|
|
Post by robbiesolesbee on Jan 8, 2013 12:37:27 GMT -5
What if we used the bumping order, but instead of using raw times for classes that have been bumped, we make those classes PAX classes. For instance: HS gets bumped to DS therefore DS becomes a PAX class for that event. Do this only for the events that need to be bumped, and leave the championship point the way they are. I'll go along with that. Easy. Because there's not enough Advil in the world to deal with setting that up on an event by event basis  |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Burke on Jan 8, 2013 15:29:33 GMT -5
Hello,
The exchanges and opinions primarily about a proposed change in the Region's auto-x classing and awards for the 2013 season is now onto a fifth page on this web-site. How about bringing the matter to a timely vote by the Club's autocrossers?
Surely, given the electronic expertise of Region members, a simple ballot could be sent directly via an E-mail to every Region member (note, not all competitors monitor the web-site frequently) who entered a CCR hosted event in 2012 (and 2011 if desired) asking them to promptly indicate their preference for classing in 2013. For example, the choices could be:
--The 2013 CCR auto-x program will include classes for vehicles as prescribed in SCCA's "2013 Solo Rules" plus a "Pro" class both for awards at individual events and season class championships. Succinctly, no changes from past seasons.
--The 2013 CCR auto-x program will combine the classes for vehicles as prescribed in SCCA's "2013 Solo Rules" using the following format (exact verbiage to be provided by Mike and A.J.) for awards at individual events and season championships.
--The 2013 CCR auto-x program will combine classes for vehicles as prescribed in SCCA's "2013 Solo Rules" using the following format (exact verbiage to be provided by Mike and A.J.) for awards at individual events. Season championship awards will be based on points earned at individual events as scored utilizing classes prescribed in SCCA's "2013 Solo Rules" plus a "Pro" class.
By seeking and then promptly implementing the most popular choice as expressed by the competitors (the Region's customers and owners if you will), all of us could focus on individual plans for competing in 2013 including evaluating what events we can attend based on the Region's schedule hopefully to be released soon.
Thanks for your consideration!
Mike Burke
Asheville
828 258-2442
|
|
|
|
Post by ball80 on Jan 8, 2013 15:45:47 GMT -5
I Agree. Email a ballot out. Lets get it over
|
|
|
|
Post by dasautochris on Jan 8, 2013 16:50:39 GMT -5
Amen brother. A web forum is a great place to discuss things, but not a good place to get the majority's true opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by drum3 on Jan 8, 2013 17:47:36 GMT -5
SCCA Bumping order DOES revert to a PAX based bump class , not RAW times ,,,,soooooo , Bumping single car classes to one Pax based class would be similar to the SCCA system anyway (thats why Axware puts them in Pax) ....the bigger class would give anyone competition and you could just call it bump class or whatever .
|
|
|
|
Post by apexemall on Jan 8, 2013 21:20:22 GMT -5
For the record, I'm up for a vote and like the idea of bumping into a paxed combined class.
Winning the championship without competition like I did in ETR was no where near a much fun as losing by a whisker to Amy in STX at CCR.
I'm excited by all the new competition in STX - going to be fun for all. Now that I know I can beat Travis and Joe (kinda prooved it - to myself at least - in Darlington) I'm ready. I couldn't believe those young guys wouldn't spot an old man a second or two. They did spot me a couple of runs though. Would have beat them if I hadn't coned on the last run.
Clyde
|
|
|
|
Post by jprice130 on Jan 8, 2013 22:52:05 GMT -5
For the record, I'm up for a vote and like the idea of bumping into a paxed combined class. Winning the championship without competition like I did in ETR was no where near a much fun as losing by a whisker to Amy in STX at CCR. I'm excited by all the new competition in STX - going to be fun for all. Now that I know I can beat Travis and Joe (kinda prooved it - to myself at least - in Darlington) I'm ready. I couldn't believe those young guys wouldn't spot an old man a second or two. They did spot me a couple of runs though. Would have beat them if I hadn't coned on the last run. Clyde I definitely noticed your last coned run when I saw the Darlington results posted online. That was really good driving Clyde and tough luck on that cone. I was very fortunate to win STX that day! I hate that I had to leave early before you finished, but it was still a fun battle. I'm really torn about joining you guys in STX, but I really want to keep my car stock until I get it paid off. I know if I keep running in STX, I'll be too tempted to spend money on coilovers, camber plates, exhaust, and etc, so running in a stock class will save me from myself.  Unfortunately, it looks like some of the C-Stock regulars are doing different things in 2013, so I'm afraid I won't have too many folks to run with. If the combined classes get voted down, I may just run my stock BRZ in STX anyway, just so I can have some good fun with you guys. |
|
|
|
Post by trdriver on Jan 9, 2013 0:28:56 GMT -5
Well, I should drop by here more often I guess. I didn't know this 9 pax class idea existed until today. What a horrid idea. If I have to run in a PAX class with SS, AS etc, there is no incentive for me to compete - my PAX factor is totally unrealistic for that (I believe this is true for all cars over 30 years old - there should be a different PAX structure for relics like mine).
I can't compete with the Miatas in ES either, but I liked the challenge of trying.
Please come up with an up or down decision on this 9 PAX class thing ASAP - if that's what you're going with this year, I'd like to know so I can spend my time and money preparing for something else.
Cheers,
Jack Mc
|
|
|
|
Post by tedebayer on Jan 9, 2013 3:34:29 GMT -5
I received a couple of emails of concern that rules are going to be changed. Please, understand there is a process for this. some rules (like adding a class) we can do as a region or even as a division. Some rules are SCCA rules and cannot be altered and still run as SCCA sanctioned events. Some rules can be altered but must be heard, considered, approved by BOD for vote and voted on properly before a season starts (ie: cannot be changed in mid-season).
Before a change can be voted on, it must be properly proposed in writing with back up and explanations to the Board. If the Board votes to approve consideration (after carefully researching to be sure it is an area we have the ability to alter), THEN it would be put out for vote by ALL of our members. All would have the right to study, speak up in favor or not in favor and vote in a fair and orderly fashion. We do not make decisions on the fly based on a few members desires expressed on a forum or a poll on Facebook. A "run n' gun" system has gotten many organizations in trouble and killed many once successful programs. We have a great Solo program here in CCR and we want to keep it and we do that by listening and by serving the needs of our members and by acting carefully... Can't make every one happy.
Every one relax and allow each other to state their opinions and thoughts... there is no cause for concern at this point as it is merely some discussing ideas. I am pleased we allow an open environment for ideas and consideration but change is made in an orderly fashion based on majority vote. Some ideas that may seem CRAZY to you ...may result in an improvement to our system and program. Try to be open minded. By the same token, if your idea is not agreed on by the majority, realize... YOU could be wrong. Democracy does not only work when you get what you want. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by drum3 on Jan 9, 2013 6:21:49 GMT -5
Well, I should drop by here more often I guess. I didn't know this 9 pax class idea existed until today. What a horrid idea. If I have to run in a PAX class with SS, AS etc, there is no incentive for me to compete - my PAX factor is totally unrealistic for that (I believe this is true for all cars over 30 years old - there should be a different PAX structure for relics like mine). I can't compete with the Miatas in ES either, but I liked the challenge of trying. Please come up with an up or down decision on this 9 PAX class thing ASAP - if that's what you're going with this year, I'd like to know so I can spend my time and money preparing for something else. Cheers, Jack Mc Jack , I bet your car would do better in PAX vs the local SS,AS ,BS cars than it does against the ES cars  |
|
|
|
Post by drum3 on Jan 9, 2013 7:56:57 GMT -5
And yet another alternative,, create 3 Bump Pax classes for any class with less than 3 cars. Bump 1 for Stock, Bump 2 for ST, SP and Bump 3 for everything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasautochris on Jan 9, 2013 8:24:59 GMT -5
If we were to do these bump classes, would this be on a event by event basis? So the season points would not be changed?
How much of a headache is it to set up the classes in AXware at each event?
|
|
|
|
Post by yellow CR on Jan 9, 2013 17:57:44 GMT -5
The 9 Class system will foster better competition, make better drivers when forced to compete against faster people and develop better camaraderie with your competitors. How many people will you talk to in your one car class, compared to a 20 car class. When people beat you, they immediately get your respect and thus build friendships off of the competition.
Not having a car that is competitive, is not the systems fault. If you can't compete in either system, why do you need to hold back the people that do have good cars and a desire to battle it out with many people. What is the difference if you finish 4th out of 4 or 20th out of 20?
My problem with the bump class is it is not the same people each event, with my biggest issue being the season championships. Having only 4 classes out of almost 40 decided before the last event is quite uneventful. Having people win the season title after just 5-6 events, is wrong. This is suppose to be a skilled competition.
And as Ted stated this is just a discussion, where people can state their cases and opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by drum3 on Jan 9, 2013 19:49:50 GMT -5
OK , I'm going to try to see both sides here ......I personally like the 9 Pax Class system , but I like the Challenge .I jumped to Pro when we first started it just for the Head to Head Competition . It makes you a better driver and you get to discuss the course with the best drivers around after each run , learning more and more at each event .
On the other side , less than half of our Competitors are really wanting the Competition and wanting to learn . Many just want to have fun with their car . Others just want to challenge friends in a low key class . Others want to be the Big fish in their little class ( I dont get that but to each his own) . Others want a smaller class so the perceived pressure isnt there . Remember , less than half of your customers take this stuff seriously .
So you have to come up with something that Fosters Competition and makes your club faster and stronger without alienating those that are just here for fun and dont care about the competition ......... This is why I think either just introducing either an Intermediate Pax Class or Going to a 3 Pax Class Bumping order ....
After going over the ideas I feel the 3 Pax Class Bump (Stock, ST&SP and Everything else) might be the best compromise . You do away with one or two car classes so everyone has a Challenge but you still leave it less stressful than a 20 car class might be . If their is the need you could still introduce the Intermediate Class .
I think to keep your Club happy , no matter what you do you are going to have to keep ALL the Year end Class trophies the same .
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiesolesbee on Jan 10, 2013 8:04:29 GMT -5
I would like to change the classing around because this is suppose to be a diving competition, not the special Olympics where everyone is a winner. We have 37 open classes and last year the number of drivers who qualified for the season championship was only 36. So out of 37 open classes: 17 classes had 0 qualify for the season championship 9 classes had only 1 qualify 8 classes had 2 qualify Only 3 classes had 3 or more people qualify. I want to do this because I want to see each event trophy and season ending trophy mean something. Because as it is now, all trophies that are won in open classes have no worth, and were not really earned, with the exception of the 3 classes out of 37 that had driver participation. I started in tire class, and loved the competition, having 10+ drivers to run against all the time is great. Now being in PRO and competing against 20-50 drivers is really awesome. We had 48 drivers in Pro at Black Lake, yeah that's 48 drivers, and when I came in 7th, I was damn proud if my showing. Because I would rather come in 7th out of 48, than 1st out of 3. And the PAX system is very accurate, to within a tenth in my opinion. I don't think it's fair to say it wasn't earned... It's not my fault that more people don't have a SS class car nor is it my fault that my main competition in that class failed to attend the minimum required events to qualify. What other class could I have done? Not tire, (i ran Hoosiers) nor pro (my first full season). And novice I felt wasnt fair for others as I already did a season prior. So picking this class was my only choice really. Having said this, I am all for competition and personally id like to see a pax class for all stock classes, then prepared, etc. etc. I have to agree with this. Not because I'm in the same situation but if you show up to run your class other people have to show up as well and, it's out of your control if someone others do not show up to run in your class. When I started doing autocross I'm stuck with this Mustang as I'm still making payments on it and had no idea of what class, strengths, and weaknesses put this car in G-Stock. Granted, if I can out run one car and finish next to last it adds to the fun. But, I try my bestto show up for each event in both regions. Some medical issues hamstrung that until May. This year I'm rolling the dice that two family reunions don't fall on those dates. But the upside to that is with one I might get to run at Tire Racks's test track or Grissom Aeroplex with the South Bend region. My hope is that the novices that qualify for G will elect to run this class for 2013, but I'm not opposed to paxing stock classes. At least I stand of chance of finishing ahead of a few cars because of PAX. Looking forward to seeing everybody Saturday. Really starting to miss my autocross family. |
|
|
|
Post by integra55 on Jan 10, 2013 9:49:17 GMT -5
[quote author=yellowcr board=solo2 thread=5706 post=70310 time=1357772264]The 9 Class system will foster better competition, make better drivers when forced to compete against faster people and develop better camaraderie with your competitors. How many people will you talk to in your one car class, compared to a 20 car class. When people beat you, they immediately get your respect and thus build friendships off of the competition.
Not having a car that is competitive, is not the systems fault. If you can't compete in either system, why do you need to hold back the people that do have good cars and a desire to battle it out with many people. What is the difference if you finish 4th out of 4 or 20th out of 20?
My problem with the bump class is it is not the same people each event, with my biggest issue being the season championships. Having only 4 classes out of almost 40 decided before the last event is quite uneventful. Having people win the season title after just 5-6 events, is wrong. This is suppose to be a skilled competition.
And as Ted stated this is just a discussion, where people can state their cases and opinions.
[/quote]maybe I'm misreading your post ... but it sounds like you've decided how we're going to do it this yr
|
|
|
|
Post by yellow CR on Jan 10, 2013 11:33:58 GMT -5
Although I think the 9 class PAX system would be the most fun, and competitive way of running events. I am leaning toward just adding an Intermediate class for those that want to compete against more foes. I do not want to alienate people, and this is probably the best for both. Because we do have people that like competing alone or in a small group. And we do have talented driver that want to push themselves, but just are not up to the level of the Pro Class.
|
|
|
|
Post by turtle8 on Jan 10, 2013 11:52:09 GMT -5
One issue I have with the PAX numbers in general is that they are determined by National results comparing times across classes. If you look at the 2012 results, most drivers that trophy in each individual class are driving the same makes and models. How can this relate to our region where we have such a variety of cars? For example, how do you determine a CCR PAX for H-stock when every car at Nationals was a MINI? The most active HS cars in CCR were a Celica and a Tacoma truck. PAX is skewed to a theoretical car prepared to the max driven by the best driver which doesn't relate the real world regional autocrosses.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellow CR on Jan 10, 2013 14:11:14 GMT -5
One issue I have with the PAX numbers in general is that they are determined by National results comparing times across classes. If you look at the 2012 results, most drivers that trophy in each individual class are driving the same makes and models. How can this relate to our region where we have such a variety of cars? For example, how do you determine a CCR PAX for H-stock when every car at Nationals was a MINI? The most active HS cars in CCR were a Celica and a Tacoma truck. PAX is skewed to a theoretical car prepared to the max driven by the best driver which doesn't relate the real world regional autocrosses. You are misled about the PAX, it uses more local events than national events to determine the numbers. This Index was developed by Rick Ruth and reflects study of results from well over 500 nationwide Solo events including, the Tire Rack® Solo National Championships, National Tour, Alabama Region, Atlanta Region, Chicago Region, California Sports Car Club, Central Florida Region, Equipe Rapide (Florida & Texas), Great Lakes Solo Series, Hawaii Region, Houston Region, Midwest Divisional Series, Milwaukee Region, Minnesota Autosports Club, New England Region, Northwest Region, Northern New Jersey Region, Oregon Region, Philadelphia Region, Rocky Mountain Series, San Francisco Region, San Diego Region, South Jersey Region, St. Louis Region, Tri-State Sports Car Council, Texas Region, Washington DC Region, Wisconsin Autocrossers Inc., and many, many others That's alot of local regions being used. |
|
|
|
Post by cr89x on Jan 10, 2013 14:13:33 GMT -5
Having others to run against makes you want to go faster. I'll continue to use 2012 STS battle. Walter you can't deny, and you have admitted, that I pushed you hard this season. I could see a difference in you and your times. You put a lot of effort in, and we still congratulated and shook hands no matter who won. Equally you pushed me hard. It didn't matter how big a lead I had going into my last run. I knew I HAD to go faster on my last run because it was almost given that you would be my previously posted times.
Is PAX theoretical? Yes. Is it based on Nationals? Not solely.
If you believe these two questions to be true, Google the RTP index sheet. It is clearly written that the numbers are theoretical but very close to actually. Furthermore it states what REGIONS along with National events that data is comprised. Rick has done a good job compiling a LOT of data.
|
|
|
|
Post by drum3 on Jan 10, 2013 14:52:58 GMT -5
One issue I have with the PAX numbers in general is that they are determined by National results comparing times across classes. If you look at the 2012 results, most drivers that trophy in each individual class are driving the same makes and models. How can this relate to our region where we have such a variety of cars? For example, how do you determine a CCR PAX for H-stock when every car at Nationals was a MINI? The most active HS cars in CCR were a Celica and a Tacoma truck. PAX is skewed to a theoretical car prepared to the max driven by the best driver which doesn't relate the real world regional autocrosses. You are misled about the PAX, it uses more local events than national events to determine the numbers. This Index was developed by Rick Ruth and reflects study of results from well over 500 nationwide Solo events including, the Tire Rack® Solo National Championships, National Tour, Alabama Region, Atlanta Region, Chicago Region, California Sports Car Club, Central Florida Region, Equipe Rapide (Florida & Texas), Great Lakes Solo Series, Hawaii Region, Houston Region, Midwest Divisional Series, Milwaukee Region, Minnesota Autosports Club, New England Region, Northwest Region, Northern New Jersey Region, Oregon Region, Philadelphia Region, Rocky Mountain Series, San Francisco Region, San Diego Region, South Jersey Region, St. Louis Region, Tri-State Sports Car Council, Texas Region, Washington DC Region, Wisconsin Autocrossers Inc., and many, many others That's alot of local regions being used. This!!! Rick uses 300+events to determine Pax. Not just Nationals |
|
|
|
Post by 05astock on Jan 10, 2013 21:17:53 GMT -5
And yet another alternative,, create 3 Bump Pax classes for any class with less than 3 cars. Bump 1 for Stock, Bump 2 for ST, SP and Bump 3 for everything else. I really like this Idea! |
|
|
|
Post by W. Dean Furr on Jan 10, 2013 21:19:22 GMT -5
Hmm. Ted raises an interesting point. Appendices A and B are part of the Solo rules. I'm pretty sure classes can be added at the regional level, such as PRO and TIR. But I'm not quite so sure regions can basically eliminating individual classes. As Ted says, there is a process.
|
|
|
|
Post by W. Dean Furr on Jan 10, 2013 21:23:05 GMT -5
By the way, I don't see any mention of factors in Appendix B. We always just bumped heads-up, using the chart and explanation in App B. (We stopped because few liked it and most disliked it.)
|
|
|
|
Post by soloracer on Jan 10, 2013 22:19:12 GMT -5
This is a real can of worms, Laffing. i am the first to admit, we have too many classes.But how do we make them equitable?
In my case and mark's as well as Jack, a vintage class? Vintage stock and vintage racecar? OH NO! two more classes.
Some of us are using 80 year old technology. 80 you say? Well the cars were 40 years behind when they were new. But this is the history of the club.
So, how do we create a level playing field? SCCA has been trying for years. No i do not have the solution. I am just afraid maxi classes is not the answer.BUT IT IS A GREAT START.
|
|
|
|
Post by philip1 on Jan 10, 2013 22:49:38 GMT -5
James mine too is ancient scca hardware.
|
|
|
|
Post by tedebayer on Jan 11, 2013 5:29:24 GMT -5
Two other thoughts on this...
1.) Big Picture - we are taking a program with classes designed at a high level of administration, expertise and data (don't always agree with their decisions but... they do run the show. If you do agree with them on a decision, I'll bet it benefits a car similar to the one in our garage.) It is too complex now... and there is much hand holding required for a noobie to get a decent learning curve. This class system they have constructed is complex... it is difficult for the 75% who have less than two years of solo under their belt. Now, in light off that, does it make sense to creating a new class, more complex to understand for a smaller percentage of drivers that will require more subsystems to maintain and calculate winners... and who will do this work of maintaining it and keeping the old points for year end.
2. System - At a regional level, I'd like to see us equip or drivers to where they can compete at a National level. That said, we cannot afford a Z-max at every event. It is good to run some shorter courses as well as this is a part of solo and appeals to a large percent of our solo crowd. The way it was years ago, we ran mainly smaller lots with a few larger lots (like Skyland mall? -one with ice skating rink in bottom). If someone wanted to compete and measure themselves on a grander scale... they went to a divisional event here in the Southeast. If someone wanted to REALLY test their skills... there were National events and some were in the Southeast... and ultimately, THE NATIONALS. I think it is worth considering that perhaps we are trying to fix a National/Divisional problem at a Divisional level. The financial backing for a National or a Divisional and the frequency of them is much more appealing and challenging than trying to create a National level event series on a regional budget. WE are SCCA and operate under the rules set up by HQ... WE are in the Southeast Division... but WE are CCR a region that operates on a Regional Budget... and sometimes, our needs are greater than we can fulfill. Perhaps this is something that can be addressed at Jekyll... if there were sufficient events at Divisional and National level in the Southeast... we may not be having the discussion we are today.
Just some thoughts for consideration. I want our solo program to grow and succeed. That means meeting needs of the majority as best we can within rules and budget we have to work with.
|
|
|
|
Post by drum3 on Jan 11, 2013 6:13:12 GMT -5
Ted , James , et All , the SCCA has progressed a lot in the last 5-6 years , there is no longer a Divisional level , none , there is only National and Regional . The Bump in the rule book was designed back in 1978 when the fastest to the slowest car was only about a 3 second difference , now it is about a 9 second difference . The SCCA only uses Bump Class at the ProSolo level where it is a 3-5 tier Pax class .
Regions are free to run whatever classes they wish , the Rulebook is just an optional guideline . Many Regions run simply Pax Classes , many run the standard classes , its all been proven to work just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frodo on Jan 11, 2013 10:43:59 GMT -5
Although I think the 9 class PAX system would be the most fun, and competitive way of running events. I am leaning toward just adding an Intermediate class for those that want to compete against foes. I do not want to alienate people, and this is probably the best for both. Because we do have people that like competing alone or in a small group. And we do have talented driver that want to push themselves, but just are not up to the level of the Pro Class. This. This sounds like the best plan for everyone. Keep the current classing system in place. And integrate this Intermediate class. It would allow people to run their base class if they want or the option of running against other cars and drivers in other classes. If this is to happen I know I will be running in this class. I hate winning by default because I could drive Ms. Daisy around the course every event and win STF again. The implementation of an 'I' class wouldn't be hard to do and gives everyone the option of choosing what they want to do. Open, Ladies, Tire, Novice, Intermediate, or Pro. Sounds like the best of both worlds to me. |
|
|
|
Post by jprice130 on Jan 11, 2013 11:10:41 GMT -5
Although I think the 9 class PAX system would be the most fun, and competitive way of running events. I am leaning toward just adding an Intermediate class for those that want to compete against foes. I do not want to alienate people, and this is probably the best for both. Because we do have people that like competing alone or in a small group. And we do have talented driver that want to push themselves, but just are not up to the level of the Pro Class. This. This sounds like the best plan for everyone. Keep the current classing system in place. And integrate this Intermediate class. It would allow people to run their base class if they want or the option of running against other cars and drivers in other classes. If this is to happen I know I will be running in this class. I hate winning by default because I could drive Ms. Daisy around the course every event and win STF again. The implementation of an 'I' class wouldn't be hard to do and gives everyone the option of choosing what they want to do. Open, Ladies, Tire, Novice, Intermediate, or Pro. Sounds like the best of both worlds to me. If we don't do the combined classes, I also like and would run an Intermediate class if it was created. Only problem is the open classes would become even more sparsely populated and that would kind of suck for those who don't want to join the PAX based classes. |
|
