New Rules - Tech, Policing, and Scrutineers

[Chrispy]

Sorry ... I guess Dad, Myself and a few others ( several of the fastest SPA cars ) are just in the miniority again ..... yes, we do turn heads & totally worth it, no trailer queens here .... shouldn't have even mentiuoned it I guess, my bad.

You are the minority but that doesn't mean you should be left out in the cold with classing. I for one respect your opinion, and hope that you do continue to voice it.

Under the rules as proposed where do you feel that your vehicles fit best? If the kit cars are getting the cold shoulder then the rules folk will have to figure out a solution.

Also the fastest cars in SPA/SPB aren't always the most prepped to race car standards, just have a good working combination of car and driver.

[dradernh]

The latest version of the classification tool (v1.1.7) no longer applies a correction factor of +0.5 for tire sizes up to 275mm; the cutoff for receiving that factor is 274mm. Is this a bug, or an intended change in the rules? The latest rules document (v1.1.5) still shows 275mm tires receiving the correction factor.

[Chrispy]

The latest version of the classification tool (v1.1.7) no longer applies a correction factor of +0.5 for tire sizes up to 275mm; the cutoff for receiving that factor is 274mm. Is this a bug, or an intended change in the rules? The latest rules document (v1.1.5) still shows 275mm tires receiving the correction factor.

My apologies, that is a bug. It should be less than or equal to 275 gets +0.5. I'll get a correction made.

[dradernh]

Thanks, Chris. 255s are what fit on my car right now, but I've considered modifying the body & moving up to 275s - so it's good to know that's still an option.

[paultg]

This is the latest correct: http://comscc.org/rules/2013-proposal/

Looks like final update in early December.

[McMahonRacing]

Chris ..
I just wanted it to make it clear that some of the fastest cars in PA & SPA are in fact street legal, tagged & insured cars that are quite often street driven, they are not all gutted caged "race cars" ... if fact I bet there are more of those in some of the lower classes, hence the issues w/ the current rules & some of the comments on the current touring classes being "stock" cars vs "race cars" .....

As for my opinion, please feel free to go back to the origional post "Rules for 2013", my opinion hasn't changed, no sense in retyping it, in fact the majority of it has been commented on by others in the many posts going at present ....

Honestly shouldn't have psoted again, I don't have a car in this debate any longer, will be back at COM for an occasional event like a WGI or Summit Point if the there are no conflicts, will run NHMS & LRP during standard "Open Test" days but going to focus much more on ST1/2 & TTU ......

[boltonite]

Pat, Hope you at least come to the banquet to pick up your trophy, I've got a lucky rabbit's foot for you.

The club has tried to become more "member friendly" and encourage club participation by more of its members. If a NASA-style classing system will help serve that primary purpose, I'd be one of its loudest proponents (i.e. for 2014, not sooner) but I am unconvinced that is what will happen, I'm not sure that is SUPPOSED to happen, which makes me less enthusiastic about it.

Our mantra may be "We're all about the fast lap" but the emphasis has been on the We and I hope that remains, regardless.

FF

[kfoote]

Brendan, given the level of prep on your car I think you would be far best off competing in the Super classes, Super C as a guess. The way the rules are proposed there is little incentive for race cars to run in the touring classes since the points accumulation forces them out of their competitive territory. There were some suggestions made on how to correct for this, but the general feeling from most people was that they didn't feel stock, lightly modded cars should be competing against race cars. In other words, a highly prepped race car in the top touring classes would most of the time be smoked by Bob and Laura's almost stock Corvettes.

I did some research on this exact point. The short version is that the way the rules are written, a car that would fit into Super C that would also fit into, say, T100, would have similar competitive lap times at most tracks. The outlier happens to be a big one though, as there is a huge jump in favoritism to a lightly modded high power car at Watkins Glen compared to a highly modified lower prep class. I wasn't able to find all the data I needed to make a proper assesment of the Canadian tracks, but NHMS and both NJMP tracks should have a similar balance, there is a slight advantage to the lighter cars at Summit Main (unexpected result) and a moderate advantage at Lime Rock (though not a as much advantage as one might suspect). The rough calculations I did put roughly 2.5 times the advantage to the high powered car at Watkins Glen than the low powered car has at Lime Rock, and about 4 times the advantage that the low powered car has at Summit.

I suspect the high powered cars will have a moderate advantage at Mosport as well, though as I mentioned, I don't have the data to back that up.

Also, to confirm a point Nick more eloquently stated than I did earlier, yes, IMO, there is no one that's really "maxed out" to any of the current COM rules, nor have I seen one in the entire time I have been running with COM.

[dradernh]

I did put roughly 2.5 times the advantage to the high powered car at Watkins Glen than the low powered car has at Lime Rock, and about 4 times the advantage that the low powered car has at Summit.

I suspect the high powered cars will have a moderate advantage at Mosport as well, though as I mentioned, I don't have the data to back that up.

Mosport is the Glen on steroids.

[McMahonRacing]

FF
Planning on the banquet, just working on someone to cart my butt around that night !!!
A rabbits foot, cool, can Iget two .. I think I am gonna need them

[jlaugh]

I really tried to leave this post alone but I just can't, sorry. This is in response to Jimmy P's rebuttal to my post on Sunday, Nov 4th. These were on page 4 of this thread.

Jimmy P wrote "I love competition as well,,, but with "like" cars. Beating or getting beat by a car of completely different makeup be it a corvette or a formula car I could not care less about. I'd rather the measure of like vehicles. Thats what we have now in Prepared.
In the proposed rule set my 4 cylinder BMW competing against something like a Street Stock Z06,,, or a spec racer ford,,, what good is that?
The comparison means nothing as we are not comparing apples to apples. I do not see the good in lumping everything together just because the weight and estimated (and saying estimated is being kind) HP look to be correct on paper."

Ok, first if you stay in the Super class it is very unlikely you will ever have a race Vette in Super B or C. It would have to have an anemic V8 with smog on it to be there. There already is a spec racer in your class PC, don't know if you noticed, and that probably wouldn't change. And no, these people we compete with are real and we have real lap times.

Jimmy P wrote "That has always been the case. Its a 6 cylinder factory race car. Yep,,, its gonna be fast.
If someone shows up with a factory Grp A E30 M3 in PC,,, I'm gonna get spanked. I get that. They built or bought a better mousetrap. I still wouldn't wish that guy to race a 600HP Vette because he got a good car.
Even in pro racing they do not pit sports cars against formula cars. Corvettes dont race against Miatas.
Like cars compete against like cars. In unlimited prep classes the modifier is always displacement. Not someones subjective assessment of what that cars base class is or its HP to Weight ratio. The old standard "There is no replacement for displacement" and "The only substitute for cubic inches is rectangular dollars" still apply.

Even in BMW club racing you are not going to be in the same class as the factory Grp A E30 M3, but you want to be in COM? Doesn't sound fair to me. Look at the succesful Continental sports car challenge; many different cars competing in close racing by tweaking of the base weight and motor mods. Displacement is important; but so is weight, thermal efficiency , etc. Engineers can predict lap times extremely effectively with the right parameters; this is no "subjective assessment of what cars base class is ...." Again, don't confuse the proposed Super rules with Touring; 2 different animals.

Jimmy P wrote" Why change what we have now? We have 4 Prepared classes. Why do they need to be put in a blender?
And why in the world would anyone think its good to meld 7 classes (FP, AP, BP, CP, ASP, BSP, CSP) into 3 or 4?
Makes no sense. I dont see that as fostering better competition. It just means some people are going to get screwed "and" their prep just got more complicated by arbitrary assessments of the "worth" of a particular mod,,, or the very arbitrary assessment of a cars base class and then having to use a calculator to "add up my mods".
Or even worse, an estimate of their HP because we have no way of proving it...

Because putting 7 classes together will mean more competition in 4 classes. The classes can already be thin now and will probably be thinner if the Touring rules go through. Again, Super does not use assesments of mods; it is different. And your worse case of taking several engine parameters is still way more efficient and accurate then displacement alone or number of cylinders alone.

Jimmy P wrote "I dont like it because it ceases to be a run what ya brung, unlimited prep class.
In the proposed revision you have to concern yourself with "if I do this mod,,, does it change my class".
COM Prepared is great "because" as long as you dont weld an extra cylinder onto your engine,,, or put forced induction on,,, you are good to go.
At no point in the classing of my car do I ever want to A) use a calculator or a spreadsheet, B) tell anyone what my car weighs or how much power it makes unless they are a friend and we are shooting the breeze.

It just improves the run what ya brung philosophy as it classes you with cars you are more likely to be competitive with in the unlimited world of sticking any race car imaginable into 4 classes. A steward can class the car for you so you don't have to use the spreadsheet and If I look at your car for 5 minutes I can tell you how much it weighs and how much power is at the crank within 20%. And who cares? we are all car nuts, isn't half the fun talking about this stuff. (By the way I will buy you lunch if I am wrong with my numbers) Also, my car weighs 2380 lbs with me in it and made 260 hp on a Dynojet (wheel) Dyno.

Jimmy P wrote"I dont understand how you can call the current rules set arbitrary and then propose a completely arbitrary method of determining HP or Torque.
The above described may be the most arbitrary method of determining HP I have ever heard proposed.
There is absolutely no science anywhere that can back up "From my days building race motors in a professional shop to all the tweaking I have done over the years I bet could come within 20% of what motors actually make".
Dynos,,, actual dynos have large discrepancies from dyno to dyno brand. How could you possibly hope to get this right? That,,, is arbitrary,,, not the current rule set.
The current Prepared rule set could not be more black and white.
Count the cylinders and put the sticker on. Black and White.

There is nothing arbitrary about the proposed rules that I hope you read when they are ready. It is called science and engineering and I bet it predicts your crank HP 10% low as it is designed to. Chassis dynos do have a large discrepancy from brand to brand, finally something we agree on! However engine Dynos are remarkably similar given the same ancillary devices are being run. Shall we count the lugnuts?

Jimmy P wrote" Again,,, in an unlimited mod class if I want to add an air shifted, paddle triggered sequential I should be able to,,, and so should you,,, or Will, or Brendan, or Fred, or anyone in Prepared. Thats called building a better mousetrap and I applaud it. I certainly wouldn't hold it against anyone and I would 100% not penalize anyone who did it in an unlimited prep class like Prepared. If people want rules to build to, or limit preparation great, run in Touring.
There are people who enjoy an unlimited rule set (or lack of rules) why take that away from us.
Leave Prepared alone.

If I add a sequential tranny and a 4.0 liter making 150 hp more I would prefer to run with cars of like lap times; so yes, I want to move to PA

Jimmy P wrote:I think my class is plenty interesting. I enjoy it thoroughly as written.
I like that it only has about 4 lines of rules, and I dont need anything more than 4 fingers to see if I am compliant.
Change all the other classes,,, but leave us one class that we can tinker to our hearts content without scales, "estimated" HP or spreadsheets.
What would it hurt to just leave Prepared alone?
You guys can still have the calculator classing for anyone who wants it. Why does the whole club have to follow?

Could you live with 9 lines of rules? I really do want everyone that has competed in P or SP in the last few years or who is planning to compete next year to be happy and continue to come to COM events. Jimmy, I can only find one COM event you attended in the Prepared or Street Prepared classes, Glen this year. Are you planning on doing more next year? I want the competition; looks like you are a little faster and if your numbers are anything like Fast Fred F. E30 then you should be in SuperB with me. Let's have some competition for 2nd and 3rd!

James L
85 911 SPB
70 914 PB

[C5toSM]

It's finally time that I weighed in here. (or is it "both feet in") I have resisted the urge so far but believe that as the President of the club I should let you know were I stand in advance of Monday's board meeting. I believe that my opinion is based in the clubs best interest and does not reflect personal opinion/concerns. (feel free to call me out on this, sometimes i need a kick in the butt) Full disclosure: for those who did not attend September's BOD meeting or attend the last event NHMS: I have given this rules effort my support from the very start. Having said that, I believe that what you read below is based on a carefully considered review of the many comments, concerns and opinions voiced thus far.

First some context: I have been on the BOD for 9 years with some number of them as President (is it 5?) and over that period there have been several non-starts of significant rules change proposals and have been party to many discussions. I believe there is a general feeling in the club that a change is needed, particularly in the classes the would be effected by the "Touring" portion of the current proposal. (see the beginnings of these threads for rational) As President the biggest hurdle that I see in getting such a proposal off the ground is not the back and forth dialog that you see in these posts or the work needed to get the details handled. The biggest hurdle is in the development of a starting point: having concerned members put in the incredible amount of work (hundreds of man hours) required to complete this task. We have that here thanks to Nick, Pete, Paddy, Chris and additional support from several others. I applaud you all! As president I would like to take advantage of this opportunity.

I believe these members have created a well thought out proposal and have worked to address the many concerns voiced here and in person at at the last event at NHMS. In other words, they have worked to create a sound basis for change. Having said that . . . I believe we should split the rules into two packages: "Touring" to be prepared and adopted in time for 2013 (should the members so choose) and "Super" to be developed over the next 12 month to be prepared and adopted in time for 2014 (should the members so choose) Here are my reasons:

re: Touring,

1) I believe that we can complete a quality "Touring" proposal for adoption by the membership, having incorporated my changes and revisions over the past few weeks.
2) I believe that the "Touring" proposal will have the greatest positive impact on the club and addresses long standing issues of "barrier to entry" for new prospective members.
3) I believe that a great majority of the membership would support the "Touring" proposal and in fact have already endorsed it.

re: Super,

1) I am not sure that we can do an adequate job of addressing the concerns of the members in time for 2013.
2) I believe that the "Super" proposal has the greatest potential for negative impact on the club as witnessed by some of the comments here.
3) I am not sure that a majority of "Prepared" members would support a change to "Super." and I think that it is their opinion that matters.
4) I think that to do our job well we should have a running dialog with "Prepared" participants at each and every event in the 2013 calendar to collect opinion and suggestions, to adequately "vet" a change to "super" and to gauge member support.

Those of you who know me will recognize that I am not often in favor of the "longest path" to getting something done. In short, I hate to add to the workload of a group of volunteers . . . we all do so much as it is. In the end, I believe that this approach is the path to success and that this approach will best serve the members.


John

[Georgethefierce]

I really tried to leave this post alone but I just can't, sorry. This is in response to Jimmy P's rebuttal to my post on Sunday, Nov 4th. These were on page 4 of this thread.

Jimmy P wrote "I love competition as well,,, but with "like" cars. Beating or getting beat by a car of completely different makeup be it a corvette or a formula car I could not care less about. I'd rather the measure of like vehicles. Thats what we have now in Prepared.
In the proposed rule set my 4 cylinder BMW competing against something like a Street Stock Z06,,, or a spec racer ford,,, what good is that?
The comparison means nothing as we are not comparing apples to apples. I do not see the good in lumping everything together just because the weight and estimated (and saying estimated is being kind) HP look to be correct on paper."

Ok, first if you stay in the Super class it is very unlikely you will ever have a race Vette in Super B or C. It would have to have an anemic V8 with smog on it to be there. There already is a spec racer in your class PC, don't know if you noticed, and that probably wouldn't change. And no, these people we compete with are real and we have real lap times.

Jimmy P wrote "That has always been the case. Its a 6 cylinder factory race car. Yep,,, its gonna be fast.
If someone shows up with a factory Grp A E30 M3 in PC,,, I'm gonna get spanked. I get that. They built or bought a better mousetrap. I still wouldn't wish that guy to race a 600HP Vette because he got a good car.
Even in pro racing they do not pit sports cars against formula cars. Corvettes dont race against Miatas.
Like cars compete against like cars. In unlimited prep classes the modifier is always displacement. Not someones subjective assessment of what that cars base class is or its HP to Weight ratio. The old standard "There is no replacement for displacement" and "The only substitute for cubic inches is rectangular dollars" still apply.

Even in BMW club racing you are not going to be in the same class as the factory Grp A E30 M3, but you want to be in COM? Doesn't sound fair to me. Look at the succesful Continental sports car challenge; many different cars competing in close racing by tweaking of the base weight and motor mods. Displacement is important; but so is weight, thermal efficiency , etc. Engineers can predict lap times extremely effectively with the right parameters; this is no "subjective assessment of what cars base class is ...." Again, don't confuse the proposed Super rules with Touring; 2 different animals.

Jimmy P wrote" Why change what we have now? We have 4 Prepared classes. Why do they need to be put in a blender?
And why in the world would anyone think its good to meld 7 classes (FP, AP, BP, CP, ASP, BSP, CSP) into 3 or 4?
Makes no sense. I dont see that as fostering better competition. It just means some people are going to get screwed "and" their prep just got more complicated by arbitrary assessments of the "worth" of a particular mod,,, or the very arbitrary assessment of a cars base class and then having to use a calculator to "add up my mods".
Or even worse, an estimate of their HP because we have no way of proving it...

Because putting 7 classes together will mean more competition in 4 classes. The classes can already be thin now and will probably be thinner if the Touring rules go through. Again, Super does not use assesments of mods; it is different. And your worse case of taking several engine parameters is still way more efficient and accurate then displacement alone or number of cylinders alone.

Jimmy P wrote "I dont like it because it ceases to be a run what ya brung, unlimited prep class.
In the proposed revision you have to concern yourself with "if I do this mod,,, does it change my class".
COM Prepared is great "because" as long as you dont weld an extra cylinder onto your engine,,, or put forced induction on,,, you are good to go.
At no point in the classing of my car do I ever want to A) use a calculator or a spreadsheet, B) tell anyone what my car weighs or how much power it makes unless they are a friend and we are shooting the breeze.

It just improves the run what ya brung philosophy as it classes you with cars you are more likely to be competitive with in the unlimited world of sticking any race car imaginable into 4 classes. A steward can class the car for you so you don't have to use the spreadsheet and If I look at your car for 5 minutes I can tell you how much it weighs and how much power is at the crank within 20%. And who cares? we are all car nuts, isn't half the fun talking about this stuff. (By the way I will buy you lunch if I am wrong with my numbers) Also, my car weighs 2380 lbs with me in it and made 260 hp on a Dynojet (wheel) Dyno.

Jimmy P wrote"I dont understand how you can call the current rules set arbitrary and then propose a completely arbitrary method of determining HP or Torque.
The above described may be the most arbitrary method of determining HP I have ever heard proposed.
There is absolutely no science anywhere that can back up "From my days building race motors in a professional shop to all the tweaking I have done over the years I bet could come within 20% of what motors actually make".
Dynos,,, actual dynos have large discrepancies from dyno to dyno brand. How could you possibly hope to get this right? That,,, is arbitrary,,, not the current rule set.
The current Prepared rule set could not be more black and white.
Count the cylinders and put the sticker on. Black and White.

There is nothing arbitrary about the proposed rules that I hope you read when they are ready. It is called science and engineering and I bet it predicts your crank HP 10% low as it is designed to. Chassis dynos do have a large discrepancy from brand to brand, finally something we agree on! However engine Dynos are remarkably similar given the same ancillary devices are being run. Shall we count the lugnuts?

Jimmy P wrote" Again,,, in an unlimited mod class if I want to add an air shifted, paddle triggered sequential I should be able to,,, and so should you,,, or Will, or Brendan, or Fred, or anyone in Prepared. Thats called building a better mousetrap and I applaud it. I certainly wouldn't hold it against anyone and I would 100% not penalize anyone who did it in an unlimited prep class like Prepared. If people want rules to build to, or limit preparation great, run in Touring.
There are people who enjoy an unlimited rule set (or lack of rules) why take that away from us.
Leave Prepared alone.

If I add a sequential tranny and a 4.0 liter making 150 hp more I would prefer to run with cars of like lap times; so yes, I want to move to PA

Jimmy P wrote:I think my class is plenty interesting. I enjoy it thoroughly as written.
I like that it only has about 4 lines of rules, and I dont need anything more than 4 fingers to see if I am compliant.
Change all the other classes,,, but leave us one class that we can tinker to our hearts content without scales, "estimated" HP or spreadsheets.
What would it hurt to just leave Prepared alone?
You guys can still have the calculator classing for anyone who wants it. Why does the whole club have to follow?

Could you live with 9 lines of rules? I really do want everyone that has competed in P or SP in the last few years or who is planning to compete next year to be happy and continue to come to COM events. Jimmy, I can only find one COM event you attended in the Prepared or Street Prepared classes, Glen this year. Are you planning on doing more next year? I want the competition; looks like you are a little faster and if your numbers are anything like Fast Fred F. E30 then you should be in SuperB with me. Let's have some competition for 2nd and 3rd!

James L
85 911 SPB
70 914 PB

I'm with ya! Does Jimmy P realize that PC currently has a SRF, Dwarf, Mini Cup , S2000, Miata, etc... in it, how are these cars like an E30 M3?

[jlaugh]

In reference to John's Post:
You probably are correct in that we have run out of time: but if what if we were to post an updated proposal for Super by Friday, then have those Prepared/Street Prepared effected people vote on it over the weekend?

[chaos4NH]

I strongly feel that the WHOLE membership be involved in ANY rules/class votes. How can we be sure that other members may not be considering entry into the "old" SP and P classes now or in the near future? Shouldn't they have a voice? and, who determines "the effected members"? It shouldn't matter if a member ran one event this year, or no events for the past few years, but the outcome of the vote of a small minority may effect their future plans to compete.
They are still sustaining members and may plan to run more events when circumstances allow. I believe the whole membership has a vote on all the rules/classes.

More important, in my estimation, is the subject of safety gear required for the new proposed classes. The proposal, based on points added to showroom base points, totally overlooks the safety factors that go along with the "modifications" allowed.