OK, I took a deep breath. Let me try again.
1. First, for the record: If you page back a way in this thread, you'll find that I said that the rules place the Diasio in FP, once I learned that the SCCA considers it DSR. I then rambled on and created confusion, for which I apologize. This issue is now settled, if I understand things correctly.
2. I want to re-state, again repeating what I said before, that it is my belief that all P-Class cars (except Jonathan W) were correctly classed last year. I continue to believe there is no reason to change the basic philosophy of the class. I also don't think the Board intended to do that when it accepted my proposed re-wording.
3. Last fall, Bruce Allen told me that the idea of FP was that it was supposed to be a place for cars that are too fast for PA. This made sense to me then, and it still does.
4. If a car's potential is too high for PB, it needn't be moved all the way to FP - it can go to PA. Likewise from PC to PB. To say FP is the only place to bump to is a blunt instrument, and seems to offer no value for the competitors or the club. Nor do the rules say this, as far as I can find.
5. Here are the Prepared lap records for NHMS chic-chic, drawn from current track records as well as the most recently retired ones. I'm including the earlier records because the track changed very little, and the cars in some classes are currently running below the potential of the class - as evidenced by the records. These are useful benchmarks, I think - though one has to suspect that there is potential for a good current PA car to lower that record to the 1:12s range.
FP Bruce Allen 1:10.980 May-05 Van Diemen Formula SCCA
PA Greg Read 1:14.330 Oct-06 BMW M3
PB Alexander Grabau 1:13.817 Sep-09 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution II
PC Rod Folia 1:16.822 Oct-06 Mazda RX7
6. The argument that all unlisted cars (such as a modified SRF, John's and my car) should automatically be bumped up seems quite counterproductive to me, because it would clearly discourage people from bringing their interesting "specials." Other cars affected by this from previous years would be Bill's Warrior and Lester's Locost. I believe decisions should be made as I said above: 4-cyl in PC, 6-cyl and 4-cyl forced induction in PB, and so forth - unless there is a compelling reason for a specific car to be otherwise. I believe this is consistent with the rules, though not specifically stated.
7. "Any competitor entering a Prepared car not explicitly described below should consult with the COMSCC Stewards, who have discretion to classify it as they deem appropriate." This says that stewards have to make decisions about a lot of cars, but it doesn't tell us how to do it. I assumed (yes, Assumption is the Mother of All Failure) that past standards were generally understood and generally agreed with, and would guide us going forward. The fact that there were no challenges last year to the classification of our car, Lester's, or Bill's seemed to support this assumption. I hope the BOD will step up and tell us whether I was right or wrong.
8. As I said, I think our car belongs in PC. But in case part of the argument is that folks think it has too much performance potential, let me put out some numbers. It will have 140-150 HP and weigh at least 1500 lbs. With similar power and a lot more torque last year, we did 17s at best. (The SRF record is 1:17.7, so clearly we underperformed!) Personally, I think that for me or John to reach Rod's time will be difficult, though not impossible. Does that mean the car is too fast for PC - because it might set a new track record? OK, it could be made faster by spending more money or maybe by driving faster. The same could probably be said for Bill's and Lester's cars, both of which considerably lighter - though Lester's has more drag.
9. Mark, please accept that I was quite sincere in wishing simply to clarify the rule, and that it had nothing to do with pushing you around. The fact that we achieved a result that didn't affect your car's class was perfectly fine with me, more than fine - I was much happier than I would have been if you had been pushed to FP, especially! I tried to tell you this at the time, but apparently I didn't succeed.
Once again, I've run on longer that I should. Cheers!
i just got a new track car
Re: i just got a new track car
Nate Hine
1985 driversupply Frankenspec
1995 Spec Miata #47(1) white-blue
1985 driversupply Frankenspec
1995 Spec Miata #47(1) white-blue
Re: i just got a new track car
Setting the record straight on another point: Bruce was co-author of the revised ruling, and should get equal credit (or blame?).
Nate Hine
1985 driversupply Frankenspec
1995 Spec Miata #47(1) white-blue
1985 driversupply Frankenspec
1995 Spec Miata #47(1) white-blue
Re: i just got a new track car
Nate ; I think your(with Bruce's help ?) new rule intention does not equal its interpretation 
Clearly your car is FP under the new rule, also Bill's , being a purpose built race car,is too, but since Lester's is based on a street car (Lotus 7) , he would still be in PC.
Rule changes usually start in October.
Clearly your car is FP under the new rule, also Bill's , being a purpose built race car,is too, but since Lester's is based on a street car (Lotus 7) , he would still be in PC.
Rule changes usually start in October.
Dan D'Arcy
Lotus Exige Cup Car #069 SU
Lotus Elise #310 SD
Chevron B64 Formula SU
http://www.allpowersales.com/
Lotus Exige Cup Car #069 SU
Lotus Elise #310 SD
Chevron B64 Formula SU
http://www.allpowersales.com/
-
breakaway500
- Speed Racer
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:47 am
- Location: In my shop,usually.
Re: i just got a new track car
Nate,thanks for taking the time to reply.I know classification is a difficult procedure and frustrating at times.Unless everyone runs the exact same "spec" car,managing classes will be difficult.What makes it all the more difficult is when a square peg comes along and just doesn't fit in the round hole.It can be argued both ways as to where that car should run.Move it to a class where the times are more in line with the other class cars,or leave it in the class where the cars specifications slot it and let the cards fall where they may.
For the sake of close competition,classifying by actual times run makes a lot of sense.
Having some sort of handicap system in place would go a long way to even the playing field. In a sense,anyone could win their class.It would not always be the car and driver with the most performance potential,but would reward consistency of performance. Many competition events use a handicap system to help level the field. I personally do not know all the ins and outs of these systems,but they have been shown to work well. I do remember reading about others suggesting implementing this style of handicap classification system,but it always seems to be considered too difficult to apply to a small all volunteer club such as COM.
Maybe it is time to consider some sort of system where winners are awarded "points" that move them up to a faster class and uncompetitive class runners could be moved down? You would still have a standard base classification system in place,but to allow for "fine tuning" , have a points based handicap system that would allow cars to be moved,on their actual performance,and not their potential(good or bad) You would have to accumulate a specific amount of "points" to be bumped up a class. That way,you do not make a top heavy system.Moving down could be based in the same manner.It would take X amount of "races" to be considered for a move as well.
Instead of one very fast car and driver dominating a class time after time,they could be moved up. Many may argue that this is not in the spirit of racing.The fastest car and driver should win,period. It could also be argued that the spirit of racing is to allow for close competition,and having a level playing field for all to play is best.
Or,we could just leave things as is and leave it up to the discretion of stewards to help with classification,still using the basic guidelines currently on the books,and if a car is shown to be too fast or too slow for a specific class,move them.This may cause some hard feelings for some,but until someone comes up with a better design for classification and handicapping, and it is implemented into the club, this is how it is.Modifying the base rules certainly does help in respect to classifications,but will always miss a car or two that comes along outside of the norm.
I am not familiar with all the systems working out there,and it could all very well be beyond the scope of what the club or its members desire.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify things,and I accept you sincerity in doing so.
For the sake of close competition,classifying by actual times run makes a lot of sense.
Having some sort of handicap system in place would go a long way to even the playing field. In a sense,anyone could win their class.It would not always be the car and driver with the most performance potential,but would reward consistency of performance. Many competition events use a handicap system to help level the field. I personally do not know all the ins and outs of these systems,but they have been shown to work well. I do remember reading about others suggesting implementing this style of handicap classification system,but it always seems to be considered too difficult to apply to a small all volunteer club such as COM.
Maybe it is time to consider some sort of system where winners are awarded "points" that move them up to a faster class and uncompetitive class runners could be moved down? You would still have a standard base classification system in place,but to allow for "fine tuning" , have a points based handicap system that would allow cars to be moved,on their actual performance,and not their potential(good or bad) You would have to accumulate a specific amount of "points" to be bumped up a class. That way,you do not make a top heavy system.Moving down could be based in the same manner.It would take X amount of "races" to be considered for a move as well.
Instead of one very fast car and driver dominating a class time after time,they could be moved up. Many may argue that this is not in the spirit of racing.The fastest car and driver should win,period. It could also be argued that the spirit of racing is to allow for close competition,and having a level playing field for all to play is best.
Or,we could just leave things as is and leave it up to the discretion of stewards to help with classification,still using the basic guidelines currently on the books,and if a car is shown to be too fast or too slow for a specific class,move them.This may cause some hard feelings for some,but until someone comes up with a better design for classification and handicapping, and it is implemented into the club, this is how it is.Modifying the base rules certainly does help in respect to classifications,but will always miss a car or two that comes along outside of the norm.
I am not familiar with all the systems working out there,and it could all very well be beyond the scope of what the club or its members desire.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify things,and I accept you sincerity in doing so.
It's not what you drive, it's how you drive. "Lap times matter"
Re: i just got a new track car
The problem with the new FP rule is the wording:
"FP is for high-performance purpose-built race cars. FP has no performance limits so modifications from the original
sanctioning body\’s specifications are allowed. Included are:
Any ... (in the sense of ... ) that is not otherwise classified. Typical are the ... classes."
There is no mention of at what level of modification to the "otherwise classified" cars end and the "modifications from the original sanctioning body\’s specifications " begin. As I stated in a previous post, the rule of thumb in P is that if it says it can't be done, it is legal. Therefore any modification that is done to the "otherwise classified" cars is up to the discression of the stewarts. For example Nate's SR is no longer a "spec renault', but it definitely not a CSR either. So his car is neither an "otherwise classified" or is, or should belong in the "Typical are" group. So my interpretation is that since it has the spec chassis, with a NA transverse mounted 4 cyl, it should still be a PC car. Others have interpreted it differently. If the "otherwise classified" cars need to remain as delivered, the rules must state that.
"FP is for high-performance purpose-built race cars. FP has no performance limits so modifications from the original
sanctioning body\’s specifications are allowed. Included are:
Any ... (in the sense of ... ) that is not otherwise classified. Typical are the ... classes."
There is no mention of at what level of modification to the "otherwise classified" cars end and the "modifications from the original sanctioning body\’s specifications " begin. As I stated in a previous post, the rule of thumb in P is that if it says it can't be done, it is legal. Therefore any modification that is done to the "otherwise classified" cars is up to the discression of the stewarts. For example Nate's SR is no longer a "spec renault', but it definitely not a CSR either. So his car is neither an "otherwise classified" or is, or should belong in the "Typical are" group. So my interpretation is that since it has the spec chassis, with a NA transverse mounted 4 cyl, it should still be a PC car. Others have interpreted it differently. If the "otherwise classified" cars need to remain as delivered, the rules must state that.
Re: i just got a new track car
Mark, that's an interesting concept for competition in COM. Maybe a bit too radical too be easily accepted by the club, though!
Some stipulations on my part, so as to reduce the areas for continuing debate: I agree that our car and the Warrior are clearly purpose-built race cars. The modified Miatas, the highly tuned BMWs and Mitsubishis and Corvettes - all are clearly not. The Locost might be debatable, but it isn't worth debating, so I won't. As I say, I'm not interested in seeing either Bill or Lester moved. That would be both unfair and contrary to the Club's best interests.
There's another key phrase: "high-performance" This is not quantified, and therefore requires interpretation - e.g., comparison with other cars. I would argue that in the context of all the cars listed under FP, neither our car nor the Warrior fits the definition of "high-performance". These cars would be grossly out of place in the company of even the "slowest" FP sports racing car - S2000. The S2000 lap record is 1:11.7.
In the regional-level endurance races to hope run with the SCCA, our car would be classed as SPU. The lap record for that class is 1:16.3. I would be delighted to go that fast in our car.
Some stipulations on my part, so as to reduce the areas for continuing debate: I agree that our car and the Warrior are clearly purpose-built race cars. The modified Miatas, the highly tuned BMWs and Mitsubishis and Corvettes - all are clearly not. The Locost might be debatable, but it isn't worth debating, so I won't. As I say, I'm not interested in seeing either Bill or Lester moved. That would be both unfair and contrary to the Club's best interests.
There's another key phrase: "high-performance" This is not quantified, and therefore requires interpretation - e.g., comparison with other cars. I would argue that in the context of all the cars listed under FP, neither our car nor the Warrior fits the definition of "high-performance". These cars would be grossly out of place in the company of even the "slowest" FP sports racing car - S2000. The S2000 lap record is 1:11.7.
In the regional-level endurance races to hope run with the SCCA, our car would be classed as SPU. The lap record for that class is 1:16.3. I would be delighted to go that fast in our car.
Nate Hine
1985 driversupply Frankenspec
1995 Spec Miata #47(1) white-blue
1985 driversupply Frankenspec
1995 Spec Miata #47(1) white-blue
Re: i just got a new track car
The closest way to acheive parity is a car-by-car points system like NASA uses
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/time ... on-sur.pdf
This has already been beaten into the ground and decided as too labor intensive in checking and enforcing (agreed!). I believe Nate's explanation works well in a difficult situation.
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/time ... on-sur.pdf
This has already been beaten into the ground and decided as too labor intensive in checking and enforcing (agreed!). I believe Nate's explanation works well in a difficult situation.
John F
#167 SA FFR roadster
#167 SA FFR roadster
Re: i just got a new track car
Like most of us I've been trying to stay on the side lines and wait for the dust to clear. 
I agree we have rules to follow, and without that problems arise.
Personally (taking my steward cap off), I think the cars were classed correctly
last year.
I also think Bill, Nate and myself should be in PC. They have proven
themselves slow enough.
Rob's track record for PC was in a full blown race car, at the least, it pushed
PC to it's limits.
We don't know the limits of this new car, it has huge potential.
FP is an unlimited class and a daunting place to start. It may end up there
but we have no way of knowing if that is where it should start. With the wide variety of cars that fall into P it would be nice to have P classified on potential and not cylinders.
A points system just for P may make sense (HP, weight, suspension, down
force etc).
We have C B and A to break it up. We could do away with FP or use it for an
unlimited class.
Just trying to find a logical way out of this mess and still be able to
keep it fair and be able to police it.
I agree we have rules to follow, and without that problems arise.
Personally (taking my steward cap off), I think the cars were classed correctly
last year.
I also think Bill, Nate and myself should be in PC. They have proven
themselves slow enough.
Rob's track record for PC was in a full blown race car, at the least, it pushed
PC to it's limits.
We don't know the limits of this new car, it has huge potential.
FP is an unlimited class and a daunting place to start. It may end up there
but we have no way of knowing if that is where it should start. With the wide variety of cars that fall into P it would be nice to have P classified on potential and not cylinders.
A points system just for P may make sense (HP, weight, suspension, down
force etc).
We have C B and A to break it up. We could do away with FP or use it for an
unlimited class.
Just trying to find a logical way out of this mess and still be able to
keep it fair and be able to police it.
Les.
COM Instructor
NA Miata D-TYPE
#77
Drive it like you stole it!
COM Instructor
NA Miata D-TYPE
#77
Drive it like you stole it!
Re: i just got a new track car
I have no axe to grind in this discussion, only to see that the rules are followed. I agree with you Les ,that you, Nate and Bill were OK in PC last year, but the rules have changed for 2010, it was supposed to clear up P and FP classes . Maybe we should repeal the FB rule change and revert back to 2009 rules, however I think its kind of late to be doing that. Many members have expressed concern with our rules and have suggested a "point type system" . I realize this would mean a complete overhaul of our system and be very hard to administer. Les' idea of a point system for "P" classes only might be a great way to get our feet wet without a complete overhaul. If we can get it to work in "P" we could gradually phase it into the other classes.
Dan D'Arcy
Lotus Exige Cup Car #069 SU
Lotus Elise #310 SD
Chevron B64 Formula SU
http://www.allpowersales.com/
Lotus Exige Cup Car #069 SU
Lotus Elise #310 SD
Chevron B64 Formula SU
http://www.allpowersales.com/
-
horizenjob
- Speed Racer
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:47 am
Re: i just got a new track car
Does "NCF" stand for club FF? If so that record was listed as 1:13.0These cars would be grossly out of place in the company of even the "slowest" FP sports racing car - S2000. The S2000 lap record is 1:11.7.
The basic concept of asking people to modify their FF's to be competitive in an anything goes class is not a great idea. It's nearly the only entry level real race car people could bring to our events, but they are being asked to trash them for any other use. People are being asked to produce unsafe cars. They will fail in interesting ways and slow down at 2 g's in front of 4000 pound street cars.
Really what could be more fun then exceeding the design loads on 30-40 year old magnesium castings? Unless you'd rather enjoy the rubber U-Joints. Maybe If I replace the two 1/4" single shear bolts that hold the entire rear end of my cart together, oh maybe every year - that would add a little safety.
Club Formula Fords make really good entry level real race cars. They suck at being Formula Atlantics.
I know also we have at least one FA car on the way now. It makes more sense for me to sell my car while it's worth something, before it's trashed and get an FA beater with a Duratech for example. With two of those out in a practice session the other big bore cars might as well get used to constantly seeing those passing flags.
At least we didn't use to require point bys, so traffic was reasonable. You used to be able to trust that the fast traffic took care of itself. Now the slower and less experienced you are are the more you get to direct traffic - because why get to concentrate on your driving if your a beginner when what you can be doing is directing Formula Atlantic traffic? We should give students extra credit for the simultaneous right/left point by while steering with the knees!
Sigh, clearly I'm stuck in the past. Note to self: get over it...
I'm not actually angry here in this note and look forward to running with you guys next year - but I think you guys deserve a little ribbing...
Way too much rambling, it will be nice to see the Diasia - it's cute!
Marcus Barrow - Car9, an open design community supported sports car for home builders.
Car9 Roadster information - models, drawings, resources etc.
Car9 Roadster information - models, drawings, resources etc.
-
breakaway500
- Speed Racer
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:47 am
- Location: In my shop,usually.
Re: i just got a new track car
I would be in favor of implementing some sort of points classification for the Prepared class tier if it would be a viable alternative to what we have currently. It could be played with this year (unofficially)and then proposed for next year oficially, IF it worked out.
Would the NASA system be a possible guideline? I played around with the form and came up with 5.7lbs/1hp but did not know about the tube frame modification factor,as my car is not on the list. What if the weight to power ratio is under 5.5/1? It didn't say if that was another class or not.It obviously must be..Hmm. It would be an interesting experiment. Probably land me in Formula,or whatever it may be called..but I really don't care as long as we are all going by the same guidelines. As I have never run with NASA,I wonder how their setup works out for their participants?
Or is it all too much bother? I don't know...
Would the NASA system be a possible guideline? I played around with the form and came up with 5.7lbs/1hp but did not know about the tube frame modification factor,as my car is not on the list. What if the weight to power ratio is under 5.5/1? It didn't say if that was another class or not.It obviously must be..Hmm. It would be an interesting experiment. Probably land me in Formula,or whatever it may be called..but I really don't care as long as we are all going by the same guidelines. As I have never run with NASA,I wonder how their setup works out for their participants?
Or is it all too much bother? I don't know...
It's not what you drive, it's how you drive. "Lap times matter"
Re: i just got a new track car
I believe the car really is a Formula car, but thats just me.
It also seems to me that people get waaay to strung out at COM about being competative, sure its a time trial competition based club, but if you want to shoff off how big your balls are....go race!
It seems like anything that is a purpose built race car with no intention of road legality is a tough thing to quantify.
Sure the Idea of a points system in the P classes is not bad, however it seems to me that more delineation in F would be a better way to go. Nate's car is clearly a purpose built race car, however it should not be competing against a formula atlantic, just as much as it should not be competing against a production based car, and that is the whole reason spec racing happens, to avoid problems with classification and winning through check book application.
Just my 2C
H
It also seems to me that people get waaay to strung out at COM about being competative, sure its a time trial competition based club, but if you want to shoff off how big your balls are....go race!
It seems like anything that is a purpose built race car with no intention of road legality is a tough thing to quantify.
Sure the Idea of a points system in the P classes is not bad, however it seems to me that more delineation in F would be a better way to go. Nate's car is clearly a purpose built race car, however it should not be competing against a formula atlantic, just as much as it should not be competing against a production based car, and that is the whole reason spec racing happens, to avoid problems with classification and winning through check book application.
Just my 2C
H
-
horizenjob
- Speed Racer
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:47 am
Re: i just got a new track car
I'm not a real fan of the point based classes. I don't really see how we can police this or enforce power outputs on people's motors.
There are 4 classes for prepared cars. I think the issue is that the entry level formula cars should be encouraged. They are inexpensive, reliable and safe. Club Fords lap at the same speed now as they did in the 70's. Corvettes could beat them then and I'm surprised that they need the protection of the BOD these days. Considering that PA doesn't always have entrants it would seem to make sense to combine them.
There are 4 classes for prepared cars. I think the issue is that the entry level formula cars should be encouraged. They are inexpensive, reliable and safe. Club Fords lap at the same speed now as they did in the 70's. Corvettes could beat them then and I'm surprised that they need the protection of the BOD these days. Considering that PA doesn't always have entrants it would seem to make sense to combine them.
Marcus Barrow - Car9, an open design community supported sports car for home builders.
Car9 Roadster information - models, drawings, resources etc.
Car9 Roadster information - models, drawings, resources etc.
Re: i just got a new track car
The words "high performance" were not a casual afterthought. The car's potential is supposed to be considered.
Nate Hine
1985 driversupply Frankenspec
1995 Spec Miata #47(1) white-blue
1985 driversupply Frankenspec
1995 Spec Miata #47(1) white-blue
-
962porsche
- Speed Racer
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:53 pm
- Location: hamden ct.
Re: i just got a new track car
MY CAR SHOULD BE IN FP !!!! (DSR's ) in the scca nationals for 2008 and 2009 most of the time DSR cars were the fastest . DSR's generally weigh 1000 LBS and put out about 175 HP (CSR) minimum weight 1200 LBS with a max displacement of 1300cc they can use aerodynamic down force like DSR cars . allot of the old formula atlantic car were converted to CSR's . ( FORMULA FORD's ) minimum weight 1000 LBS over the years they went from 115 HP motors to 140 HP motors . no aerodynamics allowed . (SPEC RACER FORD ) started with a 1.7 renault motor then to a 1.9 liter ford motor . minimum weight wet with driver 1670 LBS . (NATE AND JOHN's sports racer ) 145 HP weight 1600 LBS . (MY DISIO D962 ) 1120 lbs the motors HP 147 . an average from looking at the dino stats from 8 stock GSX-R 1000cc motors . the early GSX-R 1000cc motors put out 132 hp the later motors 151 stock . my motor is the later one .
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest