New Rules - Tech, Policing, and Scrutineers

[WillM]

The club purchased helmets for HLRA participants, but they have missed more events this year than they attended.

I have brought them to every event, except WGI, which I was unable to attend.

Interesting. Another BoD member offered to transport the helmets when we decided to buy them, and I was told that he had them all along.

[WillM]

Things can't possibly be any worse than the status quo..

That's kind of ironic! According to the results of our recent pole, there are more members that are satisfied with our current rules than those that are unsatisfied..!

We must be doing something right!

[WillM]

Things can't possibly be any worse than the status quo. For example, if somebody chips their SS or ST turbo at the moment, our hands are tied - and everybody knows it. With the new arrangement, we'll have tools to deal with this.

What tools will be available? Are scrutineers going to be opening ECUs?

According to a conversation I had with Nick yesterday and today, the lap-record tech inspection and the protest inspection for 'Super' cars was basically a math check of the form provided by the competitor. Complete honor system unless something smells funny. Are a sharpened set of olfactory senses part of the new tool kit?

[WillM]

Can anyone tell me how many protests there have been in the past 5 years, and did any require more than a Scrutineer's inspection to resolve?

Not many, and realistically, not enough. The truth is that people do not want to protest their friends/competitors. At least this is my observation. I've heard many stories/complaints over the years about illegal modifications on other cars, but very few have followed through with a protest.

That said, those that do protest, expect that the car/situation gets the full attention of the scrutineers. Likewise, it is the responsibility of the scrutineers to protect the integrity of our track records. That means crawling all over cars to make sure they are legal. What I'm hearing about scrutinizing under the proposed new rule set amounts to a grading of the competitor's arithmetic.

An old-time COM member attended one of our monthly meetings last year and commented that we (COM) 'sounded like a bunch of lawyers'. I disagreed at the time, but if we are going down the road where we require every competitor to fill in a multi-page form for every event, and then require the competitor to supply written documentation in order to pass tech, validate a track record, or keep their trophy, then I'm afraid that old-timer will be closer to right than I'd care to admit. What happened to 'run what you brung' and facing the music in the tech shed?

While the 2012 classification system does not seem to be power/weight based, there are a wide range of things that can be done on both sides of this equation - even in SS and ST classes - to cheat in ways that would be hard for a COMSCC Scrutineer to reasonably detect. This of course is true in the proposed rules system as well, but this basic truth - we rely on competitor integrity in the vast majority of cases - is consistent.

That is true, however consider Nate's previous comment that he cannot recall a single event of intentional cheating, and that those cars that failed did so due to an unintentional mistake on the owner's part. Now consider the accuracy we'd get if we were walk the paddock and ask each competitor these 4 questions:

1. How many cylinders does your engine have?
2. What is the displacement of your engine?
3. How much is your competition weight today (the weight of your car with you in it, exactly as you ran in the time trial)?
4. What is the peak horsepower that your car puts down to the wheels?

My thought is that everyone will have very accurate answers to the first two questions, concerning cylinder count and displacement, and will tell the truth (integrity). I also believe that the majority will not know the answer to the weight or power question, and that those that do will not have answers that are anywhere near as accurate as the cylinder & displacement questions, so despite their integrity, they are just wrong.

I don't know for sure whether or not power/weight is the right or wrong solution, but I'm pretty sure that I want:

1. A class to run in and be competitive in my car, the way I'd like to built it, such as they exist today.
2. A class where I know throughout my build that I will be legal in my class without any surprises due to variances in measuring tools (dynos) or a scrutineer's best guess.
3. A class where I can protest a competitor and know that their car will actually be inspected and determined whether or not it is modified (or not) within the rules of the class.
4. A class where my competitors or I will be held accountable during a class record technical inspection.

[boltonite]

Will mentioned the recent poll results. Those results are available to members here.
FF

[dtlemoine]

Things can't possibly be any worse than the status quo..

That's kind of ironic! According to the results of our recent pole, there are more members that are satisfied with our current rules than those that are unsatisfied..!

We must be doing something right!

Fred - thanks for posting the link to the results, very interesting data!

To put things in perspective, those that are "very" or "mostly" satisfied sum to 66 while those who are "somewhat" or "very" dissatisfied sum to 65 - so technically correct to say "more" but only by 1 member out of a sample of 159 who responded to that question.

Also, further along in the survey 88 members expressed support for adopting the new rules, while only 7 say they opposed. I'd say the people have spoken and we're hearing resounding support to get this proposal passed and in place for next season!

[Stynger]

Also, further along in the survey 88 members expressed support for adopting the new rules, while only 7 say they opposed. I'd say the people have spoken and we're hearing resounding support to get this proposal passed and in place for next season!

I wonder, after people have digested and had time to study the new rules, if they would change their mind on how they voted?

I like the Touring package, I don't like the Super Class structure.

I'll be running Super Class, I would change my vote.

FWIW I see this as two separate classes. People running Touring should vote on that part of the rules, people running Super Class should have a say on how that is structured. I don't think either class really cares how the other sets their rule structure. I don't see the need for the two classes to be on the same program.

I'm not sure Touring wants full blown race cars running in their classes because they have nowhere else to be competitive. Regardless of power/weight, most race cars are cross weighted, trailered and set up strictly for performance. Many Touring cars are just that, street cars, looking for a place to run and have some competitive fun. Good luck.

Power to weight for Super Class has merit at first glance, but a NA 150 HP 4 cylinder running against a 450HP turbo car with the same power/weight is like a go-kart running against a Vette with the same power/weight. Yeah you can hold the go-kart wide open in the turns and it stops on a dime, but you don't have the brute power to overcome aero drag like a Vette.
On the big tracks (just about all away events), high HP cars are running 160+ mph, low HP cars, same power/weight, run 115-120. That's too much to over come per lap.

NHMS is the great equalizer, but why should it be that way? Cars running in P classes now have good competition at all tracks.

As I see it, T60 to T100 can be loaded with full caged race cars. They will slot in legally and dominate most classes. Why not give them a place to play and let Touring have a more level playing field?

I'm not high jacking this list, just rationalizing my answer to a post on this list. We can move the conversation if need be.

[bhoss]

Les - I agree completely.

I run in the P class because I do not like rules. I want to run with other 4 cylinder cars of equal displacement - not equal hp/weight.

I also have some safety concerns of cars running in the Super class without rollbars and firesuits.

[blindsidefive0]

Just a couple clarifications regarding recent posts...

The protest process, which is still a work in progress to be discussed further this week by the Rules Committee comprised of BOD members, was developed in conjunction with current and past Chief Scrutineers with input from other COMSCC scrutineers. Given current state protest process figures as outlined by Nate in a previous post, most classification issues under the current system are a misunderstanding, which is why the first step (although not the only step) is to validate the accuracy of the classification. The additional step, in all protests or as deemed necessary by a scrutineer, is the requirement for the competitor being protested to substantiate their claims (specific to super classes) with documentation that may include a dyno sheet, but could also include other types of documentation (e.g. list of engine modifications, spec sheet for a "sealed" spec or "crate" motor, etc.) to be evaluated by the scrutineer. To be clear on 2 points: 1) dynos are not required (although are 1 type of documentation that can be provided in the rare case of a protest), 2) a "math check" is NOT the only tool for a scrutineer.

As far as turning into a bunch of lawyers, the only document required by every competitor is a single 1-page classification sheet. Again, the only case where additional documentation is required is in the case of a protest, which in COMSCC, for better or worse, is generally uncommon. In my opinion, this is something that we could have been using all along with our 2012 rules. Using my own class (SSA) as an example, I cannot count how many Porsche 911, Ferrari, or Corvette have incorrectly (and likely accidentally) classed their cars in SSA during registration only to have to be re-classed during the event by a scrutineer.

As far as requirements for Super Classes - I would suggest it is impossible to achieve both 1) a class for all cars, as they sit, to be competitive AND 2) allowance for significant modifications without consequence for re-classification. For instance, if you can modify your car and not get re-classed, necessarily your car is not competitive against the theoretical "max" of the class. The current prepared classes achieve the latter but not the former (enter: Fred, 240RS Maxi, etc.). What the proposed super classes try to outline (with some tweaks like the addition of a Super C class) is a process where unlimited modifications are allowed and a reasonable spread (30% of HP/Weight from top to bottom of a class) is permissible within a class.

As far as the survey, I have a few thoughts. I wouldn't consider a 40% approval of the current system as a measure of success and indication that we are doing things right. Les brings up a good point that the Touring and Super class structures could be evaluated exclusively from each other, but I disagree that members should only vote on where they would run – many drivers have run in numerous classes over the years and may change in the future. Les also points out that others may have changed their minds after digging in – we’ve heard from some folks, but if others have had a change of heart, please let us know. Now is the time to hear your concerns, make tweaks, and get a proposal that works for most members of the club.

We (the authors), hear some of concerns of members regarding weight/hp and some suggestions to retain existing cylinder count classes or move to a displacement based classing system. We are evaluating this further with the Rules Committee of BOD members as I mentioned above. Obviously, this is a big departure with what we have outlined in our proposal, but we are not necessarily opposed to different structures. However, the response that we’ve seen regarding weight/power versus current system versus displacement-based super classes is mixed, with some members strongly in favor of ditching the current P/SP structure and others strongly opposed to weight/power. Needless to say, this warrants additional attention and discussion. In the meantime, it’s worth looking at a couple examples:

Assume a 150hp car versus a 450hp car – at what weight would both cars need to have the same power/weight ratio? If the 150hp car weighs in at 2300lb, then the 450hp car needs to weigh in at about a 6000lb to maintain the same weight/power ratio. If you assume the weight of a Vette to be around 3200lb, that Vette could only rock 223hp and maintain the same ratio as the 150hp car. I don’t think either of those example cars could do much more than 125mph at any track (my max at WGI was 129 in my 240hp M3). Also, consider that the Super Class formula takes into account tire size (many vettes have tires >275mm in the rear) and now that Vette can’t make more than 215hp to remain at the same power/weight ratio of the 150hp/2300lb car.

As far as “race cars” cleaning up in Touring classes (T60-T100) – after running 2012 season results, here are how the results would have played out:
T40, 50, 60 – variations of Miata with generally mild mods (all ST4)
T70 – e36 M3 currently in SSA
T80 – stock Elise with a CAI
T90 – NC Miata currently in SPC (closest example of a “race car”)
T100 – c5z currently in SSU

On the other hand, we do admit that slower race cars have no place to play with the proposed Super A/B offerings – as mentioned above we are looking to remedy this with the addition of a Super C and adjusting cutoffs based on the 2012 data. However, I have yet to see real examples of race cars that would crush a Touring class any more than a well sorted “street car” with mild modifications, especially given the realistic diminishing marginal returns of modification points.

Last, but definitely not least, safety. Will and I had a good discussion about safety last night and have some tweaks to the current safety requirements that are in the rules to capture a wider range of vehicles. Again, this is an item we will bring up with the Rules Committee – Bill, please email me or Will with your thoughts on this and we can discuss it with the group.

[Stynger]

Assume a 150hp car versus a 450hp car – at what weight would both cars need to have the same power/weight ratio? If the 150hp car weighs in at 2300lb, then the 450hp car needs to weigh in at about a 6000lb to maintain the same weight/power ratio. If you assume the weight of a Vette to be around 3200lb, that Vette could only rock 223hp and maintain the same ratio as the 150hp car. I don’t think either of those example cars could do much more than 125mph at any track (my max at WGI was 129 in my 240hp M3). Also, consider that the Super Class formula takes into account tire size (many vettes have tires >275mm in the rear) and now that Vette can’t make more than 215hp to remain at the same power/weight ratio of the 150hp/2300lb car.

I guess I should have stated a NA Miata and a turbo Subaru would have been classed together as the rules stood when I voted. Obviously, reading your observation, it would have been ridiculous.

Nick, I want to thank you for reassurance that things are not set in stone. Hopefully we will have some options.
It's also nice to know nobody needs to fear full race preped cars in their class.

Carry on..

[austaz]

the 450hp car needs to weigh in at about a 6000lb to maintain the same weight/power ratio.

It's also nice to know nobody needs to fear full race preped cars in their class.

Can I bring one of these to SuperC?
Cage - yes.
Fire system - yes
12,000lbs
800-1000hp
12:1 power to weight.

Check the 2nd lap when they are sideways around the first corner ... or 3:30 when one spins ...

phpBB [video]

http://www.truckracing.com.au/?page_id=19

You could get a good tow up the straights behind one.

[Grippy]

Honestly I like the current rules (in Sp and P) as they are. I built my car with the intension of running in SPC as I thought that was the best class for my budget and style. I never asked for them to change and never heard anyone else complain. I like to modify and change my car all the time. I don't think it has been on the track for 2 events in the exact config. The current rules set fits my hotrodder style and I don't want to have to worry about points or what changes are going to bump me to the next class. I also do not want to undo anything that I have already spent lots of time and money on just to save a point.
Just my .02

[Chrispy]

Honestly I like the current rules (in Sp and P) as they are. I built my car with the intension of running in SPC as I thought that was the best class for my budget and style. I never asked for them to change and never heard anyone else complain. I like to modify and change my car all the time. I don't think it has been on the track for 2 events in the exact config. The current rules set fits my hotrodder style and I don't want to have to worry about points or what changes are going to bump me to the next class. I also do not want to undo anything that I have already spent lots of time and money on just to save a point.
Just my .02

Gordon, do you feel that this would change under the proposed super classing? From what I read it would appear that it would be business as usual for guys like you so long as you don't double your HP overnight (assuming a Super C for < 12:1 cars). I agree that your car nor your style fits the touring rules very well.

[paultg]

The majority of issues are cases where the owner of the car simply hadn't thought about the rules or read them very carefully. Most of the rest are cases of wishful thinking on the part of the competitor. I don't think I have ever run across a case of cheating.

To further expand on this, do you recall if most of these car class issues are current SS cars or ST cars, and not folks making mistakes in SP and P?

I think the proposed rules for 2013 might solve some of the confusion for competitors due to the simple worksheet, especially in the "touring" classes.

I can certainly understand the SP and P concerns with this too, I'd be concerned a separate set of classification guidelines for "Super Cars" might be another level of difficultly for the scrutineers to manage/enforce though.

Paul G.

[nateh]

... do you recall if most of these car class issues are current SS cars or ST cars, and not folks making mistakes in SP and P?

Generally SS and ST.