QUOTE (Aaron Cox @ Jan 23 2005, 11:03 PM)

it may be just me.... but how can a v8 car be in the same class as a 2.0 4????  doesnt seem logical.... like modified if the minimum conversions should be.

V8 conversions are all over the board...

the average V8 conversion 914 is NOT a particularly competitive AX car. i've only heard of 2 which were really strong AXers, and both of those would be well into modified or super-modified.

an average Bi or Bp car SHOULD beat the average V8 conversion at an AX.

that said, i'm happy to raise conversion points. what do people think: 75points? remember, V8 cars are adding weight -- and adding that weight higher.


EDIT: i thought about it and i think you're right, aaron. changed V8 conversion to +70, suby/rotary to +75. sorry, andrew!

QUOTE (ottox914 @ Jan 23 2005, 11:12 PM)

Any additional handicaps for HUGE paddocks?  Our local auto cross club puts on maybe a dozen events in a year, and maybe 1 or 2 will draw LESS than 100 cars.  We had a couple last season that closed the registration at 150, and had a waiting list.  The possibility of having a personal time closer to the TTOD is much better in a 15 car draw than a 150 car draw.

That is a very good point and seems fair.

If we're going to penalize drivers for small paddocks, we should consider handicapping drivers for larger paddocks on a plateau basis.

40-60, a factor of __? 61-80, __? 81-100__?

Hay, V8s should be -75 points

The field size issue makes this get rather complicated. IMO, we shouldn't get into that. Nathan is trying to make this as simple as possible, me thinks.

If you really want to get into that, your PAX index (which we don't do at our PCA) is the way to go. This is for fun (despite what the ulfster thinks) and our benevolent dictator is doin' fine. Consider this a trial year.

Hmmm...

Most GGR events pull in 120+ drivers at Alameda.
I plan on being in the top 10-20.

KT

QUOTE (J P Stein @ Jan 24 2005, 01:36 AM)

The field size issue makes this get rather complicated. IMO, we shouldn't get into that. Nathan is trying to make this as simple as possible, me thinks.

But we are already doing this on the other end of the scale.

I don't see what is complicated about 2-3 group size categories on the larger end while we have 3 group size categories on the smaller end.

This is certainly for fun, but we're all trying to think ahead and make it as fair as possible across the board. Correct?

You send your time in, the TTOD, and paddock size. Factors are applied for the short end and long end of the stick. Simple. No big deal.

thought about this myself, and dismissed it at first because of it seemed to make scoring too "fussy" and inelegant. but later, we had to create penalty rules to make sure the riverside pca guys were included (who apparently have freakishly low turn out).

i feel like we can have that particular penalty rule stand without sliding down the statistical slope...

I don't think i support this, but to be clear:
SUCH A SYSTEM DOES MAKE THE 914CUP MORE FAIR, AT THE PRICE OF SIMPLICITY.

I am happy to admin either scenario.

What do people want?
Vote on one:

1. just the present penalty for low-attendance events

2. A sliding scale penalty/handicap system depending on paddock size

e.g.
100+ total entries = 1.0 (no penalty)
90-99 = .99
80-89 = .98
70-79 = .97
60-69 = .96
50-59 = .95
40-49 = .94
30-39 = .93
20-29 = .92
15-19 entries = .91
10-14 entries = .9
5-9 entries = .8

At SCCA we run between 110 & 175.....avg about 140 (WAG)......Don't fit the scale too well. Fairness gets complicated, eh.?....but I'll vote with the majority.

yeah, fairness is always so complicated!

shoot, i'll go for it, though. as trekkor said -- we usually have high turnouts out here, so i'm happy to penalize most everyone else but me!

my concern is more than the added complexity of the system (which isn't at all great) -- i simply want everyone to have a good time. i really DON'T want people in smaller regions getting discouraged or feeling like they "don't have a chance".


there is also one additional solution: we could take (require) field size in each submission and try both systems out simultaneously.

Sounds like a good excuse to get out to as many events as I can, that is if my car is running by then.

QUOTE (J P Stein @ Jan 24 2005, 12:10 AM)

At SCCA we run between 110 & 175.....avg about 140 (WAG)......Don't fit the scale too well. Fairness gets complicated, eh.?....but I'll vote with the majority.  :D

We usually have between 40 & 60 in our region also. It really doesn't matter to me, I'll vote with the majority also.

QUOTE (nebreitling @ Jan 24 2005, 02:55 AM)

shoot, i'll go for it, though.  as trekkor said -- we usually have high turnouts out here, so i'm happy to penalize most everyone else but me! my concern is more than the added complexity of the system (which isn't at all great) -- i simply want everyone to have a good time.  i really DON'T want people in smaller regions getting discouraged or feeling like they "don't have a chance".

Since my SCCA driver turnout is usually around 60 cars, it will penalize me for the larger groups. If I race with PCA I will be penalized even more as a smaller group - so I gain nothing

BUT, it still just seems to be a more accurate and fair accounting as best we can make it.

I don't want those in smaller fields to be discouraged as well, but won't those in larger fields be discouraged? It doesn't matter to me, but I just had a feeling it might matter to others.

Whatever the majority or board decides, is fine and dandy with me.

When do we receive our 914CUP car decals?

This is so simple so listen up.
"if you want to win the 914 cup Drive faster" Don't make difficult rules so you can weasel in and appear to be fast.

Nathan amazes me with his patience
I work on the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid. Let's just drive the cars post your results and see what happens. Not like we are competing for $$$$ or anything else material.

I recommend we freeze the rules as they are and run it. If I had a 51% vote I woulda froze the rules after page 2. or High noon Saturday past.

I'm in.
I only came up with 375 points but I should add another 100 to make things fair.

Paul

QUOTE

2. A sliding scale penalty/handicap system depending on paddock size e.g. 100+ total entries = 1.0 (no penalty) 90-99 = .99 80-89 = .98 70-79 = .97 60-69 = .96 50-59 = .95 40-49 = .94 30-39 = .93 20-29 = .92 15-19 entries = .91 10-14 entries = .9 5-9 entries = .8

I have to voice an extremely strong objection to this.

One of the groups that I compete with limits the field to the first 75 drivers. Of those 75 spots, they reserve a number for "board members". Well, three of those board members also happen to be National Champions. So, if I compete in one of these events I'm whacked 3% because of field size and then my time is calculated against one of the three fastest guys in the country.

I dont mind the added points...

Im still with aaron!!! Hahahahha

245 baby...

Really doesnt matter to me. Want to bump me up another 5 points I would still be fine with that...

Aaron.. Keep in mind you got 300 lbs over me, and sticker tires. You'd probably get better times than me on an autox course...

Add one point for every pound your car is under the stock weight.

I just added 800 points

Paul

I am coming in at 215-235 points, depending on my tire decision for next year. Improved class for me, please.

Great suggestions so far, I feel we are really close to a ruleset as it sits now.

Paul, I was wondering when you were going to be heard from. I was beginning to to think you were sandbagging us.
T.C.

QUOTE (carr914 @ Jan 24 2005, 07:22 AM)

Paul, I was wondering when you were going to be heard from. I was beginning to to think you were sandbagging us. T.C.

Paul

Some simple advise for Nathan:

The more complicated this gets, the more work it is for you, and the more complaints you will get from the participants.

I think it is good to get everyones feedback like this, but don't get too caught up in trying to appease everyone. The bottom line is, there is no possible way to make this a 'fair' competition.

It doesn't matter how complicated or simple the rules are, there will always be cars that have an advantage, and ones that are disadvantaged. There is no way around that.

The most important thing that everyone realize, is that this is a FUN competition, not a FAIR competition.

You will have complaints from some people - that is a given. But I think the simpler the rules are, the less complaints you will have.

I also think the scorekeeping is going to be much more involved than you think. I'd keep things as simple as possible.

Demick

One scoring recommendation:

Since different participants will be on completely different schedules, it might make sense to have the standings based on average points, rather than total points. With total points, the people who have run the most events will be in the lead all season long, even if their score isn't as high. With average points, it should keep the standings more interesting during the season. Everyone will see how they stand no matter if they have run 5 events or 2 events to date.

But I agree that for season final standings, you pick the top 6 events for each person. At that point, whether you average the points or total the points won't matter - the results will be the same.

Demick

QUOTE (Demick @ Jan 24 2005, 10:31 AM)

I think it is good to get everyones feedback like this, but don't get too caught up in trying to appease everyone.  The bottom line is, there is no possible way to make this a 'fair' competition.   It doesn't matter how complicated or simple the rules are, there will always be cars that have an advantage, and ones that are disadvantaged.  There is no way around that.   The most important thing that everyone realize, is that this is a FUN competition, not a FAIR competition.

Well... I think there is wisdom in what Demick has posted.

It appears that the sliding scale may present at least as many issues as it resolves, so let's at least keep it simple.

As I mentioned earlier, the sliding scale would only work against me, so as far as my participation goes, personally, I have no problem with the rules as they presently stand.

I'm glad others have added some input on large fields vs small. I didn't want to start a big flap over that, but noted that there were some "modifiers" for the smaller grids, and wondered about the larger ones.

I agree with what others have said- keep it simple. This race within a race will be pretty cool, and will also never be fair to everyone. Unless we become like some clubs and have 1 class for each driver, (or so it seems) so everyone gets a CPT (cheep plastic trophy) at the end of the year, we'll never please everyone.

That being said, I to would go with whatever our "event master" decides regarding grid size and and adjustment factors.

I would also agree w/Demick on the average scoring during the season to keep the points totals more easily compared between drivers, and using the top 4,5,6 (or whatever the event master decides on) events for the end of the season totals.

2 more ?'s for the event master- have my points been changed from 255 to 225 on the semi-official list of entrants, and, can I run 2 cars in 2 different classes for the cup?

I like the idea of 914CUP stickers, or windshield banners.

Great idea, this cup thing. Thanks!

I'll play. But I'll need someone to class my car for me. And I'll need a running car.

I'm signed up for an AX school next month, so watch out guys!!

Jen

I'm in! Looks like I have some breathing room in improved class at 205

What are the points for 23 X 9.5 X 15 slicks?

And F/G rocker panels worth 10 each?

QUOTE (ottox914 @ Jan 24 2005, 09:29 AM)

can I run 2 cars in 2 different classes for the cup?

yup. you can. just submit two entries.

thanks paul for tallying things up so people can see where things stand.

other paul: thanks for adding some "custom" points to your rig -- you should definitely be in S-Mod.

demick: thanks for your concern, and for your advice. believe me, i'm going to strive to make this thing as autonomous as possible once it gets off the ground. i will not guarente immediate updates to mid-season rankings, but i can manage weekly or so.

the rules re. field size as they exist on page one will stand. thanks for the concensus.

re. mid season standings based on an average: thought about this. i'd like mid-season scores to show the average of the competitor's 6 best submissions (or their raw average until they get more than 6 submission), as well as other bits of info...

i won't be arranging decals, tshirts, etc., but i like the idea. someone else needs to take charge of this if they want it. talk to sean. i'd be in for a decal!

your benevolent dictator, n

QUOTE (Randal @ Jan 24 2005, 10:07 AM)

QUOTE

What are the points for 23 X 9.5 X 15 slicks?

see link on an earlier page -- i believe that a 9.5 should be about a 235-245, but do double check this...

QUOTE

And F/G rocker panels worth 10 each?

technically, yeah. sorry -- it's really crude but i wasn't about to set different points for different panels.

Jenny-Dman, awesome!

As it currently sits:

435 points, assuming the default number, i.e., 150 points for slicks.

Super Modified.

Randal

Guess I better play too I figured 230 points for the yellow car.

Paul,
The next time you update, can you add 15 points for my non-stock tranny gear, which will give me a total of 300? Thanks.


Nathan,
Thanks for your efforts and level headedness.

QUOTE (ottox914 @ Jan 24 2005, 09:29 AM)
can I run 2 cars in 2 different classes for the cup?

yup. you can. just submit two entries.


Consider this 2 entries, until such time as the "official" entry forms are ready:

225 pts for car #1 -improved.
490 pts for car #2 -S mod.

List meister, please update.

thank you-

David Parsons, aka "ottox914"

I'm in, assuming I can play. I live in Sasktchewan, Canada, and we have no PCA or SCCA events anywhere near here. The only local group that runs autox is called the Queen City Motorsports Association (QCMA). We use the Western Canada Motorsport Association (WCMA) rules. I'm hoping that this won't be a problem, but let me know.

Looks like I'm in the stock class with +60 points right now, although that may change in the spring with some new tires.

BTW, good work Nathan. This sounds like it will be a load of fun. Is trash talking permited? Cause it's no fun to compete against your friends if there is no trash talking!

I would say trash talking is REQUIRED, haha!

QUOTE (mike_the_man @ Jan 24 2005, 12:49 PM)

I'm in, assuming I can play. I live in Sasktchewan, Canada, and we have no PCA or SCCA events anywhere near here. The only local group that runs autox is called the Queen City Motorsports Association (QCMA). We use the Western Canada Motorsport Association (WCMA) rules. I'm hoping that this won't be a problem, but let me know.

You're In!

it's international now!!!


and yes, trash talking is a requirement !

Sweet! Despite the fact that I've only driven my teener about 5 times, I'm still pretty sure I'm gonna kick everybody's ass! Ya never know, it could happen!

I won't do enough (maybe none) autox's to play.
but I roughly added my points and end up around 390 or 395...

wow.. thats not too fair considering Joe's cool car (914RS) has a 3.6 with carbon fiber body work..

and I have all metal body work with only a 2.0L

hmmmm....

QUOTE (brant @ Jan 24 2005, 03:24 PM)

wow.. thats not too fair considering Joe's cool car (914RS) has a 3.6 with carbon fiber body work..

and it may not be. but 914RS should have at least 40-50 points in body work that you don't have, and at least another 50 points in engine that you don't have.

i'm looking over paul's list of the competitors, and for the cars that i'm familiar with, i think they're ranked pretty fairly. except maybe trekkor's car -- i think it needs more points . and demick needs more points, but that's just cause he drives wicked fast, not because of his car.

so, if you end up AXing this year, just be really, really, really fast.

QUOTE (nebreitling @ Jan 24 2005, 05:03 PM)

QUOTE (brant @ Jan 24 2005, 03:24 PM) wow.. thats not too fair considering Joe's cool car (914RS) has a 3.6 with carbon fiber body work.. and it may not be. but 914RS should have at least 40-50 points in body work that you don't have, and at least another 50 points in engine that you don't have. i'm looking over paul's list of the competitors, and for the cars that i'm familiar with, i think they're ranked pretty fairly. except maybe trekkor's car -- i think it needs more points . and demick needs more points, but that's just cause he drives wicked fast, not because of his car. so, if you end up AXing this year, just be really, really, really fast.

Part of my dilema was those body panels.
I gave myself points for "lightening" because its true that I lightened my doors, bumpers, and rear trunk...

but my panels are still all metal and my fenders are not GT's... (versus carbon fiber and flares)

I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill...

QUOTE (brant @ Jan 24 2005, 03:24 PM)

wow.. thats not too fair considering Joe's cool car (914RS) has a 3.6 with carbon fiber body work..

yupp, i'm in the same boat.
like nine14cats fully raceprepped chassis with a warmed up 3.6 ...

as long as the actual points do matter and not just the class you belong too ...
we'll see how this works out.
Andy

QUOTE (SirAndy @ Jan 24 2005, 05:09 PM)

QUOTE (brant @ Jan 24 2005, 03:24 PM) wow.. thats not too fair considering Joe's cool car (914RS) has a 3.6 with carbon fiber body work.. yupp, i'm in the same boat. like nine14cats fully raceprepped chassis with a warmed up 3.6 ... as long as the actual points do matter and not just the class you belong too ... we'll see how this works out. Andy

This is absolutely none of my dammnnn business and I won't even be playing.

Plus I really admire Joe's car and think it is beauuutiful..
(I'm only picking on him as an example)

but I kinda like the idea of racing where the primary factor is power to weight..

I know club racing has been talking for years about taking their GT class into a power to weight formula.

maybe for autox it is not as important.. but if there is a straight-away involved in the track.. this makes a huge difference, and it splits up the street (interior'd) cars from the gutted race cars.

ouch 440

it seems to me that this has been going on for ages.

If you make certain mods in the SCCA for expample, you bump into a class that costs big money to compete in.

If you lighten your car you are moved up a class...in that class you may do lots of other mods and people do all of them....so if you choose to just lighten your doors and bumpers, you will be at the bottom of that class.

This is why if you race you must read the rule prior to any mod you do on your car, and build the car for a specific class that you know you can afford to exploit.

Rich

andy, get some dot-r's and come play with us in Modified! (and give me a better chance to beat you in Fm!)

power:weight just excludes too many AXers -- too few of us have have ever actually put their cars on a dyno or a scale.

QUOTE (r_towle @ Jan 24 2005, 05:39 PM)

it seems to me that this has been going on for ages. If you make certain mods in the SCCA for expample, you bump into a class that costs big money to compete in. If you lighten your car you are moved up a class...in that class you may do lots of other mods and people do all of them....so if you choose to just lighten your doors and bumpers, you will be at the bottom of that class. This is why if you race you must read the rule prior to any mod you do on your car, and build the car for a specific class that you know you can afford to exploit. Rich

ABSOLUTELY AGREE...
(its the reason I'm building a new car right now)

Its just that (for example) Andy probably didn't build his car to run 914club rules.

nobody did..

so is power to weight a manner to equalize that ?

Also, I want to add that I'm not trying to be an A-hole.
I think this whole idea is Magnificient and I wish I was able to play. I'm only commenting on the idea... not on the wonderful work people have put into this!

(thanks nathan!)

I am in ...

I assume Super Modified... but until all the final debates are tallied-up and deciphered... I am not 100% sure of my 605 total.

A very late suggestion... if we wish to handicap by points why don't we use a system that already had a lot of thought go into it. Namely the system that GGR is dry running this year.

http://sandbox.visualproduce.com/rulcomm_c...mm_evalform.php

While it doesn't support those with V8 and Mazda swaps - I think they can be worked in by assessing an appropriate penalty, just like big engine swaps... or just do it with CC increases etc...

On the other hand if you want to keep this at the fun and simple level, just divide up into larger buckets and don't sweat the details. As an example I ran a fun autocross in 2003, and the class breakout was based on the # of cyclinders and the type of tire (non-R, R and Slicks) you used. This was a one day event with everyone present... It was fun, competitive but not overly so.

Just some random out of the box thoughts...

QUOTE (r_towle @ Jan 24 2005, 04:39 PM)

This is why if you race you must read the rule prior to any mod you do on your car, and build the car for a specific class that you know you can afford to exploit.

thanks for assuming that i haven't read the rules ...

with PCA, bill p. is running in a different class than i do, but in the 914Cup, he runs in the same class i do. it's that simple ...

as i said, that's *not* a big deal as long as the actual points somehow count as well.
i don't think a 350 point "Super Modified" should be treated the same way as a 545 point SM ...

just my 2 cents,
Andy

QUOTE (SirAndy @ Jan 24 2005, 05:17 PM)

QUOTE (r_towle @ Jan 24 2005, 04:39 PM) This is why if you race you must read the rule prior to any mod you do on your car, and build the car for a specific class that you know you can afford to exploit. thanks for assuming that i haven't read the rules ... Andy

nope. just commenting on Brant and some of his comments. Sounds like the SCCA Production Racing forum guys......lots of time arguing rules...

I would agree that a 350 SM is not equal to a 545 SM

So maybe a few more classes depending upon how many people are involved.

Rich

QUOTE

A very late suggestion... if we wish to handicap by points why don't we use a system that already had a lot of thought go into it. Namely the system that GGR is dry running this year.

Why don't we try something that has been tried and works, like a golf or horse racing handicaps?

Most every AX group I've seen has slick tired cars running in a race car group.......some bring a knife to the gunfight, but that's their problem....and was mine last season.
My car is built for SCCAs F Prepared. As it stands now, Bill would be in E Modified, as would Paul (maybe D Mod)and Joe. Am I crying....nopers, I'm gonna get em'.