments. If I didn't have all of the things going on with work I'd run for a board position or at the very least chair an Ad Hoc II committee. Since the framework is there, it won't be nearly the work as the original committee and maybe we can make the adjustments through the normal proposal process.

I just wish these Ad Hoc committee wasn't so toasted that they could be of help. That is not going to happen so we get on with life. I may just make of mess of things and step up to the plate and take a swing here...but I'm evaluating. I've got some heavy duty personal things going on and it's going to get busy.

Bill P.

[Trekkor]

I guess for me, in TT8 as well, is how a low powered car on 205's is supposed to be competitive...Regardless of the driver.

I mean, really, what would a "pro driver" hope to turn at TH, SP, BW and LS in my car?
Seriously, I'd like some educated guesses.

I just don't see it being very fair at all.

I'll run, but it won't mean anything to anyone.


KT

[Trekkor]

For your info:

I run: --- , and hope to run:

2:00 at SP--- ( 1:55 )
2:15 at TH--- ( 2:10 ) ( with turn five, "over the top" )
1:55 at LS--- ( 1:50 )

KT

[race914]

Hi Trekkor,

And your in TT8 with your 914-6. They have me in TT5 because of a non stock cam and carbs....on a 4!

Like I have any kind of chance running against the zoomy 911s...

No big deal for me. Not like there is any $ or trophys at stake (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smilie_pokal.gif)

Now if this was my living, I'd put some effort in to make it equitable... but it's just a fun hobby so I'm not going to stress over it.... Let the 911 big sixes brag that they beat a 914-4.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

Greg

For your info:

I run: --- , and hope to run:

2:00 at SP--- ( 1:55 )
2:15 at TH--- ( 2:10 ) ( with turn five, "over the top" )
1:55 at LS--- ( 1:50 )

KT