The Board Rules Discussion Thread

[nateh]

I'll research all those cars a bit more and make some recommendations. I'm sure others will have useful input as well, and a healthy discussion will ensue. Once more into the breach!

[WillM]

Nate,

Excellent job with the spreadsheet. I do not envy your job, and appreciate all of the time and effort you have put into improving our classification system.

One thing that I would like to point out is that we only have 5 stock classes (SSU, SSGT, SSA, SSB, SSC) to classify everything from Audi R8's to Volkswagen Golf TDI's. It is impossible to create parity (in the stock classes) with only 5 classes to choose from. In my opinion, the limited number of stock classes is the reason why it is so difficult to class these cars. For reference, clubs like NASA have 10+ classes where stock cars may compete (and be competitive!). For those interested, and Nate - you may find this to be a helpful reference, here is a list of NASA cars & classes for 2010, which I crunched into a user-friendly Excel spreadsheet: 2010 NASA TT classes (right-click & "save as" to download). Note that there could be some typos in there and this should not be used for any type of "official" use!

The more I read about points based systems, the more I believe we should abolish "showroom stock" classes.

Regarding the 1999-2000 and 2001-2005 Miatas, I believe they should all be grouped into the same class.
The differences are minimal. I personally do not believe the huge differences in the quoted weights are accurate. As far as I know, the only sources of weight gain from 1999-2005 are:
1. Bigger wheels. Sizes moved from 14 to 15 to 16 (options).
2. Chassis bracing.
3. Bigger brakes (optional).
4. Option packages. I believe that things like A/C and power steering eventually became standard equipment.

The horsepower difference between the two is negligible. In 1999-2000, Mazda utilized a variable intake control system (VICS) which did not generate the horsepower numbers they claimed. Mazda actually got in trouble for this and eventually had to re-state their "corrected" power numbersI believe they offered rebates, extended warranties, and even bought back some cars from customers. In 2001-2005 the VICS was ditched in favor of a variable intake cam (VV-iT). In many ways it seems they spun their wheels to go nowhere. Perhaps the VICS and VViT changes were motivated by emissions more than anything, as rated power output and/or fuel economy did not change. The biggest change, IMHO, is a 0.5 bump in compression ratio, from 9.5 to 10.0 beginning in 2001.

The bottom line is that the performance difference between these cars does not merit different classification.

Due to the nature of our current classification system, the 1999-2005 Miatas are destined to be either the top dog in SSC or an under dog in SSB. Either isn't really fair, IMHO.

Using Miatas as the example, in SSC the 1999-2005 Miatas would have a large advantage over 1.6 Miatas.
In SSB, the 2006+ Miatas would have a large advantage over 1999-2005 Miatas.

For what it is worth, NASA classification:

Code: Select all

Year(s)    Make   model            Engine      Class
----------------------------------------------------      
1990-1993  Mazda  Miata            1.6L        TTF**
1994-1997  Mazda  Miata            1.8L        TTE
1999-2005  Mazda  Miata            1.8L        TTE
2004-2005  Mazda  MazdaSpeed MX-5  1.8L Turbo  TTE*
2006+      Mazda  Miata MX-5       2.0L        TTE*

NOTES:
* adds + 7 modification points
** adds +14 modification points
Classes are points-based. Every modification is worth a certain number of points. For every 20 modification points, a competitor moves up one level (for example from TTB to TTA).

[nateh]

Will, I agree that a points-based system is likely to be better. Are you proposing that we should try to implement it for 2011?

[chaos4NH]

Just to keep the world turning, I would like to point out that using 2006 specs (case in point Mazda 3 showing 17.2 lbs/hp where as the 2007 - 2010 cars weigh more and have less HP - thanks California - and run 18.2 lbs/hp) may not accurately paint the current picture. In the case I point out there would not be a class change. Just food for thought and shows my support of some type of points based classing. I thank Nate and Pete for looking into such a possibility.

[blindsidefive0]

Will, I agree that a points-based system is likely to be better. Are you proposing that we should try to implement it for 2011?

I introduced my cousin to COM this year (he usually runs NASA), and he introduced me to the points-based class system. I would favor the points-based system given how much proper car selection influences competitiveness within any given class.

[nateh]

Here's my current version, taking into account all the input I've received plus some further poking around on source sites.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key ... bjlLeFE&hl

I'll keep nibbling away at it. In the end, some oxen will be gored no matter what we do.

[Neptune441]

I would like to view this document however i need permission to view said document therefore i will wait some more until i get permission to view said document

[chaos4NH]

Same here, why can't we view it?

[nateh]

I thought I made it viewable by everyone. Try this version of the link, might work better:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key ... y=CInzzZYO

[chaos4NH]

Let's sit down, take a deep breathe, and put some actual PERFORMANCE considerations to work here! Placing Mark's 1994 Nissan Sentra S-ER in SSB moves it to ST3 against Gordy and Will S? WT/HP works in drag racing, but has limited capacity to rank a car that actually has to brake and turn corners.
SSB is cut off at 17.5 max, yet list SSC 17.2 Min. Why? No other class splits had an overlap. Looks to me like it was a handy way to keep the Miata 1995-1996 in SSC, even though at 17.2 it is the same ratio as the 2004-5 Miata, the Civic SI, Neon ACR. It also moves the Audi A3 and Ford Mustang SVO, which fall with SSB specs, into SSC. What is the rationale there? You are so insistent on using power to weight in all other cases, what makes this different? I don't see how you can have it both ways.
Yes, I read Will's impassioned posting, but there you are at least comparing sports cars to sports cars instead of
pepped up econo boxes (Nissan Sentra S-ER for instance, or Honda Civic SI) to sports cars. Nate, you have been around track cars for a long time, and I am sure you know the performance potentials of all these cars better than most, so why stick to classifying via a flawed method?
Please note I have no cars involved in this discussion, just try to level it out for everyone, just as you are.

[boltonite]

I believe Nate's approach (power:weight) is a valid approach for classing cars. I also believe Sam has a point about ST cars, clearly some gain huge advantages with suspension mods. And by stripping weight (to install a cage, racing seats, etc). My E30M3 would be classed in SSA=>ST2 based on its current actual power:weight ratio, which is fine by me.

I would support a rule that stipulates ST cars be classed based on their actual/current power:weight ratio, using stock HP# and actual weight... anyone running in ST will need to state their actual weight and be subject to protest/reclassification if their actual power:weight #s are wrong.

FF
p.s. I offered to automate a points-based classing system, if one was ever spec'd or developed, points-based systems can be tricky/nasty, imo. The offer has been out there for 2+ years...

[nateh]

Sam, do you have a better method to offer than this admittedly flawed one? If so, please do so. "This is bad, do something else" doesn't get us very far.

As represented by the lopsided board vote, there is significant sentiment that the 2010 classes needed revision. I'm doing the best I can to make the classes a little more rational. Very little heavy breathing is involved, but lots of head-scratching and googling is.

Yes, we can look at adopting the NASA-style "points" system. Are you proposing changing to that for 2011? If so, then you and the rest of us had better start burning some serious midnight oil. Personally, I'd prefer to target that change to 2012, with a proper degree of preparation beforehand - and we can't assume that it will pass, so it seems worthwhile to try at least to optimize what we have now.

I propose putting the 2003 Miata up a class from where its power-to-weight puts it (along with 2004-2005, back to where they were last year) because of the considerations others have cited about handling. Seemed justifiable given that the numbers are so close together, and it avoids having one year be an odd duck among the Miatas. With this version, the 1999-2005 Miatas are together in SSB, while the earlier ones are together in SSC - as in 2010.

It's true that we could put the 1996-97 Miatas up to SSB. I doubt that would be supported by the BOD.

At this point, the majority of the proposed changes move a lot of obviously slower cars down a class, making them a little more likely to be competitive. The SE-Rs are an exception to this, and I think the 95-99 version might deserve some debate.

Bottom line - I will continue to welcome proposals of specific changes. I have already received quite a few via the forum and e-mail, and the updated spreadsheet reflects that.

[nateh]

I offered to automate a points-based classing system, if one was ever spec'd or developed, points-based systems can be tricky/nasty, imo. The offer has been out there for 2+ years...

Excellent! I didn't know about this offer.

[boltonite]

I had to go back three years to find this (see below), I know it was raised at a BoD meeting too.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1385&p=10534#p10534

Even assuming we can address enforcement issues, how members classify their cars is a huge problem. Given what I've seen with the current classing system, I shudder to think how a points-based system would work for either a veteran or a newbie.

Regardless, a major changes of this magnitude, not unlike Time Trial scoring changes -- ought to be put before the entire membership.

FF

[blindsidefive0]

Has any thought been given to regulating tires? By this I mean beyond just the rule that puts you in Prepared with racing slicks.

Just for reference, NASA breaks up tires into several categories:
-Treadwear >130 (street tires)
- Treadwear 50-130 (ex. RA-1s)
- Treadwear 40 or less (ex. R6's)
- Hankook c214 and A6's
- Full slicks