Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
After lots of discussion with the organizers, we have come up with the following proposed changes for the 2014 season that we believe will make improve the CDC autocross series:
1. Participants may only participate in (and accrue points for) one series per event. This means if a participant chooses to participate in the small bore series at an event the points accrued at that event shall only be applied to their year end points in the small bore series. This is to prevent a single person from winning multiple CDC series (sorry Eric, Franklin, and Dan!). Participants that run a small bore car but do not select the small bore series, will be assumed to be participating in the CDC Index Series. Participants have 5 days after the posting of the event results to make any corrections to series/car/etc. If a series is not selected at registration then that participant will automatically be placed in the regular series.
2. The Subaru BRZ and Scion FRS shall be added to the list of Small Bore eligible cars. CDC intends to expand the list of eligible cars in the Small Bore Series. Anyone who wishes to have their car added to small bore may petition to have it added by e-mailing me at capitaldriving@yahoo.com.
3. Tire indexes shall change as follows... 1.0 for tires with a treadwear rating of 200 and above, 1.01 for tires with a treadwear rating from 100 to 199 (inclusive), and 1.02 for tires with a treadwear rating less than 100. This change will make those with r-compound tires more competitive.
Before we finalize the changes, we want to put it out in the general forum for comments and discussion. So feel free to respond with your ideas. We do ask that all the comments remain constructive and not to bash anyone. All inappropriate comments will be deleted.
Ed
1. Participants may only participate in (and accrue points for) one series per event. This means if a participant chooses to participate in the small bore series at an event the points accrued at that event shall only be applied to their year end points in the small bore series. This is to prevent a single person from winning multiple CDC series (sorry Eric, Franklin, and Dan!). Participants that run a small bore car but do not select the small bore series, will be assumed to be participating in the CDC Index Series. Participants have 5 days after the posting of the event results to make any corrections to series/car/etc. If a series is not selected at registration then that participant will automatically be placed in the regular series.
2. The Subaru BRZ and Scion FRS shall be added to the list of Small Bore eligible cars. CDC intends to expand the list of eligible cars in the Small Bore Series. Anyone who wishes to have their car added to small bore may petition to have it added by e-mailing me at capitaldriving@yahoo.com.
3. Tire indexes shall change as follows... 1.0 for tires with a treadwear rating of 200 and above, 1.01 for tires with a treadwear rating from 100 to 199 (inclusive), and 1.02 for tires with a treadwear rating less than 100. This change will make those with r-compound tires more competitive.
Before we finalize the changes, we want to put it out in the general forum for comments and discussion. So feel free to respond with your ideas. We do ask that all the comments remain constructive and not to bash anyone. All inappropriate comments will be deleted.
Ed
- ericw
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:10 pm
- Car: 1990 Mazda Miata
- CDC Member#: 681
- Location: Hagerstown, Maryland
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
Cool. Maybe you could just treat the smallbore entries like organizers with regard to the index - they get index points, the person behind them gets the same amount, and they just aren't eligible for index awards. Then you still see where you would have hypothetically ended up.
Depending on the size of the smallbore series, I think it would be cool to have them/us in their own heat. Have to figure out what to do with exceptionally large teams...
Do any of the BRZ/FRS people intend to compete in smallbore?
Is team Parson/Dam/Kraus choosing index or smallbore?
Do you have simulated results showing how the tire index would have affected them or should I do that on my own?
Depending on the size of the smallbore series, I think it would be cool to have them/us in their own heat. Have to figure out what to do with exceptionally large teams...
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Do any of the BRZ/FRS people intend to compete in smallbore?
Is team Parson/Dam/Kraus choosing index or smallbore?
Do you have simulated results showing how the tire index would have affected them or should I do that on my own?
silver 681
- vettegirl
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:52 am
- Car: 1996 Miata, 2011 Corvette
- CDC Member#: 963
- Location: Boyds, MD
- Contact:
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
Here's my 2 cents...
I like the idea of having to choose between index and small bore, but I don't like that it could potentially cause a split in the club between these two groups. I would like to propose you consider a third category. I would love to see a raw time series that everyone who competes is automatically entered - apply the tire index since you're doing that in Small Bore as well. Then have a choice for each driver, in addition to overall raw time, a sub-series of either indexed or Small Bore. This would prevent a rift in the club between those running for index times and those running for small bore it will also give incentive to those wanting to compete head-to-head regardless of what they're driving. This way you can have a club overall champion, A club Indexed Champion and a club Small Bore Champion. Yes, there's a chance that the same person could win Index and Overall or Small Bore and Overall - but how cool would that be! I say maybe even let the organizers be included in the raw time race for points but continue to not count their times for Index and Small Bore - they work hard, maybe they should get to compete and may the best man (or woman) win! It seems a shame that if someone is driving their small-engine car faster than everyone else, that they should have to choose to compete against one part of the club or another, same goes for those driving cars that don't fall into "small bore" - if the guy in the Town and Country wagon can beat a prepped Miata on raw time, he deserves recognition and if someone is good enough to drive a Mini faster than a Cobra in raw times - they too should be recognized. Adding an overall raw-time competition would prove that out.
I would also like to put out this offer (now that Jay and I are no longer officially "rookies") - I would like to sponsor a "Rookie of the Year" trophy for 2014. This could be awarded to the best raw time participant in his first full year of running Autocross. This person would need to be a Capital member and must not have participated in more than five (this number can be determined with input and discussion) autocross events the previous years. This would recognize drivers new to autocross (not just new CDC members).
I like the idea of having to choose between index and small bore, but I don't like that it could potentially cause a split in the club between these two groups. I would like to propose you consider a third category. I would love to see a raw time series that everyone who competes is automatically entered - apply the tire index since you're doing that in Small Bore as well. Then have a choice for each driver, in addition to overall raw time, a sub-series of either indexed or Small Bore. This would prevent a rift in the club between those running for index times and those running for small bore it will also give incentive to those wanting to compete head-to-head regardless of what they're driving. This way you can have a club overall champion, A club Indexed Champion and a club Small Bore Champion. Yes, there's a chance that the same person could win Index and Overall or Small Bore and Overall - but how cool would that be! I say maybe even let the organizers be included in the raw time race for points but continue to not count their times for Index and Small Bore - they work hard, maybe they should get to compete and may the best man (or woman) win! It seems a shame that if someone is driving their small-engine car faster than everyone else, that they should have to choose to compete against one part of the club or another, same goes for those driving cars that don't fall into "small bore" - if the guy in the Town and Country wagon can beat a prepped Miata on raw time, he deserves recognition and if someone is good enough to drive a Mini faster than a Cobra in raw times - they too should be recognized. Adding an overall raw-time competition would prove that out.
I would also like to put out this offer (now that Jay and I are no longer officially "rookies") - I would like to sponsor a "Rookie of the Year" trophy for 2014. This could be awarded to the best raw time participant in his first full year of running Autocross. This person would need to be a Capital member and must not have participated in more than five (this number can be determined with input and discussion) autocross events the previous years. This would recognize drivers new to autocross (not just new CDC members).
- Sky Render
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:41 pm
- Car: 2011 Mustang 5.0
- CDC Member#: 750
- Location: NW of Baltimore
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
I mistakenly posted this on the FB page.
I think the cutoff for the second group should be 180 treadwear instead of 200. Several autocross/extreme perofrmace street tires for larger land yachts like Mustangs and Camaros have 180 treadwear (like Goodyear Eagle F1s), yet are on the same "performance level" as the 200-treadwear tires used by little cars like the Miata and FRS/BRZ.
Putting the cutoff at 180 would still put semi-R-comps (which almost all have 140 treadwear) in a separate group.
I think the cutoff for the second group should be 180 treadwear instead of 200. Several autocross/extreme perofrmace street tires for larger land yachts like Mustangs and Camaros have 180 treadwear (like Goodyear Eagle F1s), yet are on the same "performance level" as the 200-treadwear tires used by little cars like the Miata and FRS/BRZ.
Putting the cutoff at 180 would still put semi-R-comps (which almost all have 140 treadwear) in a separate group.
Vince (#750)
Grey 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0
I'm slow.
Grey 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0
I'm slow.
- ericw
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:10 pm
- Car: 1990 Mazda Miata
- CDC Member#: 681
- Location: Hagerstown, Maryland
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
I didn't notice that... So R1R and rs3 has a different index than z2? On purpose?
silver 681
- Areddi
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:34 pm
- Car: 2013 Scion FR-S
- CDC Member#: 650
- Location: Jessup, MD
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
So, if I am understanding correctly, one chooses if they run in small-bore or not. If they do, then their time applies to that category, and not to to the general pool of indexed attendees. I don't have a problem with this part of the concept. The challenge that I see is that the small-bore category, already dominated by Miatas, wont change. Since CDC on the whole does not account for mods such as suspension in the indexing system, any other participant in the small-bore is inherently disadvantaged relative to the gains Miatas have from such an upgrade. Small-bore, even though it would be a self-contained entity, would still have index applied when making a comparison. Twin owners would stand a better chance NOT running in small-bore, as the Miatas that dominate the general index group currently would in theory be removed from that pool, since they would likely gravitate toward small-bore. Take away all of those top performers, and guys like me have a shot at winning.
I would propose that if you want to make small-bore a more serious series, where it holds its own group of points and competitors, that it also gets its own applied rules or penalties, for modifications. I think that using the standard index system would not be sufficient to accommodate participation in a class like that, as Twin owners stand a better chance in the general pool.
This sort of ties into the suggestion that I made for a Spec 86 class, with certain allowable mods, and cars. Perhaps small-bore should change to Spec Miata to attract those people to compete against each other? I think the take away is that if you want to build a more specialized class, whatever it is called and who ever is allowed, that the current index system would not provide enough incentive for someone to play, and that a special rule set should be employed in such a case. The general index system is fine for the general pool of people otherwise. I think we all know that the size of the engine isn't really what is important, its the setup of the car, and of course, the driver's skill.
I am interested if others agree with my comment, or think I am way off base.
I would propose that if you want to make small-bore a more serious series, where it holds its own group of points and competitors, that it also gets its own applied rules or penalties, for modifications. I think that using the standard index system would not be sufficient to accommodate participation in a class like that, as Twin owners stand a better chance in the general pool.
This sort of ties into the suggestion that I made for a Spec 86 class, with certain allowable mods, and cars. Perhaps small-bore should change to Spec Miata to attract those people to compete against each other? I think the take away is that if you want to build a more specialized class, whatever it is called and who ever is allowed, that the current index system would not provide enough incentive for someone to play, and that a special rule set should be employed in such a case. The general index system is fine for the general pool of people otherwise. I think we all know that the size of the engine isn't really what is important, its the setup of the car, and of course, the driver's skill.
I am interested if others agree with my comment, or think I am way off base.
Check out my YouTube channel with Autocross videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrAreddi
- vettegirl
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:52 am
- Car: 1996 Miata, 2011 Corvette
- CDC Member#: 963
- Location: Boyds, MD
- Contact:
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
Areddi - small bore is not indexed, it is raw time, except for a tire index. So the larger engines like in the BRZs would have a big hp advantage over the NA Miatas. I can also attest that no matter how good your suspension is, the car only runs as fast as the driver is capable of driving. This point is way too obvious to me by my poor final numbers in the same car that was driven by top drivers.
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
Actually as Denise alluded, the FRS/BRZ has a lot more power than a Miata but a little heavier. Last year most of the FRS/BRZs were running the factory supplies tires. Our (organizers) thought was that a well prepared FRS/BRZ may actually blow a Miata away (given the same driver). As you mentioned, CDC is very open to modifying your car. So with the power advantage of the FRS/BRZ, this car should be very competitive.Areddi wrote: The challenge that I see is that the small-bore category, already dominated by Miatas, wont change.
We didn't want to make a separate series for FRS/BRZ because then others would want a series for their car, which would lead us to a bunch of series for a bunch of different cars.
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
My comments to the proposed changes as reflected by corresponding number;
1. I am totally for this. If there is to be separate classes and awards, you should not be eligible to win both.
2. I think its fair to add the FRS/BRZ to the small bore list and give those drivers another option if they chose to race heads up. Otherwise there is always the index classing. In response to Areddi's post I am not opposed to allowing a Miata and BRZ/FRS class. Both types of cars have a significant presence at CDC events. However, if those changes eliminated small bore it would obviously create a problem for the few other cars that compete in small bore.
3. I am against this change as it stands. I feel the proposed index change is rather drastic in favor of r-compounds, but I guess that is the point. Perhaps someone could share the argument of r-compounds not being competitive on the current index's with me, because I thought they were competitive. If the rule is to go through;![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
1. I am totally for this. If there is to be separate classes and awards, you should not be eligible to win both.
2. I think its fair to add the FRS/BRZ to the small bore list and give those drivers another option if they chose to race heads up. Otherwise there is always the index classing. In response to Areddi's post I am not opposed to allowing a Miata and BRZ/FRS class. Both types of cars have a significant presence at CDC events. However, if those changes eliminated small bore it would obviously create a problem for the few other cars that compete in small bore.
3. I am against this change as it stands. I feel the proposed index change is rather drastic in favor of r-compounds, but I guess that is the point. Perhaps someone could share the argument of r-compounds not being competitive on the current index's with me, because I thought they were competitive. If the rule is to go through;
- -The tread wear threshold for "street" tires should be 180 UTQG. This will allow drivers to continue utilizing the previous generation of extreme performance tires, as well as others that have not yet adopted the standard of 200 UTQG.
- The standard rule of thumb, which has been proven time and time again, is that r-compound tires are worth 2 seconds on a 60 second course. 60 x 1.02 = 1.2 seconds. So in theory with everything else the same this rule would be giving r-compound tires a .8 second advantage. Understanding the leaders feel a change is warranted, I propose a not so drastic one. How about UTQG rating 180> = 1.0, UTQG rating 51-179 = 1.15, UTQG rating <50 = 1.25 ?
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
- Nathan Atkins
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:28 pm
- Car: 2005 Mazda RX8 Red
- CDC Member#: 10
- Location: Bel Air, MD
- Contact:
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
Hmmmm, I think we should recognize Nathan Atkins' winning of the Rotary Cup 2013! In yo' face Rocky! ![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 9:25 am
- Car: '96 Gray Miata (LATRL G)
- CDC Member#: 96
- Location: Boyds, MD
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
One of the main things that makes CDC nice (up to this point) is that everyone is in the same boat as far as being able to drive whatever car they want and compete with everyone else. It's an informal club, not burdened by the classifications of SCCA. If we make small bore and indexed classes mutually exclusive, I am concerned about it splitting the club into two groups where each group is only concerned about their standing within that group. Additionally it would make it less flexible to change cars and hope to rank high. Like let's say if someone registered for small bore and ran a few events in that, and then wanted to drive a non-small-bore car. They would be at a disadvantage at that point and may not be able to qualify (or do well) in indexed. This will force people to choose very early on which series they want to compete in.
If the problem is that Miatas such as ours (and Eric's) make it too easy to win the indexed times, then let's change the indexing to give us less of an advantage. Mike has shown that it's possible to get FTD in our Miata without any help from index weighting (unless somebody brings a Cobra w/ A6's). Part of that is reducing the tire weighting (like is proposed) but how about reducing the large engine penalty also?
For me, the *only* metric at each event that is important to me is where I stand in the raw times. Any index system is not going to be perfect (although we can certainly make it better) so I don't put much stock in that, nor do I care much about small bore as a separate series. So I would like to see a raw times series that either has rankings or perhaps some other way of accounting for offset from FTD. Perhaps a cumulative time offset from FTD (or average per event) would work, or perhaps standard deviations from FTD would be a better metric to account for both small and large courses and would also account for wider or narrower time distributions.
If we don't add a raw times series and go with the proposal to make indexed and small bore totally separate, I will go on record right now and say that I'll compete in the general/indexed series, NOT small bore, as it's closer to what I'm interested in (raw times). But as a participant in the indexed series, I think losing the talent that would compete in small bore from the indexed series weakens the indexed series greatly. It makes a win in the indexed series less meaningful by excluding those small bore competitors. The same is true in the opposite direction - if a good small bore driver chooses to do indexed, it weakens the quality of competition in small bore to the point where it's not even a meaningful competition.
So to summarize... I oppose making them mutually exclusive. If we have a problem with the index weighting let's fix the problem with the index, not make two smaller ponds and see who is the biggest fish in each. (If changing the weightings doesn't fix it, we could also have a backup rule that says a person is only eligible to receive an award in one series). Also a raw times series would be good - maybe not even with prizes, but just as a measure of overall progress.
Just my 2 cents.
If the problem is that Miatas such as ours (and Eric's) make it too easy to win the indexed times, then let's change the indexing to give us less of an advantage. Mike has shown that it's possible to get FTD in our Miata without any help from index weighting (unless somebody brings a Cobra w/ A6's). Part of that is reducing the tire weighting (like is proposed) but how about reducing the large engine penalty also?
For me, the *only* metric at each event that is important to me is where I stand in the raw times. Any index system is not going to be perfect (although we can certainly make it better) so I don't put much stock in that, nor do I care much about small bore as a separate series. So I would like to see a raw times series that either has rankings or perhaps some other way of accounting for offset from FTD. Perhaps a cumulative time offset from FTD (or average per event) would work, or perhaps standard deviations from FTD would be a better metric to account for both small and large courses and would also account for wider or narrower time distributions.
If we don't add a raw times series and go with the proposal to make indexed and small bore totally separate, I will go on record right now and say that I'll compete in the general/indexed series, NOT small bore, as it's closer to what I'm interested in (raw times). But as a participant in the indexed series, I think losing the talent that would compete in small bore from the indexed series weakens the indexed series greatly. It makes a win in the indexed series less meaningful by excluding those small bore competitors. The same is true in the opposite direction - if a good small bore driver chooses to do indexed, it weakens the quality of competition in small bore to the point where it's not even a meaningful competition.
So to summarize... I oppose making them mutually exclusive. If we have a problem with the index weighting let's fix the problem with the index, not make two smaller ponds and see who is the biggest fish in each. (If changing the weightings doesn't fix it, we could also have a backup rule that says a person is only eligible to receive an award in one series). Also a raw times series would be good - maybe not even with prizes, but just as a measure of overall progress.
Just my 2 cents.
- Areddi
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:34 pm
- Car: 2013 Scion FR-S
- CDC Member#: 650
- Location: Jessup, MD
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
So here is the problem with that Ed, I can list off many Twin owners who were not on stock tires: Myself, Greg, Chad, Leon, Matt, Josh, and our times still pretty much got whipped by the Miatas. Are the people who drive the Miatas more experienced and better at driving than we are? Very likely. Unless you're Mike and can throw down a dominant time in any car, I think the choice of playing in small bore against them, or playing in the pool where they aren't, drives an easy choice for those that want to try to win. Separating the two groups that people can run in in any one day will cause this separation. I don't have a problem with this, as I like the idea of a "class" of some kind to run in. My argument is that a "class" should be more than just by car. The logic that was used to explain why a car specific class doesn't work makes sense.echan wrote:Actually as Denise alluded, the FRS/BRZ has a lot more power than a Miata but a little heavier. Last year most of the FRS/BRZs were running the factory supplies tires. Our (organizers) thought was that a well prepared FRS/BRZ may actually blow a Miata away (given the same driver).
Now I do have a comment that may be counter to the one I made above, and I would like to see if an organizer could chime in. The Miatas traditional dominance (we'll exclude driver skill for this argument) could partly be to the fact that CDC's lots have been traditionally smaller and slower relative to other clubs in the area. With the rumored addition of more events in Waldorf, this could completely change, as there is the potential for a much longer, faster course. If this is the case, cars like the Twins could be much more competitive with the added power over the Miatas.
Either way, I'll play wherever my friends do, cause I like to compete. I would love to bring this thirst for competition into small-bore, I just am not seeing the incentive yet to jump into the shark tank.
Also, I will echo Chad's comments on the tire changes. The way Chad spec'd it out would be a good call IMO, and I also would be curious to know where r-comps were being too highly disadvantaged came from? How many people really even run them anymore? Most of what I see is people on extreme performance summers, unless I just have overlooked them?
Check out my YouTube channel with Autocross videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrAreddi
- Areddi
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:34 pm
- Car: 2013 Scion FR-S
- CDC Member#: 650
- Location: Jessup, MD
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
One more also: Season subscription/multi-event would be great and would make life a lot easier!
Check out my YouTube channel with Autocross videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrAreddi
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
Areddi wrote:One more also: Season subscription/multi-event would be great and would make life a lot easier!
The issue with season pass is that schedule is not firm. Normally, our schedule is "firmed up" by 'March. However, the various lot owners reserve the right to cancel an event. In the past, we have lost days to Harry Grove, Bowie, and Winchester due to Community Events, Baseball Play-offs, construction, etc. Even when our schedule is "officially" posted, the events in the Fall are subject to availability. These issues are over and above the times when we cancel due to weather.
Believe me, I would love to offer a season pass/subscription. This option would probably make it a little easier at registration and give some money upfront. However to be fair to those getting the pass, the participant has a right to know exactly how many events they are getting, and the only way to know this is if we had a firm schedule and total control of the various lots (right now, we are going back and forth with the various lots to get a mutual schedule that works for everyone, which is a very iterative process. Believe me, even when we think everything is done, we almost always have to change dates - and this is long before our schedule is even posted on the web site).
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
You hit it on the nose. We have scheduled 5 dates at Waldorf, which along with 2 or 3 at Winchester, should even the field with the Twins. As I mentioned before, not all our dates are firm yet so I don't want to post the Waldorf dates yet. So with only the top 9 events counting, an FRS/BRZ could run 8 events with an advantage. I can see how the miatas may have an advantage at Frederick and Woodbridge, which typically has tighter courses. Bowie is probably a draw.Areddi wrote: Now I do have a comment that may be counter to the one I made above, and I would like to see if an organizer could chime in. The Miatas traditional dominance (we'll exclude driver skill for this argument) could partly be to the fact that CDC's lots have been traditionally smaller and slower relative to other clubs in the area. With the rumored addition of more events in Waldorf, this could completely change, as there is the potential for a much longer, faster course. If this is the case, cars like the Twins could be much more competitive with the added power over the Miatas.
About 5 years ago, r-compounds we used by almost all the experienced drivers at CDC. At the time the r-compounds were a tremendous advantage, and there was a move to increase the index to those with r compounds (a lot was based on various members looking a past results and trying to figure out a fudge factor). Then as the street tires got MUCH MUCH better with grip, almost everyone now uses street tires (in addition, they are cheaper and don't have to change tires at the event). Just as we looked at the various times in the past, it appears that the index for r-compounds is too severe.Areddi wrote: Also, I will echo Chad's comments on the tire changes. The way Chad spec'd it out would be a good call IMO, and I also would be curious to know where r-comps were being too highly disadvantaged came from? How many people really even run them anymore? Most of what I see is people on extreme performance summers, unless I just have overlooked them?
- Nathan Atkins
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:28 pm
- Car: 2005 Mazda RX8 Red
- CDC Member#: 10
- Location: Bel Air, MD
- Contact:
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
It seems to me that we should have the club track Raw and Index, and let their responsibility end there. If there are sub-groups within the club that want to recognize their own champions that is their prerogative. All CDC would have to do is provide the raw data and it's up to the participants what to do with that information, if they want to establish their own points structure and maybe even take up a collection from their participants to get some trophies or something that's something they can do without having to tap club resources to do it.
Sort of like how I pwned Rocky in the rotary cup, took up a collection from everyone that knew they were participating(me) of $1.29+tax and acknowledged my victory with a McDonalds Hot fudge sundae. This approach is scalable to any number of participants.
Sort of like how I pwned Rocky in the rotary cup, took up a collection from everyone that knew they were participating(me) of $1.29+tax and acknowledged my victory with a McDonalds Hot fudge sundae. This approach is scalable to any number of participants.
- ericw
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:10 pm
- Car: 1990 Mazda Miata
- CDC Member#: 681
- Location: Hagerstown, Maryland
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
There's really 4 groups of tires IMO. I would probably try the 50-100 if it had it's own multiplier:
<50
50-100
101-200
>201
<50
50-100
101-200
>201
silver 681
- BugBomb
- Posts: 1199
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:28 am
- Car: '02 Whorevette
- CDC Member#: 33
- Location: PA
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
You have all brought up some very good points. We want to find solutions that appeal to the majority of our participants. We also want to make sure that what we do is simple and straightforward for new folks to pick up.
I have come up with an idea this morning that I want to share. For this moment, I want everyone to remember that none of what you are about to see has been vetted by the other organizers, so please treat it as a completely hypothetical solution at this moment.
My idea keeps the raw and index results as the core. Then from that core, we create many classes for people to choose from, but they ONLY serve as another tool to break down the results into more interesting, bite-size pieces. In other words, we would still have the index championship encompassing all competitors and awarding points thru the year and free passes at the end of the year (no more smallbore, unless we make it an optional class). The optional classes would be mostly for fun and bragging rights (no points accrued), but we could possibly offer trophies for the most top finishes in classes that gather a certain amount of participation. Classes would have very simple requirements and be self-policed by participants, but the system would only let you choose ONE class per event (things will get way too complicated if we have people swapping cars/classes throughout the day). For example, a Miata class would allow any Miata to participate, An AWD class would allow any AWD car, Rotary class for Rotary-powered cars, FRS/BRZ class, Muscle class for V8s, etc. We would let people petition to add classes before the season starts, but in order to keep from creating 100 different classes, we need a significant number of people to commit to a new class for it to be created. Also, we don't want to make changes to the classes during the season. Here is an example of what this would look like in the results:
Results with Optional Classes
(To show a specific class, click the button under the "Opt Class" Header, choose a class, and then re-sort by Best Time or Index Time if you wish)
Again, this is just an unofficial idea I had this morning, but it seems like a decent compromise to let folks mold new classes without making things too complicated for the organizers or the participants.
I have come up with an idea this morning that I want to share. For this moment, I want everyone to remember that none of what you are about to see has been vetted by the other organizers, so please treat it as a completely hypothetical solution at this moment.
My idea keeps the raw and index results as the core. Then from that core, we create many classes for people to choose from, but they ONLY serve as another tool to break down the results into more interesting, bite-size pieces. In other words, we would still have the index championship encompassing all competitors and awarding points thru the year and free passes at the end of the year (no more smallbore, unless we make it an optional class). The optional classes would be mostly for fun and bragging rights (no points accrued), but we could possibly offer trophies for the most top finishes in classes that gather a certain amount of participation. Classes would have very simple requirements and be self-policed by participants, but the system would only let you choose ONE class per event (things will get way too complicated if we have people swapping cars/classes throughout the day). For example, a Miata class would allow any Miata to participate, An AWD class would allow any AWD car, Rotary class for Rotary-powered cars, FRS/BRZ class, Muscle class for V8s, etc. We would let people petition to add classes before the season starts, but in order to keep from creating 100 different classes, we need a significant number of people to commit to a new class for it to be created. Also, we don't want to make changes to the classes during the season. Here is an example of what this would look like in the results:
Results with Optional Classes
(To show a specific class, click the button under the "Opt Class" Header, choose a class, and then re-sort by Best Time or Index Time if you wish)
Again, this is just an unofficial idea I had this morning, but it seems like a decent compromise to let folks mold new classes without making things too complicated for the organizers or the participants.
Mike M
"There’s no way you can eat a hot pocket and do this." -Ed Chan
The views expressed herein are my own and are not intended to sound like a "dick."
"There’s no way you can eat a hot pocket and do this." -Ed Chan
The views expressed herein are my own and are not intended to sound like a "dick."
- Nathan Atkins
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:28 pm
- Car: 2005 Mazda RX8 Red
- CDC Member#: 10
- Location: Bel Air, MD
- Contact:
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
how about we just expand the registration form where we still enter the same info we always have when registering, but with additional optional details if you want to, then when we make the results spreadsheet we can have those additional details to filter by.
like you could enter your specific weight or horsepower or tire width, from that we could have excel calculate power to weight, power to tire, weight to tire or whatever you might be interested in and maybe check blocks for all the subclasses your car would qualify for and you could just filter out the results you want. With enough combinations we could surely find a way to make everyone a winner
"Hey I was the fastest horizontally-opposed front-mounted four-cylinder rear wheel drive four seat coupe with 245 section tires and driver weight exceeding 200 lbs on days where the course had a twistiness ratio less than 1 and a westerly wind of 15mph with ambient temperatures of greater than 85 degrees F(29.5 C)!!!" -Noted Champion
I'm sure the best solution is somewhere between what weve currently got and that extreme^^^^
like you could enter your specific weight or horsepower or tire width, from that we could have excel calculate power to weight, power to tire, weight to tire or whatever you might be interested in and maybe check blocks for all the subclasses your car would qualify for and you could just filter out the results you want. With enough combinations we could surely find a way to make everyone a winner
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
"Hey I was the fastest horizontally-opposed front-mounted four-cylinder rear wheel drive four seat coupe with 245 section tires and driver weight exceeding 200 lbs on days where the course had a twistiness ratio less than 1 and a westerly wind of 15mph with ambient temperatures of greater than 85 degrees F(29.5 C)!!!" -Noted Champion
I'm sure the best solution is somewhere between what weve currently got and that extreme^^^^
- BugBomb
- Posts: 1199
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:28 am
- Car: '02 Whorevette
- CDC Member#: 33
- Location: PA
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
I forgot to share the spreadsheet I posted. Should be viewable now.
Mike M
"There’s no way you can eat a hot pocket and do this." -Ed Chan
The views expressed herein are my own and are not intended to sound like a "dick."
"There’s no way you can eat a hot pocket and do this." -Ed Chan
The views expressed herein are my own and are not intended to sound like a "dick."
- Nathan Atkins
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:28 pm
- Car: 2005 Mazda RX8 Red
- CDC Member#: 10
- Location: Bel Air, MD
- Contact:
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
Sweet that's exactly what I was talking about, then the sub groups could organize their own reward system if they want or we could recognize them as a club if there is enough participants.
- Sky Render
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:41 pm
- Car: 2011 Mustang 5.0
- CDC Member#: 750
- Location: NW of Baltimore
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
I disagree. As several have now pointed out, there are a few direct competitors to the Star Specs that have a treadwear of 180.ericw wrote:There's really 4 groups of tires IMO. I would probably try the 50-100 if it had it's own multiplier:
<50
50-100
101-200
>201
Vince (#750)
Grey 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0
I'm slow.
Grey 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0
I'm slow.
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
I like it. Mike's concept does make it easier. Does anyone have issues of eliminating the Small Bore Series (for points/trophies)?BugBomb wrote:You have all brought up some very good points. We want to find solutions that appeal to the majority of our participants. We also want to make sure that what we do is simple and straightforward for new folks to pick up.
I have come up with an idea this morning that I want to share. For this moment, I want everyone to remember that none of what you are about to see has been vetted by the other organizers, so please treat it as a completely hypothetical solution at this moment.
My idea keeps the raw and index results as the core. Then from that core, we create many classes for people to choose from, but they ONLY serve as another tool to break down the results into more interesting, bite-size pieces. In other words, we would still have the index championship encompassing all competitors and awarding points thru the year and free passes at the end of the year (no more smallbore, unless we make it an optional class). The optional classes would be mostly for fun and bragging rights (no points accrued), but we could possibly offer trophies for the most top finishes in classes that gather a certain amount of participation. Classes would have very simple requirements and be self-policed by participants, but the system would only let you choose ONE class per event (things will get way too complicated if we have people swapping cars/classes throughout the day). For example, a Miata class would allow any Miata to participate, An AWD class would allow any AWD car, Rotary class for Rotary-powered cars, FRS/BRZ class, Muscle class for V8s, etc. We would let people petition to add classes before the season starts, but in order to keep from creating 100 different classes, we need a significant number of people to commit to a new class for it to be created. Also, we don't want to make changes to the classes during the season. Here is an example of what this would look like in the results:
Results with Optional Classes
(To show a specific class, click the button under the "Opt Class" Header, choose a class, and then re-sort by Best Time or Index Time if you wish)
Again, this is just an unofficial idea I had this morning, but it seems like a decent compromise to let folks mold new classes without making things too complicated for the organizers or the participants.
- BugBomb
- Posts: 1199
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:28 am
- Car: '02 Whorevette
- CDC Member#: 33
- Location: PA
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
The Dunlop ZII is a 200TW tire. Eric's idea lumps everything from 101-200 together, so the 180TW tires would have the same index as the ZII.Sky Render wrote:I disagree. As several have now pointed out, there are a few direct competitors to the Star Specs that have a treadwear of 180.
Personally, I like Eric's tire index divisions because it separates lesser street tires from the near R-comps that are available now, but I think we are in the minority in that regard.
Mike M
"There’s no way you can eat a hot pocket and do this." -Ed Chan
The views expressed herein are my own and are not intended to sound like a "dick."
"There’s no way you can eat a hot pocket and do this." -Ed Chan
The views expressed herein are my own and are not intended to sound like a "dick."
Re: Proposed Changes in 2014 CDC Autocross Series
I like what Mike came up with. It seems to address both sides of the debate adequately.
Eric nailed the categories of tires. However, the 200+ category would add a handicap that isn't in the current system.
Ed, as far as the season subscription what about a package of nine events?
Eric nailed the categories of tires. However, the 200+ category would add a handicap that isn't in the current system.
Ed, as far as the season subscription what about a package of nine events?