Rules 2013 - Version 1.2 and Voting!

[Stynger]

Seems clear if you remove the airbag you must install FIA/SFI 5-pt belts otherwise OEM belts are ok.

With regard to bushings, if the intent is assess points for performance mods, upgraded bushings ought to get some assessment since the primary reason to use them is performance (not cost savings). If the 1-point assessment is too severe, compared to other upgrades, there is a problem in the the point scale. Going forward, there will be an endless, constant stream of aftermarket performance parts produced, each will need to be assessed to keep the rules current; if the granularity of points allows you to use performance parts with 0 points that seems at odds with the basic premise of a points-based system.

FF

There was endless discussion on bushings at the BOD meeting last night.
We agreed that non rubber bushings are a performance advantage. We couldn't go with 1/2 points (I'm not sure why) one point seemed a little severe, but that's what we agreed on. I think it was 1 point non rubber, 2 points metal bushings.

Fred brings up a good point, as more and more advantage parts come to light, we may have to change the points system to maybe doubling the points to get more granularity, or use fractions.

This will be a work in progress. the new rules package will be up for membership voting hopefully within a week.

We agreed to keep SP, P and FP for this year. We literally ran out of time to hash through Super.

We have rules in Touring to address safety. If you fall into that, you could possibly run in SP for next year where the safety rules were not changed.
Safety will be addressed next year for all classes.

[Stynger]

curious too, what's going to happen w/ cars that are exceptionaly good at say NHMS but lack the aero. to pull a big track like WGI ......

This has been a concern of mine.
I don't think it is a big issue in Touring where it's stretched over 8 classes, but it could be in Super.
We have a year to try and figure it out. Any ideas are welcome.

[TroyV]

If the scale between classes is going to remain 10 points, then I don't think the resolution of mod points can stay whole numbers for very long. The "duplo blocks" mentality of whole numbers does however make the choice of deploying or not deploying a mod for those folks at the high end of their classes a more obvious one.

If base assessments are going to have resolution of one decimal place, then mods should have that resolution as well. The poor shmoe who's car is XX.2 base can't use the .8 remainder. That is kind of crappy. It might make more sense if there isn't any support for one decimal place mod points resolution to allow the base assessment to be either always rounded down, which will benefit everyone, or rounded to the nearest whole number, which benefits some. Right now... a value of .1 on a base assessment is pretty much worth a whole point after everything else is added in. The only other one place decimal generator being the dyno calc..

Q: How can poly bushings and metal spherical bushings be worth the same amount of points? That said...how can spherical bushings be worth 2 points if they were bumped.....if then double adjustable shocks are also worth 2 points. As I see it... bushings should either be free, or use fractions.

[Chrispy]

From the rules and technical standpoint there is no reason that fractions can't be used, and going forward it will probably be inevitable as arguments over single point assessments will abound. The question right now would be whether there is value in keeping whole numbers for simplicity. Given that we are already starting from a fractional base I'm not sure that there would be much difference.

[breakaway500]

..arguments...assessments... let the good times roll!

How about driver weights? The light drivers certainly have an unfair advantage over.....heavier people....

1/10th point subtracted for every 10lbs of driver weight over 150! Weigh-ins mandatory before time trials..all required personal gear for class inclusive in total.

Age. Let's subtract 1/10th point for every full year of age over 50,the actual legal date being assessed the day and hr. of time trial. You can call it the Senility Factor. 2/10th point subtracted for ever year over 60. A full point every year over 70. Over 80..10 points/yr.

Car colors! Every one knows red and yellow cars are faster. Add 1/2 point for either. On multi tone cars, use a multiplier,calculated by the percentage of actual body coverage of the qualifying color.

Flames are a full point. Sponsor stickers 1/10th point each.

Factoring into the future!

I know... stfu ....

[McMahonRacing]

" I don't think it is a big issue in Touring where it's stretched over 8 classes, but it could be in Super.
We have a year to try and figure it out. Any ideas are welcome. "

As for Super/Preppared ideas .... my feeling is that there will not be enough time to develope an accurate method if the new rules go into effect, there will be far too much to do just trying fix all the issues there will be in Touring .... all the Super/preppared class does is shine a brighter light on the same issues there will be in Touring and if every solution/modification too Touring requires a "rules" change proposal @ year end, I can't see there being adaquate time to attempt another wholesale change ( maybe in 2015 ) .....

So much for simplicity & cost effectivness & fun ......

I know... stfu .... just like Mark, I just can't seem to do it right, getting better at it though .......

[WillM]

Troy,

Were you responding to a post I made last evening? I crafted a response, posted it, and now it is gone. I would suspect user error (on my part), but your post seems to directly address some of the comments I made.

In any event, there is definitely a question of granularity/scale in the points system. The idea of using fractional points has come up in two different meetings, and both times in the context of bushings. Both times, the idea was met with a chorus of 'no' immediately. That's not to say that we won't go there at some point, but apparently 'we' aren't ready to go there yet. My 'missing' post also addressed that the only time we use fractional points are in the base class assessment, which adds a level of confusion that doesn't need to exist.

I agree that everything is relative, but disagree that bushings should be free (worth 0 points). Suspension bushings should be worth....something. The lowest unit of measure we currently have to work with is 1, which is the compromise we came to in assessing points for bushings. I have run stock rubber, stiffer rubber, poly/delrin, and metal (bearings), all on the same chassis. Each is an improvement over other, with the biggest leap going from rubber to poly/delrin, which is why I support the bushing rule as it is stated.

Someone said that bushings aren't worth as much as swaybars, and while I agree with that, I think 1 point for swaybars is a bargain, it should be more! Same goes with values for shocks - too low. On the other hand, I think some of the points for aero are too high. As a bunch of us have already said, it is all relative.

The development of the Touring rules and the BoD's support was contingent on the authors of the rules being actively involved in the rules process for the foreseeable future. They have committed to staying on and involved with the evolution of the rules. No cut & run. I'm certain that we'll learn a lot in 2013 and that there will be many rule change proposals, as there have been every year.

[TroyV]

That is reasonable.

I have had a lot of fun messing around with various points strategies. It really does get you thinking about what really matters to you most, and what can be set aside.

The issues of my car's particular configuration aside, I think this is a important step in the right direction, and is a rules set I can get behind....and thus, is a good reason for me to run for the BOD.

You heard it here first folks.

I'm raising funds for an awesome negative campaign. Here is my first ad: (insert name here) didn't vote at COM BOD meetings to end death by strangulation....(insert same name here) is FOR death by strangulation!!

[WillM]

"Funded by Racers for Freedom, PAC"
"...I'm Troy Velazquez and I approved this message"

[6PAK72]

"If nominated I shall not run, if elected I shall not serve..."

Troy's pithy interjection highlights one of my concerns. I agree we need already to revisit "granularity". I'm not sure how that looks, but I just ran an Excel on my car scaling the class differentiation to 20 points, and scaling the inputs by 2x.

Then I entered my own personally biased assumptions about performance enhancements - 2 points for the change from rubber to neoprene, 1 point for each upgrade enhancement, 2 points for a fixed upgrade to swaybar, +1 for an adjustable...took me about an hour.

The result moves my car from within 1 point of the top of T50 to a mid-scale car in the "Baker Modified" scale T50. But it's still relatively within the T50 scale, it just gives you some more headroom, and I think, some more opportunity for competitive alignment.

This is NOT a complaint, I still wholeheartedly support the direction we're heading, and am completely happy to accept the vaguries of next season for a refined, comprehensive outcome.

[blindsidefive0]

Regarding granularity and fractional points; we tried to create a system with 10 points between classes mostly for simplicity, especially at initial roll-out. It makes the points easier to add up, easier to figure out what class you are in, etc. However, in the future there may be a need for more precision with modification points. A small handful of 1 point modifications and a small handful of free modifications may end up in this bucket, but for the most part, I think the whole point values will still work. In the future if a car has a base class of XX.9 and then takes a fractional mod, I think it SHOULD be bumped up to the next point - it necessarily has a better power/weight/performance adjustment combination than the XX.1 car.

There are also multiple ways of doing this -
Fractional points
Changing the base scale to a higher number (per Mr. Baker's post)
Grouping modifications together - i.e. you get 1 point if you do any or all of X, Y, Z
"Mini" points - CASC has a version where you add up these itty bitty mods, and depending on your base class, translates that into 1, 2, or 3 "real" points

The time for 2013 tweaks has come and gone, but I'm happy with what was presented to the BOD last week - pending a membership vote, this type of feedback will help the newborn Touring Classes evolve in a positive way for years to come.

...now I have to get back to adding Jeff Baker's crappy British cars to the Touring Class list

[DanDarcy]

Cheer up Nick , be happy I didn't ask you to classify my cars

[6PAK72]

Have you seen Top Gear where Jeremy et al fly over to Belgium in Spitfires to defeat the Motherland on the race track? Don't say I didn't warn you...

[kfoote]

Being in PB, I'm dissapointed that the Super class structure change to power:weight didn't get changed. In PB, I now have to compete with Steve Millen's Pikes Peak overall winning Celica and Tundra from the 90's and their 2.2L 4-cyl turbo engines that in IMSA GTP trim made 1200+ HP. Anyone have $750k I can borrow so I can build a car that's competitive in my class?

[brucesallen]

More drivers spoke out against Super than for it. Too late.