New Rules for the 2011 Season

Parking lots and traffic cones.
User avatar
echan
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:50 am
Car: 1973 Triumph TR6
CDC Member#: 4

New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by echan »

We will drop roughly half rather than 1/3 of the events. Basically, we will drop 8 events, rather than 6 events. This number may change if the number of events change on the schedule. This change will allow participants to a few events, but still be in the points running. For those not missing as many events, this increased number of events being dropped will allow them to drop additional lower events that they had.

We will now use the tire index for the Small Bore Series. This change will allow those that can not afford r-compound tires to be closer to those with r-compounds. We do not want to outlaw r-compounds in small bore, but wanted to make the field as fair as possible. So using the tire index is a good compromise. We do not plan to add ANY other indexes to the Small Bore Series.

Everything else will stay the same.

Ed
User avatar
03threefiftyz
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:33 pm
Car: Nissan 350Z
CDC Member#: 533
Location: Frederick, MD

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by 03threefiftyz »

Hey Ed,

I got there about 10 minutes after 1pm, but I must have missed the discussion. Was there any thought to closing the gap a bit for the higher hp cars.....and/or dropping the R-comp index slightly? I just thought I would ask. Thanks.
FredK
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:47 pm
Car: Factory Five Cobra
Location: Middletown,MD

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by FredK »

"This change will allow those that can not afford r-compound "

Maybe the wording could be changed to " This change will allow those who choose not to run R-Comps" I'm sure their are plenty of people who could afford them, but don't want to deal with it.

Can't wait to dust everything off. I took the Miata for a spin a couple of days ago..evidently sitting didn't agree with it. It now has a self releasing clutch! Slave cylinder is in transit.

FredK
User avatar
phranquelynn
Posts: 350
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:23 pm
Car: Tic Tac
CDC Member#: 733
Location: Vienna VA
Contact:

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by phranquelynn »

FredK wrote:"This change will allow those that can not afford r-compound "
Can't wait to dust everything off. I took the Miata for a spin a couple of days ago..evidently sitting didn't agree with it. It now has a self releasing clutch! Slave cylinder is in transit.

FredK
I have an extra clutch slave if you want it. Pulled a good one off my car on a misdiagnosis. Not sure if NA and NB ones are interchangeable.


It was a great lunch yesterday. Good seeing everyone again. Looking forward to the 2011 season. Boo yah.
FredK
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:47 pm
Car: Factory Five Cobra
Location: Middletown,MD

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by FredK »

Thanks Frank,
I've got one on the way. It's drivable....as long as you don't need the clutch to work for more than .5 seconds.
User avatar
echan
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:50 am
Car: 1973 Triumph TR6
CDC Member#: 4

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by echan »

03threefiftyz wrote:Hey Ed,

I got there about 10 minutes after 1pm, but I must have missed the discussion. Was there any thought to closing the gap a bit for the higher hp cars.....and/or dropping the R-comp index slightly? I just thought I would ask. Thanks.
It was just an open discussion with no real form to it. Overall, people seemed ok with keeping the indexes the same. I realize that some want to increase the indexes for HP and some want to decrease or eliminate some the high HP indexes. As for the r-compound index, I think more people would want to increase rather than decrese the r-compound index. In general, the indexes I think are about right and it seemed that everyone is willing to live with it.

The more heated debate was to increase the number of events to drop, since CDC runs so many events.
david.valeri
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:11 am
Car: 1994 Mazda Miata
CDC Member#: 22
Location: VA

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by david.valeri »

echan wrote:
03threefiftyz wrote:Hey Ed,

I got there about 10 minutes after 1pm, but I must have missed the discussion. Was there any thought to closing the gap a bit for the higher hp cars.....and/or dropping the R-comp index slightly? I just thought I would ask. Thanks.
It was just an open discussion with no real form to it. Overall, people seemed ok with keeping the indexes the same. I realize that some want to increase the indexes for HP and some want to decrease or eliminate some the high HP indexes. As for the r-compound index, I think more people would want to increase rather than decrese the r-compound index. In general, the indexes I think are about right and it seemed that everyone is willing to live with it.

The more heated debate was to increase the number of events to drop, since CDC runs so many events.
Don't forget the discussion about what is and is not an r-compound these days.

To sum up: UTQG is not really a reliable indicator with ultra/extreme high performance street tires and low end r-comps such as an RA-1, R-888, or NT-01. Anything that costs about the same and lasts 10K miles on the street could be in the same bucket, regardless of grip level. From the perspective of costs and fairness. Within a given range of tires (either by price or utility) there will always be a best tire (might be different for each car/driver/setup, but there will be a best). If there are a number of tires that fall into the same range of cost and utility, both on and off the track/lot, there is a concern about drawing a line down the middle of that range based on UTQG. UTQG is after all self determined by the manufacturer as a relative guideline and not really policed.

For example take a 205/50R15: The top end street tires on the SCCA circuit and as tested by GRM (http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articl ... es-part-2/) all fall into the $90-130 range in this size. The NT-01 in that size, also around $130. The RA-1 in that size, also around $130. The R-888 in that size, is from $150-170, but I'm not convinced it is any faster than an RA-1 or NT-01 since the SM guys staged a revolt when it was the spec tire for the series saying it didn't run any faster than an RA-1, didn't last as long, and required significant setup changes. The RA-1's gets a 100 UTQG rating while the NT-01 gets a 140 and the usual suspects in the "Street" tire class get 180s, except for the Toyo R1R which gets a 140.

Also a consideration for the dividing line is crossover with SCCA which simply draws the line at 140 UTQG with exclusions here and there for specific tires.

Don't think anything will come of that discussion, but this is more or less what was said. I also don't think excluding the RA-1 and R-888 from the street tire classes really affects many people.
FredK
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:47 pm
Car: Factory Five Cobra
Location: Middletown,MD

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by FredK »

The tire rating is mainly a guide, but the manufactures have turned it into their little marketing tool. My experience with lots of good tires doesn't really relate that closely to the #'s. I think that is even more true of the good "street" class tires none of which I've ever had. Just do the same tire index you guys already use for the other grownup cars.

FYI NT/01's and 888's use the exact same rubber, just a different mold.
User avatar
aronparsons
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:54 pm
Car: 2006 Lotus Elise
CDC Member#: 336

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by aronparsons »

david.valeri wrote:Don't forget the discussion about what is and is not an r-compound these days.

To sum up: UTQG is not really a reliable indicator with ultra/extreme high performance street tires and low end r-comps such as an RA-1, R-888, or NT-01. Anything that costs about the same and lasts 10K miles on the street could be in the same bucket, regardless of grip level. From the perspective of costs and fairness. Within a given range of tires (either by price or utility) there will always be a best tire (might be different for each car/driver/setup, but there will be a best). If there are a number of tires that fall into the same range of cost and utility, both on and off the track/lot, there is a concern about drawing a line down the middle of that range based on UTQG. UTQG is after all self determined by the manufacturer as a relative guideline and not really policed.

For example take a 205/50R15: The top end street tires on the SCCA circuit and as tested by GRM (http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articl ... es-part-2/) all fall into the $90-130 range in this size. The NT-01 in that size, also around $130. The RA-1 in that size, also around $130. The R-888 in that size, is from $150-170, but I'm not convinced it is any faster than an RA-1 or NT-01 since the SM guys staged a revolt when it was the spec tire for the series saying it didn't run any faster than an RA-1, didn't last as long, and required significant setup changes. The RA-1's gets a 100 UTQG rating while the NT-01 gets a 140 and the usual suspects in the "Street" tire class get 180s, except for the Toyo R1R which gets a 140.

Also a consideration for the dividing line is crossover with SCCA which simply draws the line at 140 UTQG with exclusions here and there for specific tires.

Don't think anything will come of that discussion, but this is more or less what was said. I also don't think excluding the RA-1 and R-888 from the street tire classes really affects many people.
I think the proper R-comp index is fine. I'm not sure where I stand on the compromise R-compounds (e.g., R888) because they don't provide much advantage over the best street class tires during a normal autocross due to lack of operating temperature (at least in my light, little car). If they get classed with the standard definition of street tires, those people will complain; if they get classed with proper R-comps, the users of the compromise tires will complain. However, that's our fault for choosing that tire; keeping them as their own index is probably the best choice. As Fred said, not running proper R-comps is typically a choice of convenience rather than cost.
User avatar
JoeTR6
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:51 am
Car: 1973 Triumph TR6
CDC Member#: 44
Location: Clifton, Va.

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by JoeTR6 »

One thing I should probably mention sooner than later is that we'll be switching exclusively to the newer index bar code this year. If you have one of the older index bar codes (with just the total index), you'll need to get a newer one. This has the individual elements of the index (and a small bore tag "S" if appropriate). Using this, we can know how the index was determined and track the tire index for small bore. We should have the results display computer again this year, and will set up the printer so you can print out bar codes to replace the old ones at the event.

I was surprised at how good the Kumho XS tires are at an autocross. Very good traction in the heat, not so much below 60F or so. They let go sooner than a full R comp, but have a friendlier transition. Tires have really come a long way from the old days (which could now be considered the 90s). Try driving a TR6 with stock tires (Michelin Redlines) in a cold rain to see what I mean.
FredK
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:47 pm
Car: Factory Five Cobra
Location: Middletown,MD

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by FredK »

Not to bitch, but do you remember how the index worked with Danny's Seven?? not to great. Ed would have beaten me on index in that thing. A super light EM car should not have a softer index than me. Maybe add a little hit for the 1000 less lbs.
FredK
User avatar
echan
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:50 am
Car: 1973 Triumph TR6
CDC Member#: 4

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by echan »

FredK wrote:Not to bitch, but do you remember how the index worked with Danny's Seven?? not to great. Ed would have beaten me on index in that thing. A super light EM car should not have a softer index than me. Maybe add a little hit for the 1000 less lbs.
FredK
I guess, we never talked about the super light cars (They seem to be less than 1300 lbs - Lotus 7, Stalker). I suppose we can add another index for cars under 1300 lbs. We can have 1301 to 2000 lbs indexed at 1.02 (as before) and cars 1300 lbs or less be indexed at 1.03.

Does that seem fair? I'm not sure if 1.03, 1.025, or 1.035 is the most fair index. I just picked 1.03 arbitarily.

Thoughts?? (Give thoughts before Wednesday 3/2/11 because we're about to open the events up for reservations and we need time to change the software if needed).

Ed
User avatar
eage8
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:09 am
Car: 89 RX7 TII 89 Corolla SR5
CDC Member#: 887
Location: Woodbine MD

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by eage8 »

echan wrote:
FredK wrote:Not to bitch, but do you remember how the index worked with Danny's Seven?? not to great. Ed would have beaten me on index in that thing. A super light EM car should not have a softer index than me. Maybe add a little hit for the 1000 less lbs.
FredK
I guess, we never talked about the super light cars (They seem to be less than 1300 lbs - Lotus 7, Stalker). I suppose we can add another index for cars under 1300 lbs. We can have 1301 to 2000 lbs indexed at 1.02 (as before) and cars 1300 lbs or less be indexed at 1.03.

Does that seem fair? I'm not sure if 1.03, 1.025, or 1.035 is the most fair index. I just picked 1.03 arbitarily.

Thoughts?? (Give thoughts before Wednesday 3/3/11 because we're about to open the events up for reservations and we need time to change the software if needed).

Ed
I would just make it 1500 lbs... there's no reason to change the 500 lbs step.

I think 1.03 is fine. The 7 is going to have an advantage at harry grove... but probably less so on the bigger more open lots

It's hard to judge with only 1 events worth of data...
-Mike #887

'89 RX-7 TurboII - 270 rwhp - Megasquirt3
'89 Corolla SR5 - 4A-GE 20 Valve - Megasquirt2
'01 Impreza 2.5RS - Rallycross Stock AWD
User avatar
03threefiftyz
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:33 pm
Car: Nissan 350Z
CDC Member#: 533
Location: Frederick, MD

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by 03threefiftyz »

Actually Danny was very fast even at Cumberland in October.....I believe he was a bit quicker than all of the cobras. He was on non DOT hoosiers, though.

I think with the relatively tight nature of CDC courses....perhaps a 1.035 is in order for the under 1500lb guys. Just my .02.
User avatar
echan
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:50 am
Car: 1973 Triumph TR6
CDC Member#: 4

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by echan »

03threefiftyz wrote:Actually Danny was very fast even at Cumberland in October.....I believe he was a bit quicker than all of the cobras. He was on non DOT hoosiers, though.

I think with the relatively tight nature of CDC courses....perhaps a 1.035 is in order for the under 1500lb guys. Just my .02.
Looking at the last James Wood event, where the Stalker got FTD, he still lost the points index to ther M3. Then on the last event with the Caterham, the Lotus was pretty close in index time. One could agrue that the Caterham drivers are better than average drivers and that we have to be careful not to index cars to penalize some cars and give an advantage to others.

I picked 1400 lbs to only give this index to only the super light cars and was leaning to 1.03. Now after looking at the results, I can see how some may say we should not add another index.
User avatar
eage8
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:09 am
Car: 89 RX7 TII 89 Corolla SR5
CDC Member#: 887
Location: Woodbine MD

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by eage8 »

echan wrote:
03threefiftyz wrote:Actually Danny was very fast even at Cumberland in October.....I believe he was a bit quicker than all of the cobras. He was on non DOT hoosiers, though.

I think with the relatively tight nature of CDC courses....perhaps a 1.035 is in order for the under 1500lb guys. Just my .02.
Looking at the last James Wood event, where the Stalker got FTD, he still lost the points index to ther M3. Then on the last event with the Caterham, the Lotus was pretty close in index time. One could agrue that the Caterham drivers are better than average drivers and that we have to be careful not to index cars to penalize some cars and give an advantage to others.

I picked 1400 lbs to only give this index to only the super light cars and was leaning to 1.03. Now after looking at the results, I can see how some may say we should not add another index.
at the last event Larry in the 7 beat Don by .6 seconds and Fred by almost a full second in index times. All are more or less equally good drivers... that's a lot of time for someone who is driving someone else's arguably not dialed in car.
-Mike #887

'89 RX-7 TurboII - 270 rwhp - Megasquirt3
'89 Corolla SR5 - 4A-GE 20 Valve - Megasquirt2
'01 Impreza 2.5RS - Rallycross Stock AWD
User avatar
03threefiftyz
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:33 pm
Car: Nissan 350Z
CDC Member#: 533
Location: Frederick, MD

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by 03threefiftyz »

eage8 wrote:
echan wrote:
03threefiftyz wrote:Actually Danny was very fast even at Cumberland in October.....I believe he was a bit quicker than all of the cobras. He was on non DOT hoosiers, though.

I think with the relatively tight nature of CDC courses....perhaps a 1.035 is in order for the under 1500lb guys. Just my .02.
Looking at the last James Wood event, where the Stalker got FTD, he still lost the points index to ther M3. Then on the last event with the Caterham, the Lotus was pretty close in index time. One could agrue that the Caterham drivers are better than average drivers and that we have to be careful not to index cars to penalize some cars and give an advantage to others.

I picked 1400 lbs to only give this index to only the super light cars and was leaning to 1.03. Now after looking at the results, I can see how some may say we should not add another index.
at the last event Larry in the 7 beat Don by .6 seconds and Fred by almost a full second in index times. All are more or less equally good drivers... that's a lot of time for someone who is driving someone else's arguably not dialed in car.
Strongly agree.
User avatar
aronparsons
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:54 pm
Car: 2006 Lotus Elise
CDC Member#: 336

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by aronparsons »

echan wrote:
03threefiftyz wrote:Actually Danny was very fast even at Cumberland in October.....I believe he was a bit quicker than all of the cobras. He was on non DOT hoosiers, though.

I think with the relatively tight nature of CDC courses....perhaps a 1.035 is in order for the under 1500lb guys. Just my .02.
Looking at the last James Wood event, where the Stalker got FTD, he still lost the points index to ther M3. Then on the last event with the Caterham, the Lotus was pretty close in index time. One could agrue that the Caterham drivers are better than average drivers and that we have to be careful not to index cars to penalize some cars and give an advantage to others.

I picked 1400 lbs to only give this index to only the super light cars and was leaning to 1.03. Now after looking at the results, I can see how some may say we should not add another index.
As someone who falls into the lightweight category (< 2000#), I think another car weighing 500# less than my Lotus might need to take a index hit. 1500# would be a good point so that the increments for the weight index stay at 500.
User avatar
echan
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:50 am
Car: 1973 Triumph TR6
CDC Member#: 4

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by echan »

eage8 wrote:
echan wrote:
03threefiftyz wrote:Actually Danny was very fast even at Cumberland in October.....I believe he was a bit quicker than all of the cobras. He was on non DOT hoosiers, though.

I think with the relatively tight nature of CDC courses....perhaps a 1.035 is in order for the under 1500lb guys. Just my .02.
Looking at the last James Wood event, where the Stalker got FTD, he still lost the points index to ther M3. Then on the last event with the Caterham, the Lotus was pretty close in index time. One could agrue that the Caterham drivers are better than average drivers and that we have to be careful not to index cars to penalize some cars and give an advantage to others.

I picked 1400 lbs to only give this index to only the super light cars and was leaning to 1.03. Now after looking at the results, I can see how some may say we should not add another index.
at the last event Larry in the 7 beat Don by .6 seconds and Fred by almost a full second in index times. All are more or less equally good drivers... that's a lot of time for someone who is driving someone else's arguably not dialed in car.
I can see how a 7 verses an Elise are not the same due mostly because of the weight. We should also realize that Larry being the course designer may have a slight advantage.

How about making the limit 1500 lbs with an index of 1.03, ok?
User avatar
AJ_RDR_Civic
Posts: 277
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:59 pm
Car: '95 Honda Civic EX
CDC Member#: 0
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by AJ_RDR_Civic »

Hmmm street tire index for SB, 8 events dropped, and a new motor in my car... I like where this is going ;)

Glad to see there's a good number of events at HG and Bowie. BMW didn't get Bowie this season so I won't be running with them much this season.. Just means more CDC :mrgreen:
Image
User avatar
defylogik
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:07 pm
Car: Subaru STi / Miata Rat
CDC Member#: 352
Location: Alexandria, VA
Contact:

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by defylogik »

We should just adopt the SCCA model of classing....just kidding thats a horrible idea. :D
#352
going balls out
http://www.racedayvinyl.com
Yep, we do numbers, and graphics, and unicorns.
User avatar
hufflepuff
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:12 am
Car: 2005 Mazda RX-8
CDC Member#: 512
Location: Alexandria, VA
Contact:

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by hufflepuff »

FredK wrote:"This change will allow those that can not afford r-compound "

Maybe the wording could be changed to " This change will allow those who choose not to run R-Comps" I'm sure their are plenty of people who could afford them, but don't want to deal with it.

Can't wait to dust everything off. I took the Miata for a spin a couple of days ago..evidently sitting didn't agree with it. It now has a self releasing clutch! Slave cylinder is in transit.

FredK
not everyone cares to spend big money to go slightly faster in parking lots, but some do.
'05 RX-8 - Autocross, HPDE, and Time Attack
'02 Neon - SCCA Rallycross & DD
http://www.youtube.com/mchuffman/
User avatar
hufflepuff
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:12 am
Car: 2005 Mazda RX-8
CDC Member#: 512
Location: Alexandria, VA
Contact:

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by hufflepuff »

I feel it would be more fair to interpolate in between index brackets.

For example, if you weight 3001 pounds and have 250 horsepower, you have a huge advantage over someone weighing 3000 pounds and having 251 horsepower. interpolating between the brackets would make those two cars very close, instead of a significant difference.

For example: if you have 175 horsepower, your hp index would be roughly 1.005 (halfway between 1.00 and 1.01).

to fit the barcode scheme, you would calculate the index with interpolation and then round to the nearest barcode. we could develop a spreadsheet or webpage where you enter your weight, power, and tires, and it would do the interpolation for you.


on another note, have we tested different drivetrains of vehicles on both street tires and slicks and then compared the times to come up with the tire index? comparisons might also exist in magazines. i think some of the cobra guys run kumho xs on the street, so they could do three runs with street tires and three times with slicks and then support an arguement for a 1.03 slick tire index with some numbers. it's a little more difficult to drop in a smaller engine to argue that big power doesnt make you much faster at CDC lots.
'05 RX-8 - Autocross, HPDE, and Time Attack
'02 Neon - SCCA Rallycross & DD
http://www.youtube.com/mchuffman/
User avatar
mla163
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:38 am
Car: 2006 WRX
CDC Member#: 29

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by mla163 »

hufflepuff wrote:I feel it would be more fair to interpolate in between index brackets.

For example, if you weight 3001 pounds and have 250 horsepower, you have a huge advantage over someone weighing 3000 pounds and having 251 horsepower. interpolating between the brackets would make those two cars very close, instead of a significant difference.

For example: if you have 175 horsepower, your hp index would be roughly 1.005 (halfway between 1.00 and 1.01).

to fit the barcode scheme, you would calculate the index with interpolation and then round to the nearest barcode. we could develop a spreadsheet or webpage where you enter your weight, power, and tires, and it would do the interpolation for you.

on another note, have we tested different drivetrains of vehicles on both street tires and slicks and then compared the times to come up with the tire index? comparisons might also exist in magazines. i think some of the cobra guys run kumho xs on the street, so they could do three runs with street tires and three times with slicks and then support an arguement for a 1.03 slick tire index with some numbers. it's a little more difficult to drop in a smaller engine to argue that big power doesnt make you much faster at CDC lots.
Don't overthink it. This issue has been beaten to death, revived, then beaten to death again. The system works fairly well. The outliers (like a 7) need to be taken into account. Interpolating would be difficult unless we had a dyno and scales at every event.
User avatar
aronparsons
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:54 pm
Car: 2006 Lotus Elise
CDC Member#: 336

Re: New Rules for the 2011 Season

Post by aronparsons »

echan wrote:I can see how a 7 verses an Elise are not the same due mostly because of the weight. We should also realize that Larry being the course designer may have a slight advantage.

How about making the limit 1500 lbs with an index of 1.03, ok?
That sounds good, nice and simple.
Post Reply