2006 Car classification proposal

[kfoote]

A couple of comments on the above:

Robert Ready (SSC) and Lee Walsh (ST4) are the only champions that would not have won under my proposal. The two people that would have won that didn't are Alex Tang (ST2) and Tim Drumm (SSA). There are a few other variables taken into account as far as people would have run the season based on what class they were in, but the overall diferences as far as class championships are relatively minimal, and frankly fewer than I had expected.

[Evergreen Dan]

As long as you are placing cars, the 2001-2002 BMW M-Coupe has the S54 motor found in the E46 M3 (although it makes 18 fewer horsepower (315 vs. 333) supposedly due to exhaust restrictions, although I think it is probably just due to a lower red line).

Accordingly, it should probably be classed the same as the E46 M3. Classing it with the 240 hp S52 M-Coupe and the E36 M3 seems wrong. Of course, if I had one, I'd shut up.

M-Roadster is the same as the M-Coupe (in terms of power)

[BrakeL8r]

Kevin and Chris,

I hope my dissention last night at the BOD meeting regarding the placement of the 94-97 Miatas wasn't taken the wrong way (my use of the word 'mistake' was a little harsh). I know you guys put a lot of thought into this area, and obviously did your homework. I'm just one of the unfortunate that fall in between classes, and no matter how you draw the lines, you're bound to make someone less than happy.

I applaude your efforts.

Thanks,

--Michael
ST4 Miata 1.6L #176

p.s. Now I just need to learn to drive better and brake less...

[WillM]

I am in the same boat as Mike, and hope and trust that my disagreement with some of the classification changes was not taken the wrong way. It is clear that Kevin and Chris put in a lot of time and effort into their proposal, and they do deserve our praise and recognition. :thumbleft:

That said, I am left with the same question. Does the proposed classification change correct an imbalance in 'higher level' classes while at the same time unbalancing the 'lower classes'?

[kfoote]

I will be rewiting the proposal and going through all the points calculations after the NHIS results from this weekend are posted, with moving the 1.8L M1 Mazda Miatas and the Nissan Sentra SE-R from the proposed SSC to SSB.

The imbalance that is caused is in one car that shows up regularly. The balance that is created fixes classification problems for several cars that show up regularly. Frankly, I am surprised that the 1.6L Miata issue (which as a reminder, hasn't been built in 12 years) and the lumping together of all the Volvo 5-cyl turbo cars are the only real issues that came up.

[Crusin]

Hi Kevin

We all appreciate the work, time and effort. Based a comment in your previous post, how would the results align, if you ignored the top and bottom 10% for each class. This would eliminate the beginners in the class, and the consistent winners, leaving, the general population in the middle. Would this provide a more accurate picture of what is really happening? Just a thought.

Lee

[Grippy]

I don't mean to backpedal but,
It seems to me that the 1.6 Miata is a lot closer to a 1.8 Miata than an E30 BMW, integra type R, MINI Cooper S, or RX-7 13B. How can a Miata compete in this class?

Maybe we should just leave things alone, they seem to work just fine the way they are.

[Crusin]

There were some mixed signals at the BOD meeting with regards to the realigment, some valid and some were HUH? I agree that a realignment may be necessary for some cars. Their performance potential may be greater or lesser than percieved when they were first introduced. New cars may have been introduced and added to a class which has made older cars non competitive in that class. These are very valid reasons to discuss realignment. Kevin and Chris have put a lot of effort into researching this information. When you see them this week end, be sure to thank them for the effort they are putting forth to help the club.

The one I don't understand or agree with was the comment made following the question concerning the numbers of classes. Basically, the Board is opposed to adding classes. The comments that followed were:

More classes means the classes will be smaller.
Small classes means only one trophy.

So, moving cars around, putting competitive cars into non competitive classes so more trophies can be handed out does not make a whole lot of sense.

Another comment that should be reviewed is in regards to the performance potential of the M1 1.6 versus the M1 1.8 Miatas. Some of the percieved performance capabilities seem to be based on Spec Miata information. In fact, an ST4 or ST3 Miata should be faster than an SM. The ST classes allow performance mods not permitted in SM. Having said this, the performance gains between a modified ST4 Miata and a modified ST3 Miata may not be and probably will not be equal. Beyond the 200cc improvement, various years had different compression ratios, cam specs and other issues that would affect the class legal modifications. Where a 1.6 might see a 5% gain with a header, and low restriction air filter, a 1.8 might see a 10% gain. Just thoughts to be considered.

Not all cars can be competitive, this is a given. Not all drivers are equal. This is also a given. Look at cars that need to be realigned, not the entire classing structure which does not seem to be broken.

[HerbD]

The one I don't understand or agree with was the comment made following the question concerning the numbers of classes. Basically, the Board is opposed to adding classes. The comments that followed were:

More classes means the classes will be smaller.
Small classes means only one trophy.

So, moving cars around, putting competitive cars into non competitive classes so more trophies can be handed out does not make a whole lot of sense.

Not exactly. More like - more classes means greater chances of classes
with one or two cars in them. What good is a competition format where
there is no competition? Move the cars around so that each class has
at least 4 or 5 cars in it on time trial day. Don't add more classes so
that one out of every two entries that shows up takes home a 1st place trophy.

[Crusin]

I agree with that point Herb, but why move a car into a non-competitive class, just to award a trophy?

A car should be properly classified. If there are only one or two cars in the class, then the problem is an issue of attendance in that class, not the car classification. In fact, I believe there was a rule at one time that stated if there were less than X cars in a class at an event, then the cars for that event would be bumped up a class. The car classification did not change, but was bumped up, to address the issue you just described.

[HerbD]

I agree with that point Herb, but why move a car into a non-competitive class, just to award a trophy?

A car should be properly classified. If there are only one or two cars in the class, then the problem is an issue of attendance in that class, not the car classification. In fact, I believe there was a rule at one time that stated if there were less than X cars in a class at an event, then the cars for that event would be bumped up a class. The car classification did not change, but was bumped up, to address the issue you just described.

We're not deliberately trying to move cars into classes where they
are obviously not competitive. We're trying to restructure the classes so
that they better represent the cars that have actually been showing up to
events, and balance the number of cars competing in a class.

The problem with the "bump" rule was that it did exactly what you're
speaking out against, putting a single car from a lower class into a
higher class where they are likely to not be competitive. The current
rule was put into place to try and not penalize a competitor for showing
up with a properly prepared and classed car, and then getting tossed
into another class because no one else from their class showed up.

Let's see Chris and Kevin's final draft before we get too worked up
about single cars.

[denndy]

[quote="Grippy"]I don't mean to backpedal but,
It seems to me that the 1.6 Miata is a lot closer to a 1.8 Miata than an E30 BMW, integra type R, MINI Cooper S, or RX-7 13B. How can a Miata compete in this class?

I have similar concerns regarding the re-classification of the M2 1999-2005 Showroom Stock Miata. It seems that these cars are "more similar to 1994-97 M1 Miatas than they are to the cars listed above. In addition, the 2006 Miata will soon be appearing and based upon my brief ride a couple of weeks ago, it would be tough to compete in the "new" SSA, but would be more than competitive with the M2 cars.

Will be interested to see the final proposed configuration since I am in general agreement that something should be done.

Thanks,
Dennis

[chaos4]

[quote="kfoote"]I will be rewiting the proposal and going through all the points calculations after the NHIS results from this weekend are posted, with moving the 1.8L M1 Mazda Miatas and the Nissan Sentra SE-R from the proposed SSC to SSB.



The 2002+ Nissan Sentra SE-R and SE-R Spec V have differences totalling nearly those of the Mini Cooper and Mini Cooper S. Granted, only 10hp, but the SER also lacks the Limited Slip helical geared differential, 17 " wheels (and resulting wider tires), 6-speed gearbox, the "sport" (read stiff) suspension, anti locking brakes, and the sport seats of the Spec V. SSC is certainly where the SER belongs, not SSB with the Cooper S, Spec V, Golf Turbo, and the other listed turbo cars. Just hoping to even the playing field here. Thanks!

[kfoote]

I will be rewiting the proposal and going through all the points calculations after the NHIS results from this weekend are posted, with moving the 1.8L M1 Mazda Miatas and the Nissan Sentra SE-R from the proposed SSC to SSB.

The 2002+ Nissan Sentra SE-R and SE-R Spec V have differences totalling nearly those of the Mini Cooper and Mini Cooper S. Granted, only 10hp, but the SER also lacks the Limited Slip helical geared differential, 17 " wheels (and resulting wider tires), 6-speed gearbox, the "sport" (read stiff) suspension, anti locking brakes, and the sport seats of the Spec V. SSC is certainly where the SER belongs, not SSB with the Cooper S, Spec V, Golf Turbo, and the other listed turbo cars. Just hoping to even the playing field here. Thanks!

In my proposal for moving the 1.8L Miatas out of SSC to SSB, the 1991 Sentra SE-R's were the ones I was referring to. These have been shown to have equal potential to the 1.8L NA Miatas. The 2002+ SER spec V should be in the same class as the NB Miatas, wherever they end up. Unfortunately, the 2002+ SER non-V's do get hurt by the classification, but they are clearly faster than the 1991's, and there isn't anywhere else to put them.

[sillyspheres]

What is the rationale for keeping the Acura RSX Type S in SSA, but moving the Integra Type R down to SSB? I am not sure why one would think the RSX is a faster car than the Type R. Furthermore, the RSX has no chance in SSA now that the FBodies- Trans Am and Camaro and Mustang have moved down.

Perhaps I misread the sheet that was passed around this past weekend, but I would think RSX Type S belongs in SSB and RSX base model belongs in SSC.