Jump to content
muddy

NASA-X Classing Structure Ideas

Recommended Posts

blacksheep-1

What are you saying ? A " PAX" upon you heretic.

 

Living proof that big motors don't correspond directly to big tired, great handling cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loren

Living proof (as if we didn't have enough already) that no "simple" classing scheme is going to be fair to all comers. There should be some measure of "reward" for showing up with equipment that is best-suited for the task at hand.

 

In other words... maybe our classing SHOULD allow the Lotus to have an edge? Let people make their distinction (and excuses) in their own mind. "Yep, I got beat by that Lotus... but I'm driving a Hyundai and I was within a second of him anyway... so I'm cool with that."

 

Keep in mind that this is not "serious" competition. We're a casual local club. People who want hardcore competition will go run the SCCA series. (and likely still run our events for practice)

 

I'm still 100% behind "tire-based" classing. It's simple and for 90% of our regulars it will work just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremy

Keep in mind that this is not "serious" competition. We're a casual local club. People who want hardcore competition will go run the SCCA series. (and likely still run our events for practice)

If one more person describes the local SCCA club as anything but a "casual local club", I am going to freak out.

 

The people make the club, not the rulebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Native
The point of classing is to have groups of cars together, otherwise just use the 56 SCCA classes and everyone can be a winner. Ideally I would like to see balanced groups of 5-10 cars so there is good competition for people at all levels.

I agree with this...

 

In other words... maybe our classing SHOULD allow the Lotus to have an edge? Let people make their distinction (and excuses) in their own mind. "Yep, I got beat by that Lotus... but I'm driving a Hyundai and I was within a second of him anyway... so I'm cool with that."

 

Keep in mind that this is not "serious" competition. We're a casual local club.

 

I'm still 100% behind "tire-based" classing. It's simple and for 90% of our regulars it will work just fine.

...and that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loren

Keep in mind that this is not "serious" competition. We're a casual local club. People who want hardcore competition will go run the SCCA series. (and likely still run our events for practice)

If one more person describes the local SCCA club as anything but a "casual local club", I am going to freak out.

 

The people make the club, not the rulebook.

 

Don't take that the wrong way. What I mean is that we are a local autocross club... period. People who are looking for competition typically want more than that. They WANT the better classing system. They want strong local competition WITHIN that classing system so that they know how they stack up against other drivers in the same class within that system. They want to move up to Divisional and National level events.

 

Our club offers none of that, so our focus is different. I know that the SCCA guys are very cool on the local level. But, for a driver who's looking to get involved in the competitive aspect of autocross... SCCA is the proper venue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremy

Yeah, I know, you know, what you are talking about, but I am just concerned that people who have never gone to an SCCA event will be turned off by things mentioned in this thread.

 

In reality, the local SCCA club has nothing in common with a divisional or national SCCA event, except the rulebook, and a lot of the time we don't even follow that.

 

You have just as much of a chance to run into a serious, competitive autocrosser at a NASA event as you would at an SCCA event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
impalanut

I think this has been a great thread. As a volunteer for the classing committee I would like to see some consensus in this thread, especially since it looks like I will have to work this weekend and won't make the meeting. We have discussed the following choices: continue current NASA, SCCA base+NASA points, tire based, displacement based, tire+displacement based, old sunriders, all with and without adjustments for mods. As I have said previously, it should be simple and verifiable, I would like to see 6-8 classes that are likely to have at least 4 cars on a regular basis. It seems like there are about 7-8 of us posting regularly. Please post some final opinions and hopefully some from people who havent posted yet. We need to be in a position for the committee to take the basic formula and work out the details and post for all to see in the next few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie

Am I to understand that I/H/E = Intake/Header/Exhaust?

Yes.

 

Turbo cars will definately benefit from having a larger diameter and/or free-flowing exhaust post-turbine...its within your 10-15% statement, but don't we agree that 20 hp (or more!) is a decent increase?

I think 20-30 hp is fairly small within the fairly wide groupings we're looking at. Look at the difference between a stock CRX or NA Miata (~ 115 hp?) and a later Prelude or Impreza 2.5RS (160-200 hp).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
muddy
I think this has been a great thread. As a volunteer for the classing committee I would like to see some consensus in this thread, especially since it looks like I will have to work this weekend and won't make the meeting.

Since both you and Jeff cannot meet this weekend, I don't see any reason to have a meeting at this time. I also agree that this discussion is going quite well and that we may be able to come up with a consensus on a classing structure on this board. We may not even need to have a committee meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Native

if you guys can hash this out on the board, go for it.

 

i think, that since there's only 4 weeks 'til the next event, the first thing you might consider determining is how much notice do we want to give people to reclass themselves, and with that, set a deadline for a decision on the classing structure.

 

THis is a great conversation/debate, and it could go on forever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blacksheep-1

Well of course they suggest using NASA rules, they are simple and make sense.

If you consider changing the rules, instead of engine displacement, consider wheelbase, then go for your tire rule thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charles

I think it's kind of funny that they suggest using the NASA rules.

http://sccaforums.com/forums/1/225901/ShowThread.aspx#225901

 

 

Besides not seperating race tires from street tires fairly I don't think anyone ever had much of a problem with the NASA classing.......

 

Stick to NASA classing aside from R-tires then split those guys into 2 seperate classes 3.0L over/under. Multiply displacement for turbo cars as someone posted earlier to bump the turbo 2.5's over that 3.0 mark.

 

Or choose an over/under on the tire size (225) to break them up.

 

Just another thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loren

The other BIG problem with NASA classing (ask Bill Flowers) is that the list of cars for base classing is incomplete and not as well maintained as we need it to be. This is why I suggested using the VERY well maintained SCCA stock class list as a basis instead.

 

If we want to stick with points-based classing, I believe that's the answer. Use SCCA's stock classing as a basis, and come up with our own mod points assessments that do a better job of equalizing street tires with race tires.

 

I think that could work, and I wouldn't mind that system a bit. My preference, however, would still be something much simpler. For a small local autocross series, classing that can be determined for ANY car that shows up at a mere glance without asking the car owner ANY questions is perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie
Besides not seperating race tires from street tires fairly I don't think anyone ever had much of a problem with the NASA classing....

 

While I'm perfectly fine with giving R-compound tires a larger point value or separating them out, I think you're making them into a little too much of a boogeyman. As it happens, I ran a few events on street tires this year, including one each at both SPC and Brooksville. A non-scientific sample shows:

 

Results for me on street tires (BFG Sport, 205/45-16, treadwear 340, on the car since fall 05)

2 Dec (SPC): 1.8 sec behind Levengood, 1.2 sec ahead of Edwards, a gnat's tush ahead of Frank.

9 Sep (Brooksville): 2.9 sec behind Levengood, 0.8 sec ahead of Edwards, 1.7 sec ahead of Frank.

 

Results for me on R-compounds (Kumho 710, 215/40-16, treadwear well under 100, ~12 runs/month starting in Feb 06)

8 Jul (SPC): 1.2 sec behind Levengood, 1.2 sec ahead of Edwards, 1.2 seconds ahead of Frank.

8 Apr (SPC): 1.9 sec behind Levengood, 0.1 sec behind Edwards, 2 sec ahead of Frank.

12 Aug (Brooksville): 0.9 sec behind Levengood, 1.0 sec ahead of Edwards, 3.3 sec ahead of Frank.

20 May (Brooksville): 2.0 sec behind Levengood, 2.8 sec ahead of Edwards, 2.5 sec ahead of Frank.

 

Now as far as I know, Scott and Rob were both on R-compounds and Steve was on street tires for all six events. I think the December results are a little skewed by the pavement condition -- R-compounds weren't as much of an advantage on the gritty surface -- but this demonstrates that at the level we're driving, the variables in the site, the course and the driver account for quite a bit. Factoring in course length, I'd honestly expected a more marked difference in favor of the R-compounds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
impalanut

I agree. I think we should combine the classes with very close pax times giving 6 street tire classes. We should have 2 or 3 race tire classes (I would favor two due to low race tire turnout) and decide whether or not to have a novice class. They would run with the regular classes but would be recognized seperately for time. This should cover all the cars for base classing. since the race tires are seperate we could eliminate the tire points. I think the rest of the mod points are fair except the motor change should be class bump to donor car OR 8 points whichever is greater. This should keep the group size and number workable for competition and work groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
impalanut

I thnk the other reason for seperating the race tires is less the actual advantage which can be debated and has been debated in many forums and more the perceived advantage. If so many people think the advantage is that big, than running seperately will eliminate the perceived idfference and more people will be happy with the classing. If most or all the people are happy about classing race tires seperately, than it doesn't really matter what the real advatage is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremy

I am liking this guy's suggestion about splitting it up by drivetrain.

 

The only thing missing is a "Street Mod / Street Tires" class, which naturally I would love because of my car. Martin Sports Car Club has this class (SMST). Who knows, maybe after 5 years it's time for me to try r-compounds.

Howdy,

 

 

 

Production car classes: Can't move any suspension pickup points on the chassis, Can't swap motors or change motor internals, Can't change/modify suspension arms / axles / differentials, Can't use wheels wider than any stock wheel, Full interior required, Tires 140 treadwear or higher.

 

P1: RWD 2.5 liter and under, excludes S2000 and Elise

 

P2: RWD over 2.5 liter, includes S2000 and Elise

 

P3: AWD all

 

P4: FWD all

 

 

 

Modified Production. Allows all Production plus allows anything outboard of the chassis suspension mounts (i.e. control arms, axles, diffs, gear ratios), Allows DOT R tires or slicks, Wheels are unrestricted but chassis cannot be modified inboard of the wheel hub. Interior may be partially stripped but must retain driver & passenger seats and oem dash shell. Internal motor changes are allowed, but must use OEM block

 

MP1: RWD all, AWD all

 

MP2: FWD all

 

 

 

Run whatcha brung:

 

RWB1: Anything that looks like a production car.

 

RWB2: Everything else.

 

 

 

Have fun.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AScoda

I think that, with a couple of exceptions, the drivers on R comps are competing for overall FTD, not just a class win. The top ten each event is usually populated by the R drivers regardless of their assigned class.

In my case, my decision to run on R comps will be certainly be based on competing for overall time, despite my car being in a sparsely used class.

I also think that if R tires are split, there will be a couple of people that will revert to street tires to compete in-class. Maybe, maybe not.

I think one R tire class could be used. No more than 2 unless we start getting more R equipped drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WAFlowers
The other BIG problem with NASA classing (ask Bill Flowers) is that the list of cars for base classing is incomplete and not as well maintained as we need it to be.

True, but there were only a small handful of cars through the year that I had to research power to weight ratios on to figure their placement.

 

This is why I suggested using the VERY well maintained SCCA stock class list as a basis instead.

 

The 2006 NE base classing seems to cover every car I've ever seen and many that I never expect to see. Plus they are working on a 2007 update that expands/adds to that list.

 

If we want to stick with points-based classing, I believe that's the answer. Use SCCA's stock classing as a basis, and come up with our own mod points assessments that do a better job of equalizing street tires with race tires.

 

What NE is doing for dealing with mods is greatly simplified from the old point system which we adopted and shouldn't be ignored, IMO. However, I'm not convinced it should be adopted as-is for a group of our size. Also I don't feel it adequately covers the issue of race rubber as it applies to a mostly fun run group like ours.

 

I think that could work, and I wouldn't mind that system a bit. My preference, however, would still be something much simpler. For a small local autocross series, classing that can be determined for ANY car that shows up at a mere glance without asking the car owner ANY questions is perfect.

Having had to deal with classing this year (mostly a hassle at the beginning of the year, and after that I could mostly ignore it) I can't argue against any system that follows the KISS principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WAFlowers

The FrankenMiata would be RWB1. Time to shop for wide, sticky R compounds and a LSD. While I'm at it, throw a supercharger under the hood and gut the interior! Then get some good instruction and lots of seat time.

 

OTOH, what do I care what category/class I end up in? I'm not a good enough driver for it to make a difference; I'm only out to have affordable fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
impalanut

Haven't seen much in the last few days. Let's keep the thread going and see if we can't come to a conclusion on the forum instead of having a meeting. Please reply to the new forum so we can get things moved over there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loren

Spoken with such authority that this thread is now officially closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...