The GGR forum has reached it's end, but posts are still available read-only for posterity. We invite you to make posts and discussions on the GGR Facebook page.

Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Use this forum to ask questions, clarifications, and issues about current rules

Moderator: David Leong

Post Reply
User avatar
Roger Haskin
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:34 pm

Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Roger Haskin » Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:36 pm

The classification site has been updated to reflect the 2008 rules. All cars classified on the site have had their classification automatically updated to reflect the new rules. Please check to see whether your class has changed.

The points values for with DOT wear rating of 200 or less have changed, so if your car is classified with these tires, you may have to edit your classification to get the correct tire points. If your car was classified with tires with >200 wear rating, or racing slicks, you should not need to edit your classification.

Please take this opportunity to delete any obsolete or redundant entries you may have in the database. We are accumulating quite a few of these. You can check for these using the search function (use your last name) on either the "classed TT cars" or "classed AX cars" pages.

Thanks!
Roger Haskin
Roger Haskin

Ken Jones
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:07 pm
Location: Pleasant Hill

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Ken Jones » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:14 pm

Roger,

Thanks for all your work. My questions is about drivers and cars that were 'created' by the administrator.... don't know how you'd know to delete those. My example is a name that should be deleted because he drove my car one day and the next thing I knew was, he had been entered into the data base. His name is Steve D'annuzio with a Boxster - no such car exists. I'd delete it myself, but I wouldn't know what 'his' special code would have been to set him up. I'm guessing there may be several of those types of examples? - where cars were established based on the administrators assumptions. Maybe there are special administrator's codes that can also be deleted at this time?

thanks,

kj

User avatar
Roger Haskin
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:34 pm

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Roger Haskin » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:50 am

Ken,

I'll delete D'annuzio's Boxster. It's easy enough for me to do this if people tell me which ones to delete (and hopefully they can resist the temptation to play tricks on their competitors :lol: ). There are also some entries where someone was classifying a hypothetical car under a made-up name (there are four cars under "Joe Blow", probably numerous others less obvious). Hopefully I guess right when I delete these!

The more problematic question is what to do about Joseph Riviera's Boxster with 5015 mod points because he entered tire size instead of wheel width and so has 4760 wheel points. (I'd like to see his supercharged 3 liter engine, but that's another matter!). It's kind of rude to just delete these, but I don't have time to try to track these folks down and ask them individually to fix their classification. Hopefully they read the forum!
Roger Haskin

Ken Jones
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:07 pm
Location: Pleasant Hill

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Ken Jones » Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:48 pm

Roger,

It looks like Joseph Riviera didn't compete for points in either 2006 or 2007 - so, it really wouldn't matter. Maybe you can just 'date' sort the list and compare (V lookup?) to 2007 competitors names and just delete old stuff?... just a thought, but you're probably way ahead of me and I haven't got a clue if it's worth the "volunteer" time.

thanks,

kj

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Dan Thompson » Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:10 pm

My suggestion would be to delete any cars that have not competed in the last 3 years...
leave everyone that has at least one result in TT/DE or AX in the last 3 years....all the rest go bye bye. :)

for instance AX 8 shows 49 competitors, last season we never had more than 3 competitors at any one event and more often about 2.
And a total of 6 different competitors for the entire season.

where are the other 43?

it might even be a good idea to dump all the data and have all the interested parties re-register. Might give us a more relevant representation of who is really competing.

also go back to just being able to register for AX or TT individually or both if you do both. Again give us more credible numbers in the various classes.
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

User avatar
Roger Haskin
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:34 pm

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Roger Haskin » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:29 pm

It would be fairly labor intensive to manually compile the list of people with classified cars that haven't competed for three years. However, if the AX and TT results are in some kind of database, I would probably be able to use that to automate determining who to remove. Any chance I could get that?
Roger Haskin

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:31 pm

Roger, let me see what I can come up with.

User avatar
David Leong
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:50 pm
Location: Lafayette, CA
Contact:

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by David Leong » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:46 pm

There is value in having more cars than just those actively competing. It is advantageous to have as large a database as you can, with as many datapoints as possible.
David Leong

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:48 pm

David,
what is the value of the large data base for a bunch of cars that don't compete?
many phantoms, duplicates and cars that have been modified and moved up several classes.
It just swells the numbers for any given class and gives an incomplete or false picture of who your real competitors are.

If they aren't competing what is the value? :?
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

User avatar
David Leong
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:50 pm
Location: Lafayette, CA
Contact:

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by David Leong » Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:01 pm

It is a widely accepted fact that when you are dealing with statistical data, many datapoints are better than fewer. Kind of like doing a projection poll on an election by asking 3 people how they plan to vote.

What is causing the confusion, is the quality of the data. Lots of good data is valuable. Fewer, but reliable data points is better than many bad datapoints.

You are making the assumption that the only way to have good data points is by limiting the data to cars that are actually competing.

All I am saying is be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
David Leong

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:17 pm

I understand what you are saying David.

I just feel it would be better to have data that is actual instead of conceptual...

Merry Christmas :D
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

User avatar
Trygve Isaacson
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Alameda
Contact:

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Trygve Isaacson » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:26 pm

I have a couple of comments and questions. I just went in and deleted the two old/obsolete versions of my car that were in the database, and updated the current one. Here it is:
<http://comp.pca-ggr.org/rulcomm_cs/web/ ... php?id=582>

First, the question: Does it look correct? The result is TT11 and up until now I have been in TT9. I presume that the class boundaries have simply shifted to accommodate a different spread. The only real questions I have are on the suspension; I replaced the factory 030 setup with the PSS9 shocks/springs + front camber plates + non-stock front and rear sway bars, and some of the questions in that area are a little confusing to me.

(Update: after fixing the tire selection which I mention below, I am in TT10.)

Next a couple of comments.

I went through and looked carefully at the questions again, and had to revise two items ("Car has a stock rear spoiler" = 5 points; it used to be the case that the Boxster stock rear spoiler was included in the 0 points base, but now that one is worded "Car has no rear spoiler - or is a stock Boxster with no spoiler" which does not apply to a stock Boxster), and the tire choice (see comment below). Along with other rule changes, I suspect that there are a lot more inaccuracies in the data that people don't know about (most likely every Boxster now has this particular question wrong, for example). Another area that is bound to have wrong 2008 data given the 2007 data, is tires. My old data migrated to the current form gave me choice B (101 to 200), but my same old Kumho Victoracer V700's that I've used forever are rated 50 so the correct value is C (50 to 100). I'm sure that many, many cars have a similar incorrect tire choice in the database now. My corrections added 30 points to my modifications -- 5 for the stock rear spoiler, and 25 for the same tires I used before. If I hadn't thought to examine the V700 tread wear rating, I would have been in TT11.

It might be a good idea to delete all cars and require people to re-classify their car before competing under the new rules, rather than leave old cars in the database that may have stale data even though the cars themselves have not changed from 2007 to 2008 (mine is an example). Otherwise at the first event I suspect a lot of people may show up with improperly classed cars and no one will know.

On a side note, there are some big glitches when trying to browse the classed cars database. It isn't filtering/navigating correctly. Here is an example: Try to view all TT10 (for example) cars, i.e., who's in my class? 1) Click "classed tt cars". 2) Select "Select a Class" > TT10. 3) Now you seem to have the first page of TT10 cars, but try to view the 2nd page of cars by clicking "Next". 4) Whoops, you are looking at some other list of cars (the whole database?). It seems like none of the sort columns, view by name, or page navigation works. Basically, I cannot find a way to see the cars in a given class, which is kind of a very basic need.
Trygve
1998 Boxster 2.5L
100K+ miles

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Dan Thompson » Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:24 pm

Trygve Isaacson wrote:I have a couple of comments and questions. I just went in and deleted the two old/obsolete versions of my car that were in the database, and updated the current one. Here it is:
<http://comp.pca-ggr.org/rulcomm_cs/web/ ... php?id=582>

First, the question: Does it look correct? The result is TT11 and up until now I have been in TT9. I presume that the class boundaries have simply shifted to accommodate a different spread. The only real questions I have are on the suspension; I replaced the factory 030 setup with the PSS9 shocks/springs + front camber plates + non-stock front and rear sway bars, and some of the questions in that area are a little confusing to me.

(Update: after fixing the tire selection which I mention below, I am in TT10.)

Next a couple of comments.

I went through and looked carefully at the questions again, and had to revise two items ("Car has a stock rear spoiler" = 5 points; it used to be the case that the Boxster stock rear spoiler was included in the 0 points base, but now that one is worded "Car has no rear spoiler - or is a stock Boxster with no spoiler" which does not apply to a stock Boxster),go back and click on the more info icon...you will find that the stock boxster spoiler still is exempt (zero points) and the tire choice (see comment below). Along with other rule changes, I suspect that there are a lot more inaccuracies in the data that people don't know about (most likely every Boxster now has this particular question wrong, for example). Another area that is bound to have wrong 2008 data given the 2007 data, is tires. My old data migrated to the current form gave me choice B (101 to 200), but my same old Kumho Victoracer V700's that I've used forever are rated 50 so the correct value is C (50 to 100).Victoracers are 50 points now and were 100 points in the past I'm sure that many, many cars have a similar incorrect tire choice in the database now. My corrections added 30 points to my modifications -- 5 for the stock rear spoiler, and 25 for the same tires I used before. If I hadn't thought to examine the V700 tread wear rating, I would have been in TT11.

It might be a good idea to delete all cars and require people to re-classify their car before competing under the new rules, rather than leave old cars in the database that may have stale data even though the cars themselves have not changed from 2007 to 2008 (mine is an example). Otherwise at the first event I suspect a lot of people may show up with improperly classed cars and no one will know.

On a side note, there are some big glitches when trying to browse the classed cars database. It isn't filtering/navigating correctly. Here is an example: Try to view all TT10 (for example) cars, i.e., who's in my class? 1) Click "classed tt cars". 2) Select "Select a Class" > TT10. 3) Now you seem to have the first page of TT10 cars, but try to view the 2nd page of cars by clicking "Next". 4) Whoops, you are looking at some other list of cars (the whole database?). It seems like none of the sort columns, view by name, or page navigation works. Basically, I cannot find a way to see the cars in a given class, which is kind of a very basic need.
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

User avatar
Trygve Isaacson
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Alameda
Contact:

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Trygve Isaacson » Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:50 pm

Thanks for the feedback, Dan.

On the subject of tires, my point was that my car info in the database, as automatically migrated forward from the 2007 rules (which did not have tire treadwear information), was incorrect. I had to manually change the tire choice from the value the database had chosen (treadwear 101 to 200 = 25 points) to the correct value (treadwear 50 to 100 = 50 points), which adds 25 points to my car compared to where the database had put it, and is the difference between placing my car in TT11 vs. TT10. I'm sure lots of other cars in the database have this problem and are currently showing the wrong tire choice. It's not really the fault of the database migration -- how can it guess what kind of tire I'm running? But it means that the default value has a good chance of being incorrect.

On the subject of the Boxster rear spoiler, the form/more text should be revised to be more clear. I see what you are saying, and I misread the intent. The two seemed to me to be in conflict with each other.
The form says for choice (a):
"a) Car has no rear spoiler - or is a stock Boxster with no spoiler "
I misread this as NOT applying to the Boxster, because the Boxster HAS a spoiler. Maybe this should read, "... or is a Boxster with the stock Boxster moving spoiler lip".
The "more..." box for choice (a) says:
"The car has no static or speed deployed rear aerodynamic device of any kind. NOTE: The exception to this rule is the stock Boxster moving spoiler lip."
That sounds like choice (a) DOES apply to a stock Boxster. But maybe the sentence should end with "The exception to this rule is the stock Boxster moving spoiler lip, which is allowed."

The form says for choice (b) :
"b) Car has a stock rear spoiler"
That sounded like a stock Boxster to me given how choice (a) reads. Maybe this can revised to make it clear that it does not apply to the stock Boxster rear spoiler.
Anyway, I guess I can remove the 5 points for the spoiler.

On the CFRA web site, which I built, I have a flag on each car to indicate whether the classification is, you might say, "assigned" or "certified" or whatever. Something similar could be done here, such that all cars initially lack the flag, and when you edit and submit the information, the flag gets set, making the car appear in the listings. Thus, existing stale car data is retained and can be viewed, edited, and submitted, but until you at least view and submit the form, you wouldn't get a 2008 class "assigned" to your car and would not be visible to those browsing the classed cars. This would put the onus on each driver to make sure their data is correct in order to get a 2008 classification before their first event.
Trygve
1998 Boxster 2.5L
100K+ miles

User avatar
MagnusB
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:29 pm
Location: Danville, CA

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by MagnusB » Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:30 am

While you're at it maybe you can add categories for cabriolets. They weigh about 200lbs more than the coupe variants.

Magnus
2007 997 S, Carrara White

Ken Jones
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:07 pm
Location: Pleasant Hill

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Ken Jones » Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:53 pm

I don't think anyone wants to tackle that at this stage Magnus... that's exactly what we're trying to avoid - too many categories that end up having one car in them. However, it may interest you to know that for several years I was in with a class of Carerras and the top finishers were usually cabriolets! (and it wasn't me) But I learned a lot by watching those guys. :mrgreen:


kj

User avatar
MagnusB
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:29 pm
Location: Danville, CA

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by MagnusB » Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:03 am

Sorry, didn't mean categories/classes, just reduced TT/AX points due to more weight.
It's kind of weird to get points for smaller battery when individual cars of same "model" vary more than the saved weight from a smaller battery.

Now if you want to reduce the number of classes what about reverse engineering this?
You take the active cars from the last 2-3 years and make a reduced number of groups fitting those cars?
(Maybe that's what you're trying to do?)
Ken Jones wrote:I don't think anyone wants to tackle that at this stage Magnus... that's exactly what we're trying to avoid - too many categories that end up having one car in them. However, it may interest you to know that for several years I was in with a class of Carerras and the top finishers were usually cabriolets! (and it wasn't me) But I learned a lot by watching those guys. :mrgreen:


kj
2007 997 S, Carrara White

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Re: Classification Site updated for 2008 rules

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:43 am

The rule for the Boxster is that the moving lip that is stock is accounted for in the Base points. But some people like to add a bolt on wing onto the car which has the potential in Track events to increase rear down force over stock.
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest