Equalization Philosophy

[Al Seim]

This is a topic which has been touched on several times, but not recently as a standalone topic.....

How do you think SCCA (ie advisory committee and CRB) should ideally handle Prod class performance equalization with respect to performance on various types of tracks?

What I mean by this....

One of the great - and troublesome - aspects of the Prod group is the very disparate types of cars included, everything from Lotus 7s and Bugeye Sprites to Acura Integras and VW Golfs. Even within a class, this leads to big variations in power/weight and power/aero drag ratios, leading to large variations in the way the cars "make speed" and in particular the sort of track that a particular car will excel on.

Common sense says that if a car were, say, very light and boxy, and another were heavier and sleek, that if the two were equalized at a slow handling track, the heavier sleeker car would likely run away at a super fast / long straight track. And vice versa.

Thus it would seem to be a given that there will be a "horses for courses" variation as to class competitiveness on a track by track basis

 

[Al Seim]

next page

So that leads to the philosophy question:

Assuming that everything could be controlled, should the classes be "fair" at:

1. An average track, leading to the possibility that they are skewed at the Runoffs track if it is not "average"?

2. The Runoffs track, whatever it happens to be at the time, leading to the possibility that they are skewed at an "average" track?

3. Some balance in between, hoping for the minimum skew at Runoffs and "rest of the world"?

I think that this is an important question and have never really seen it directly addressed. I recognize that it is not a clear cut subject and cuts near to many interests, but I think an open discussion would be useful.

Also - maybe hoping for too much - but if we can discuss without veering off into "why my car needs bigger carbs" or "why did the SOBs eliminate my class" it might be better.... :?

 

[Ron Bartell]

I will give you one data point that was not well-received by those that do not run the runoffs:

To most National racers the Runoffs is everything. I could care less what happens during the regular season because we don't get big fields and we don't get the best drivers to run against. So consequently, for those of us with that mentality, make it so the cars are equal at the runoffs. Adjust the performance so that the one race that means something gives everyone a chance to win at that track. Make it a runoffs-only adjustment, meaning at that track, for that runoffs the cars need to have this weight.

That way everyone who doesn't run the runoffs doesn't have to change anything. Everyone who does gets to be competitive at a track that might be a disadvantage for their car.

I'll throw out another idea that may or may not be well-received: Give the winner of the runoffs a weight penalty automatically. If he wins three or four years in a row with three or four years of additional weight, maybe, just maybe, whatever the CRB was using to determine the specifications for that car needs to be looked at. That way everyone with the same car doesn't get penalized because one car wins.

Flame away.

 

[kruck]

It has always been my belief, and will always continue to be, that if the parity in your class is so close that simply the layout of the track determines what cars are going to be perceived as "the car to have" by whomever, you're doing one hell of a job.

I went through it in IT, where when I first started racing in it, every class had a very clear 1-2 "cars to have". Now, I can make you a list of ~10 in every one, that I believe are competitive cars. But then the complaining went from "My car isn't competitive!" to "My car isn't one of the most competitive at every, single style of track!". The very definition of splitting hairs, in my opinion, but the nature of competitive people.

As to the suggestion of totally seperate classifications for "The Runoffs Track" (TRT, and yes I just made that up), that sounds like an absolute logistical nightmare. Seriously think about that. First of all, who decides what they should be? The PAC? The PAC aren't psychics, so only after MAYBE three years worth of data at the TRT, they could MAYBE take a shot at doing something like that. Before that, it's purely guessing and speculation, which we all know is very dangerous and will ABSOULUTELY not lead to the desired outcome. And then once that shot is taken, people still won't be happy unless every single car crosses the finish line at the exact same time. "My car didn't get enough of a break for TRT!" So how has that changed anything? It hasn't. The point being, attempting to micro-manage it to that degree, is going to be nothing but an even further exercise in futility and frustration. Like I said earlier, if the your class parity is so close that the layout of the track determines what cars are "the favorites", than you're doing one hell of a job. But with what's being talked about, you're talking about trying to balance an elephant on a pin-head.

The "automatic weight penalty to The Runoffs winner" has been discussed before, and I will always be against it. To me, that's the auto racing equivalent of giving gold medals to every kid who plays little league baseball. Performing and playing the game better than anyone else, no matter what the game is, should be rewarded, applauded, and recognized, not punished. That absolutely does not mean that parity shouldn't be continually looked out, but an automatic penalty to the winner is just insulting, in my opinion. Should Gauper have to weigh more this year because he made the right tire choice, had fantastic home-track knowledge, and was in a wet-weather friendly FWD car? Should Pritchard have to, for nailing his setup and tire choice, and showing the driving skill that had already made him a Runoffs champion in a totally different style of class? Should I have had to after running the fourth fastest race lap, yet staying clean and consistent to the checker? The answer to all of those is "no". But then I also ask myself, what about a performance like Sargis' in FP last year, where he took a pretty unchallenged win in good conditions? My answer is still "no". It's the duty of the rest of us to catch him. To work harder, fine-tuning our cars and our driving, creating an even better bullet. Honestly, to me, the idea of automatically slowing him down "to my level" is just as insulting to my abilities as it is to his accomplishments.


This is all just my opinion, and its Cliff Notes remain: "In the big picture, things are pretty damn good right now."

 

[blamkin86]

I realize the horse is already out of the barn on this one -

- however I do wish there were some sane limits at the endpoints of class weights. Say- I don't know 25% of the lightest car in the class. If the lightest car is 2000lbs, then nothing over 2500 gets put into that class. (BTW 25% is totally arbitrary.)

It isn't easy, but limiting class weight endpoints limits the differences in the way cars within a class get their laptimes. And as I said, it can't be fixed now (however I did read that some of the heavier/more powerful EP cars may create a new class in the future).

The alternative to this is to throw enough weight or enough turbos around to get us to all run in the same class (or 5 classes as someone here keeps suggesting). I don't like that idea at all. It gives us exactly the problem suggested here.

It's basically two-faced to say we don't need more classes, then add an outlier car with some sort of wacky adjustment just to get it to fit into an existing class. You can't have it both ways - are people with very different cars wanting to come race with us or not?

Would anyone really start a new club and put a 1500lb lotus in the same class with a 2800lb BMW? What builder or spectator audience are you going for there?

 

[JohnMcNaughton]

The thought of fine tuning for large discrepencies (weight/aero/brakes/H.P.) is not the issue in my thoughts below. The subject does warrant discussion.

I don't like the idea of a competitive adjustments "at the Runoffs". If you spend all year tuning the car, and are then awarded 250 pounds of lead for your efforts, could you tune around that on the next track session, this afternoon?

I don't believe all cars are equally prepared at the runoffs. Neither are the drivers equally skilled. They never have been, never will be. Many will take a few years of attendance to finally get their car/driver to that level of competition. But, they go every year to check their calibration against the better prepared cars and drivers. And they continue to improve every year. So, with that thought, how can you expect to have parity deeper into or even thru out the field?

The runoffs are the best possible opportunity to compete with your best efforts, against the best of your class from around the country. And not everyone is simultaneously prepared, every year, to the same high level. The attendees are the best of club racing, and (usually) not racing on a pro budget. Even the winning driver walks away from the race with a better knowledge of how to get better, and has gained even more experience for next year. Those finishing in the front know they were prepared. Those finishing behind them know what is needed to step up, next year. And for some, that may include more fishing and less racing.

That is the value of the runoffs.
Over time, it improves all of us.
Quick, I need a green flag!!!

 

[Larry Frankenstein]

Al, yes this is worth discussion.

How do you think SCCA (ie advisory committee and CRB) should ideally handle Prod class performance equalization with respect to performance on various types of tracks?

Like you said this has been discussed before. Part of that discussion revolved around a formula taking in as many vehicle factors as possible. IIRC the IT guys came up with a formula, but one of the boards crapped on it. Then, once you get the boards involved the “ideally” part goes straight to he77.

Also, Having enough classes to distribute the cars in would also be required. G(ee), where have I heard this before?

There are several interesting words in your next part.

So that leads to the philosophy question:
Assuming that everything could be controlled, should the classes be "fair" at:

What is the Production car philosophy? I don’t mean the words that are in the PCS (and ignored by the board(s).
Controlled by whom? Again the board(s), have yet to exhibit much of any level of control over what they do.

My vote in the wonderful lil world you are imagining would be,
3. Some balance in between, hoping for the minimum skew at Runoffs and "rest of the world"?

Thank you,
L

 

[Ron Bartell]

.......an automatic penalty to the winner is just insulting, in my opinion. ......... is just as insulting to my abilities........

OK, OK Kevin - So you're insulted that someone would think that your championship would have anything to do with a car advantage, so there would never be a need to adjust the weight in your opinion. I'm equally insulted that after winning two championships that you would think that my program is not what it could be. So we're both insulted.

Unlike you, I look at adding weight to the winner as a badge of honor. When I won I would have been glad to carry more weight than similar cars if that is what someone thought was needed.

If you read what I said, the thought is that if a car happens to have an unfair advantage due to misinterpreted performance factors, an automatic adjustment would kick in without the competitors having to go hat in hand and ask for an adjustment, dealing with people who think they can't drive or need to develop their car better. And the good news is it only affects the winner, so those that are still developing their car aren't put off the way they are when all of them get the "Sargis weight".

It is done in the pros, why is it such an insult for club racing? Sure when someone wins because they were lucky because of conditions or crashes it is not apprpriate, but if I remember correctly I felt pretty good about winning, and wouldn't mind taking a hit in weight for the next year if it meant that I could win a Championship by luck or happenstance.

The fact is that the cars are all pretty close if you consider a championship level car fighting for top 7 status. I don't consider this close in either the F or H classes, where Spridgets were once battling for the lead, and now don't even attend due to being uncompetitive. Yet at other tracks they still hold lap records and could do well against any and all comers. Hence the need for a Runoffs-only adjustment.

But OK, if the PAC and CRB can't implement a program for runoffs only adjustments because it is too difficult, then so be it. Don't really care if anyone agrees with this or not. I know from talking to others that are in the same boat as I am that it is an issue. If the CRB wants to compare the grid from 10 years ago with last year they might see the problem. At least I will continue to show up and contest it. Maybe with our weight break in H we can get a few more of the old guard to show up as well.

 

[James Rogerson]

I just don't believe that the Spridget is uncompetitive, period. I get to run against Bob Weber and John Trenery several times a year. They seldom fail to beat me, especially at TWS which is a fast, high speed track. It's different at MSR Houston for several reason and not because I don't tell them what the real line is either. Bob's car is just flat faster then mine. More fragile, but faster. Personally, I think that after the G consolidation and changes to the cars many Spridget owners talked themselves out of competing. All you H guys can go to Mid-Ohio and move any of those records that Weber has, he still has that car and I can affirm what the rear looks like. I've only seen the front a couple of times. :roll:

Those two cars are absolutely top of the line and the drivers are as well.

James

 

[Ron Bartell]

I just don't believe that the Spridget is uncompetitive, period.

Sometimes I don't know why I even bother. James, you are not listening. No one is saying the Sprite is uncompetitive. The Sprite is very competitive at virtually every other track besides RA. That is the whole point. It is dominent at tracks like Lime Rock. The track makes a difference and in the case of RA it makes a big difference. Why do you think that you haven't seen Weber and Trenery at RA? or Collishaw or Salisbury?

I get to run against Bob Weber and John Trenery several times a year. ...Those two cars are absolutely top of the line and the drivers are as well.

Some day I hope to be as fast as those two. Maybe this year they will attend RA and show us all how fast a good Sprite can be. Or maybe they will help me prove my point.

Sorry Al. Didn't mean to make this a forum for why my car needs bigger carburetors, but this discussion is really germain to the fact that maybe at outlier tracks like RA and Lime Rock there should be a track-specific adjustment, at least when it is a runoffs venue. It may be difficult to administer as Kevin suggested, but it is the only way to achieve parity. The CRB gave the roadsters a 50 lbs break this year which is not needed at all of the other tracks and is not enough to make much of a difference at RA. Wrong approach IMHO.

 

[Al Seim]

Sorry Al. Didn't mean to make this a forum for why my car needs bigger carburetors, but this discussion is really germain to the fact that maybe at outlier tracks like RA and Lime Rock there should be a track-specific adjustment, at least when it is a runoffs venue. It may be difficult to administer as Kevin suggested, but it is the only way to achieve parity. The CRB gave the roadsters a 50 lbs break this year which is not needed at all of the other tracks and is not enough to make much of a difference at RA. Wrong approach IMHO.

No apology needed, this discussion is spot on as far as I'm concerned.

IMO, it would be out of the question to try to do anything track-specific for anything other than "the runoffs track", too much work with too little data for too little return.

But - if it was felt to be worth doing - not an insurmountable task if applied to the runoffs track. Several reasons:

1. I think most of the objective data used for performance adjustment is data from the runoffs, whether it's lap times, trap speeds or black box GPS data.

 

[Al Seim]

(next page, my browser persists in making it hard to type long posts)

2. I think that in many instances, the adjustment process is actually a bit hamstrung by doubt as to whether a runoffs-derived adjustment proposal is really "fair" at the rest of the tracks.

3. There is actually quite a bit of objective info available, between the GPS boxes and sim tools such as Lapsim (which are now in use by other class' advisory committees) but again more for RA than "rest of world".

I think that it is certainly true in H Prod that there is at least a perception that the Spridgets can't do it at Road America and that this has hurt Runoffs participation (and thus Nationals participation) from what used to be the dominant car in H. I also think that there is a perception that an adjustment big enough to make the Spridget a strong contender at RA would make it dominant at an "average track". Absent the second consideration I'd strongly suspect that the PAC might be tempted (and I wouldn't disagree with them despite not owning a Sprite) to throw something to the Sprites at RA only.

The H Sprite example illustrates the point well, I think, but is obviously a bit moot as they just got 50 lb I think and of course the results have not been seen.

 

[Gary Wittman]

The CRB gave the roadsters a 50 lbs break this year which is not needed at all of the other tracks and is not enough to make much of a difference at RA. Wrong approach IMHO.

Ron, If you think that is the wrong approach, why did you ask for it? It was your letter that initiated the discussion and resultant reduction in weight for the Spridgets and Spitfires.

My question about adjusting cars/drivers is; do we want to turn SCCA Club racing into handicap racing? We certainly want to adjust the cars potential as much as possible to achieve parity in class but adjusting a car because of the drivers ability just hits a sour note in my opinion. I don't like penalizing all the cars of the same type as the Runoffs winner either but this was the policy in the past. This was mostly due to requests from drivers that did not win.

I think handicap competition works fine in bowling and golf. I don't think it belongs in SCCA racing but if that is what everyone wants, get your letters together and send them in.

 

[JessePrather]

In my opinion the main problem is that the runoffs are currently at a track that does not work very well with our production classes. This will only get fixed when the runoffs move again to a track with shorter straights. It's worse with the H cars since timewise they're on the straights longer, much longer than an EP car for example. It's still a road course of course but when you have VERY good drivers at the same track with excellent cars, the front running cars are going to be the guys who have better power to weight and can drive the car.

For a Mid Ohio or Heartland Park I think the classes are very equal and the biggest disparity within any of our classes is preparation and driving ability.

If I had to vote for anything it would be to move the runoffs to a track where the balance is better between power and handling.

 

[Ron Bartell]

Gary - That is a little bit disingenuous. My request was all about the discrepency in performance at RA, and even stated that it was not needed at other tracks. So if you wanted to do an RA-only adjustment you could have. I officially asked for what I thought I could get and it was after being told on this web site that we shouldn't do a runoffs only adjustment by people who were in a position to control what happens. People like you, although I don't recall whether you specifically stated it.

I identified an 80 lbs discrepency just to get us back to where we started, and suggested that a 50 to 75 lbs adjustment was in order for the Sprite. We got 50 and it was for some cars that weren't included in my request and haven't really shown that they need it. But OK, thank you very much. It is much better than nothing and I intend to make the most of it. I knew it would be across the board for all tracks, so it probably wouldn't be enough for RA. But I am happier than I would be without it.

Thank you again, and for all of the PAC and CRB volunteers who put up with all of this. It can't be fun.

 

[Gary Wittman]

I think that 50 lb reduction for the Spridgets and Spitfires is about as close as we are going to get to a Runoffs only competition adjustment. I think it would be a good bet that when we get a new track for the Runoffs, that 50 lbs will get slapped back on. The only thing that would keep it off is if the "big bore" HP car drivers find a way to get them around corners faster. In time they may do that.

Ron, The subject title to your letter was "Weight or Performance Adjustment for Older H Production Cars". I know in the body of the letter you were asking primarily for an adjustment to your car (1275 L1/L2 hybrid) but it was hard to just make an adjustment to one car. There were strong arguments against any adjustment because of the performance of these cars at other tracks. A 50 lb reduction was considered a minimal adjustment and I think giving it to more cars help to get it through.

 

[Ron Bartell]

Gary - Understood, and thanks.

 

[Al Seim]

I think that 50 lb reduction for the Spridgets and Spitfires is about as close as we are going to get to a Runoffs only competition adjustment. I think it would be a good bet that when we get a new track for the Runoffs, that 50 lbs will get slapped back on. The only thing that would keep it off is if the "big bore" HP car drivers find a way to get them around corners faster. In time they may do that.

Ron, The subject title to your letter was "Weight or Performance Adjustment for Older H Production Cars". I know in the body of the letter you were asking primarily for an adjustment to your car (1275 L1/L2 hybrid) but it was hard to just make an adjustment to one car. There were strong arguments against any adjustment because of the performance of these cars at other tracks. A 50 lb reduction was considered a minimal adjustment and I think giving it to more cars help to get it through.

This, IMO, is a pretty strong argument in favor of "Runoffs only competition adjustments" if we are going to have the Runoffs at "atypical" tracks.

 

[msturminator]

I thought I would never say this, and I am only suggesting it because RA is a first class track and would like everyone to enjoy the facility. For all those that think we need more of a equalizer eliminate the Kink. Run the chicane as the motorcyles do, also no SCCA Club event has ever run that configuration. Less long straights would bring the lap times closer together. I know it would eliminate the "pucker" factor, but it would add a new dimension to the track.
#48 EP
Mike

 

[EPrill]

I thought I would never say this, and I am only suggesting it because RA is a first class track and would like everyone to enjoy the facility. For all those that think we need more of a equalizer eliminate the Kink. Run the chicane as the motorcyles do, also no SCCA Club event has ever run that configuration. Less long straights would bring the lap times closer together. I know it would eliminate the "pucker" factor, but it would add a new dimension to the track.
#48 EP
Mike

I thought this might be helpful when the Runoffs first went to RA but having run the track several times now, I think the Kink is a critical part of the track to achieve a good lap time and has very little to do with sheer HP. Running the bend would create another drag-race acceleration opportunity where your speed at the end of the straight is determined by your horsepower not how well you carried speed through the Carousel and the Kink.

I was amazed at the Sprints this year how much some of the EP cars slowed in the Kink. I followed several guys through there at 100-105 mph. If they could run 115 through there like the fast guys, I bet they are 1.5-2 seconds faster per lap. That isn't horsepower, that's setup, driving and courage.

The only car I see this helping overall is the Lotus or Caterham. The cars with good low speed acceleration and poor top end. Believe me, I thought about this a lot!