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.

2010 rules proposals

Use this forum to discuss rule proposals, other than the points proposal, which has its's own forum

Moderators: David Leong, Andrew Forrest

waynevannorsdall
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:40 pm

2010 rules proposals

Post by waynevannorsdall » Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:47 pm

December nugget.pdf
(342.42 KiB) Downloaded 394 times

C4 Pazzo
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:36 pm

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by C4 Pazzo » Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:18 pm

Some comments on the proposed 2010 rule changes:

1. There appears to be an inconsistency between the weighting factor used for calculating the points for combined front/rear wheel widths differing from 12" in Proposal #2 with the factor used in Proposal #4. The formula used in Prop #2 ((width in inches of one front + one rear standard-equipment wheel - 12 ) x 5) applies a weight of 5 points per inch greater than 12" for the base points calculation. In proposal #4, the factor is 10 pts per half inch (or 20 points per inch). Thus, the factor for modified wheel widths is four times the factor used in the base calculation. This can be remedied by changing the "5" in the Prop #2 formula to 20, if the intent is to apply a penalty of 10 points for each half inch greater than 12. Or, it could be fixed by changing the "5" to "10" in Prop #2 and the "10" to "5" in Prop #4, if the intent is to apply a penalty of 5 points per half inch. In either case, fixing this will change all of the calculated base points for cars other than those with standard wheel widths equaling 12 inches.

2. Prop #5 regarding making the cutoff for DOT tire rating to be greater than 199 for 0 points makes sense. But it does not seem consistent that a 200 wear rating tire would get 0 pts, while a 100 wear rating tire gets 50 points. Either the 100 wear tire should get 25 points (instead of 50), or the 200 wear tire should get 25 points. Seems like a consistent approach would be that less than 50 should get 100 pts, less than 100 but greater than or equal to 50 should get 50 pts, less than 200 but greater than or equal to 100 should get 25 pts, 200 or greater should get 0 pts. If the cutoff is going to be at 50 to get 50 pts and at 200 to get 0 pts, why wouldn't it be at 100 to get 25 pts?

3. Regarding base points for '70 - '73 911s, the displacement of the '70 and '71 911 is 2.2 liters vs. "2.4" for '72-'73. Unless the weight of the '72-'73 cars went up by the same percentage as the power went up, it seems like these model years ought to be split into two categories, similar to what is done for '02-'03 996 vs. '99-'01.

Doug

User avatar
johntavernetti
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:38 pm

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by johntavernetti » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:23 pm

Doug: Those are all excellent questions, and entirely understandable. Let me take a shot at explaining the “why” behind each of the three oddities you pointed out.

1. There is no inconsistency. This was intentional, although I admit it’s not intuitive... and perhaps I didn’t explain it well. Keep in mind that proposal #2 is in regards to basepoints only, and Proposal #4 is in regards to wheel-points only. They are separate and distinct. The 5 points-per-inch (above 12) included in the new basepoints calculation is not intended to be anything other than a proxy for each vehicle’s built-in abilities (i.e. there is a reason the engineers chose those O.E. wheel widths). We use that proxy value to modify the basepoint values that are otherwise largely produced by the power-to-weight ratio. (The age discount is also a modifier in the same way.) This 5 points per inch modifier is not intended to be adjusted for whatever wheel widths a driver decides to compete on. It simply affects the fixed basepoints assigned to each model of car. Under Proposal #4, whatever wheels are used by the driver will separately incur 10 points per HALF inch insofar as they exceed 12” total (F+R). The chart of “free” wheel widths for each model is intended to be deleted in conjunction with these proposals. After testing numerous methodologies, this combination seems to produce the best results. For example, the 2005 997 Carrera S has 355hp and an official curb weight of 3,131lbs, and thus a PW ratio of 8.8. Its stock wheels are 8” & 11” wide. It will be 5 years old in 2010. Its new basepoint formula would therefore be (4000/8.8) + (-5) + (5*((8+11)-12)) which equals 484, which rounds to 480 (nearest 10). Note that 455 of those points are driven purely by the PW ratio. If the driver of this car competes on wheels of equal width to stock, then the website would calculate wheel points at a rate of 10 points per each half inch above 12” total (that’s 14 x 10, which equals 140 wheel points). This brings this stock car’s total points (before any mods or tire points) to 620. For reference, last year’s formula for the ’05 997S produced 550 base points. A second example would be a 1970 911T with 125hp and weighing 2,244 lbs. Under the new formula, if competing stock on its O.E. 5.5” wheels it gets 170 basepoints. Last year is got assigned 275 basepoints (although that included 6” wheels f&r for “free”). As a final example, last year all the following cars got assigned 400 basepoints (because their PW ratios are similar): ’70-’73 911S, ’84-’86 Carrera, ’92 968, and the ’03-‘04 Boxster 2.7L. Under the new formula, these cars (assuming O.E. wheels & no mods), would be 280, 310, 370 and 340 points respectively (for TT), which seems a vastly better representation of these cars’ relative abilities. In general the goal of the new formula was to spread our cars’ diverse PW ratios across a larger range of classes, and, secondarily, to include in the basepoints some accounting for the other factors unrelated to PW ratio that help make a car fast or slow at TT and AX, thereby reducing the need for including manual “adjustment points” in various models’ basepoints. It turned out that the best proxies we could find were O.E. wheel width and age, so we let those two factors slightly amend the results of the new PW formula.
2. I agree with you on paper it make sense to keep the tire wear rating breakpoints consistent, but this suggestion arose out of the fact that many “street” tires are rated exactly 200. If we making the same change to the tires rated exactly 100 I worry we would slide a whole bunch of R-compound DOT tires (many of which are rated exactly 100, like the Toyos) down into the 25pt fast-street-tire category, separating them from the other DOT r-compounds that are rated ~80 (e.g the MPSCs). This is certainly up for debate… the more common-sense input we get on this the better.
3. You guessed right about the 2.2L vs. 2.4L 911S. The 2.4L (actually only 2,341 cc’s according to our GGR database), weighed 2,310 lbs and made 181hp. This actually compares slightly UN-favorably to the 2.2L 911S which apparently produced 180hp and weighed only 2,244lbs. Hence their PW ratios are very similar and they have always been combined into a single line-item for purposes of basepoint assignments. If you feel any of these underlying data are in error, by all means send supporting documentation to the TT Chairs (or Mark Powell).

Let me know if that elaboration helped or not. Sorry for the long post.

John

User avatar
MacinTek
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 3:32 pm
Location: Redwood Shores, CA
Contact:

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by MacinTek » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:49 pm

I think having the AX points system match the TT system is asinine.

When the points system was developed, the two scales were used because the two activities are so vastly different. What mods are advantageous for short bursts of horsepower, hard braking and tight cornering are totally different than the mods that improve times in Time Trials... high-speed cornering, extended accelerating, broad sweeps at higher speeds, braking from higher speeds and over longer periods of time. One only has to consider the differences between AX & TT where Turbos and Naturally aspirated cars are concerned. Turbos offer horsepower and high-end torque... great for TT, terrible for AX. Another example... lighter, lower-powered cars (yeah, 914s) can have distinct advantages in AX where they can compete favorably against heavier, higher horsepowered cars... a 914 would generally kick a 928's ass in an AX... the opposite might be true in a TT.

Most members know my feelings toward the Points system in AX... lose it. Autocrosses were much more enjoyable... socially... when like cars competed with like cars.
When I started autocrossing, I was in class C. Then in Ci, Cp and eventually Dm (should have been Cm). I competed against other, similar cars (and mindsets)... the camaraderie was half the fun. I never cared how I compared with Boxsters, 911s or 914s. I still don't. That's why I've never liked the points system. It always reminds me of when I used to run my Cp 944 in SCCA... they use a points system too... and I ended up competing in the same class as (the late) Dan Jones and some motorhead with a purple 400 horsepower, twin-turbo RX7.

I can understand the "need" for a rearrangement of classes in TT where competition is paramount but, it wouldn't cost the club anything really to revert to the old format for autocross and simply rearrange those classes amongst the various models to make them more competitive without takin' the fun out of it. I know of several avid autocrossers who came to events for a couple of years after the points system was in place... but haven't been around for awhile, simply because its not as attractive from a social perspective... in other words... when the club became so serious about competition, it took the fun out of it. Seems to me that happened a while back and a bunch of GGRs left to form another region... one that didn't take themselves too seriously. If it were geographically feasible, I'd be tempted to follow suit.
Miles Smith, ACHDS
MacinTek
Macintosh Solutions, Sales and Support
http://www.macintek.com
650-591-5373
Certified Member, Apple Consultants Network
? Authorized Business Agent

User avatar
johntavernetti
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:38 pm

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by johntavernetti » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:25 pm

Hi Miles,

Just to clarify, I think you misunderstood the proposal to match AX and TT classes ranges. The idea is simply to make the point ranges, like 0-250 or 600-650, correspond to the same class # for both TT and AX rather than what we have now where one point result, e.g. 625, results in TT8 and AX9. Under the proposal, such a car would be in TT8 and AX8. All we're suggesting is to make the breakpoints between each numeric class the same for AX as for TT. The point values for various cars and mods will still be different for TT than for AX. The only objective was to reduce overcrowding in the bottom 4 classes of AX and get rid of the needless separation between the fastest cars in AX1 and AX2.

As to your general statements about competition, I like the point system better, but that is obviously a matter of personal preference.
John

C4 Pazzo
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:36 pm

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by C4 Pazzo » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:19 am

John,

Thank you very much for the very clear explanation of the rationale behind the base points calculation and the wheel points calculation. It helped a lot (and makes sense).

Regarding the tire points, whether the cut off is at 100 or 101 seems pretty arbitrary to me. Given that the stickiness of the tire is a pretty significant factor for performance, why not use a sliding scale in the same way that one is used for the power-weight ratio or use a differential vs. a bench mark rating times some factor as is proposed for wheel width? That way, one wouldn't fall off the cliff at an arbitrary cut off point. A sliding scale could also recognize that a car with 340 rated street tires is at a disadvantage as compared to one with 200 rated street tires. If the purpose of the points system is to attempt to put cars on a level playing field, particularly for those factors that have a significant impact on performance, I think it makes sense to capture the relative impact on performance to the greatest extent possible (within reason).

I like the overall concept of the points system in that it is a mechanism to handicap cars so that one can compare performance of the driver against other drivers with cars that have similar aggregate performance characteristics. As long as the handicapping system is a fair representation of the impact of particular characteristics on performance, it should lead to good, friendly competition. I enjoyed competing in AX against relatively new Boxster Ss in my 40 year old car. Some were faster than me, some weren't. I'm pretty sure I got beat by better drivers, not by better cars (that is, the results would have been the same if we had swapped cars). I support a points system that (theoretically) would result in essentially the same finish order no matter which car each driver in a given class drove.

Thanks for all your efforts to create such a system.

Doug

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

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by Roger Haskin » Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:03 pm

One consequence, presumably unintended, of the 2010 points proposal, is to put cars that used to be in one of the the TT classes into a GT class. The new points proposal generally assigns a car fewer base points than it had in 2009, and more mod points. It is thus possible for a car that had under 650 mod points in 2009, to have 650 or more in 2010, putting it into a GT class, and thus requiring a full roll cage. My 911 is a case in point. Shouldn't the 650 mod point threshold for GT class be changed along with the mod point values?
Roger Haskin

User avatar
johntavernetti
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:38 pm

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by johntavernetti » Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:03 pm

Hi Roger, how many mod points would your car have under the new system? And of those, how many are wheel points? Maybe for purposes of the GT class threshold we should only count true "mod points" and not include the wheel points? You are correct that the wheel-points will be much higher for cars like yours under the proposed system and thus may create the problem you are seeing. Ignoring wheel points, I bet your total mod-points are similar to last year and well under 650, right?

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

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by Roger Haskin » Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:50 pm

My mod points (including wheel points) would be exactly 650 under the new system :D But if my 160 wheel points didn't count, I'd be well under the threshold.
Roger Haskin

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

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by Dan Thompson » Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:21 pm

Roger, a bit off topic.....but did you repaint your car? :D
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

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

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by Roger Haskin » Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:19 am

Yep! New interior too!
Roger Haskin

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

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by Dan Thompson » Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:00 am

very nice, indeed :D
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

User avatar
Mark Powell
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 3:20 pm

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by Mark Powell » Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:24 pm

I noticed in the pdf that Wayne posted with the rules proposals for 2010 that pages 14 to 19 were not fully displayed! Several columns on the left side of the spreadsheet with model and body style were ommitted. The chart with alternate basepoint curves was also not included. Attached is a pdf with the complete spreadsheet. The next posting contains the alternate basepoint curves.

Mark Powell
Attachments
PCA Porsche Models List 2010 Proposal .pdf
(32.86 KiB) Downloaded 232 times

User avatar
Mark Powell
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 3:20 pm

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by Mark Powell » Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:28 pm

Attached are the alternate basepoint curves.

Mark Powell
Attachments
Alternate Basepoint Curves.pdf
(26.39 KiB) Downloaded 252 times

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

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by Roger Haskin » Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:55 am

johntavernetti wrote:Maybe for purposes of the GT class threshold we should only count true "mod points" and not include the wheel points
John,

Will the new rules proposal be modified not to include wheel points against the 650-point GT class threshold? Or was your "maybe" just a suggestion?
Roger Haskin

User avatar
johntavernetti
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:38 pm

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by johntavernetti » Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:42 pm

Roger, I was just thinking out loud there. Since the proposals have already been submitted, I'm not sure what the protocol is for suggesting tweaks at this point. But i will bring this fix up at the open meeting in Jan. Its a relatively minor item and would only serve to fix this unforeseen consequence. Thanks for discovering this issue.

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

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by Roger Haskin » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:51 am

John,

Understood. Of course the "unforseen consequence" is to prevent some folks like me who might otherwise have run Time Trials from doing so. I must admit though that I didn't have any firm plans in that direction.
Roger Haskin

User avatar
Mark Powell
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 3:20 pm

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by Mark Powell » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:00 pm

Roger, John,

I wasn't able to get to the on-line rulebook to confirm it (the link isn't working), but I am almost certain that the DEC has the authority to make additional changes to the rules that weren't submitted as proposals. All changes then need to be approved by a vote of the GGR Board of Directors to become official.

Mark

User avatar
PAUL LARSON
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: SAN CARLOS
Contact:

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by PAUL LARSON » Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:00 pm

Here is the latest rules.

http://www.zone77.org/files/pdf/2009rules4.pdf

This is the future Zone 7 site. This link should work for a couple more weeks.

Send me an e-mail if you need a copy.
Paul

User avatar
Mark Powell
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 3:20 pm

Re: 2010 rules proposals

Post by Mark Powell » Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:53 pm

Thanks Paul!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests