Improvements for CDC Indexing for 2009

[echan]

Don't know how I missed this thread for so long. But since there were so few comments on the small bore class I'll throw my two cents in. I dig the class. It was nice knowing I wasn't competing against Cobras in a Scirocco!

Although I run the oldest car in class usually with the least HP it was nice to find myself being competitive with some of the newer cars, mostly Miata's. I think the only change for this class would be to address those cars running R-comps. And I may even run them this year. But other than that, I'd leave it alone.

I look forward to the new season!!!

Our intent is to leave the small bore class alone with no indexing. We had a couple people talk about no allowing r-compounds. The problem is that we start getting into a debate on what tires are legal and what tires are not. The whole thought behind the small bore series was to have a no index series with inexpensive cars (one can pick up a Miata for about $2K, or an old MG for about $1K). We picked 1.8 liters as the cut-off with normal aspiration, no V-TECH, no engine swaps, and to make sure everyone is about equal, we listed the approved cars on the web (we'll post it again).

The only thing we may change is that some complianed that the reward of a season pass is too much, especially since the index series now only rewards 4 passes. I wanted to make the reward higher for the small bore, since it is a non-indexed series. However, We might drop the small bore first place award to only 8 passes for 2009.

[BugBomb]

Ed, I agree that the small-bore series should be about cheap racing. That's why I think you guys should ban r-compounds from that. You can use the same criteria for the standard index that determines what an r-compound is (usually anything under 140 tread wear). So any tire with 140 or higher tread wear would be acceptable in the series. A great set of r-comps would be $650. A great set of street tires for a small car would run about $450 and are easier to justify purchasing since they last longer and can be used on the road.

Additionally, I think the index works pretty well in it's current state of simplicity, but I do think it could use some tweaks for 2009. As well as increasing the r-compound index, I think we should get more distinction between weight and horsepower.

I think the 2,000-2,500lb bracket is fine, but I don't think a 3,300-lb car should be directly competing with a 2,600-lb car. Maybe we could add a split at 3,000 and decide whether to bump the lower weight indexes up or bring the higher weight index down.

As for HP, I believe that up to a point, more power doesn't really help you with auto-x. I think the HP categories should look something like this:

<100HP: 1.00
101-175HP: 1.01
176-250HP: 1.02
250+HP: 1.03

But that's just my opinion.

[kyle.bowker]

We picked 1.8 liters as the cut-off with normal aspiration, no V-TECH....

VTECH?


VTEC?

[FredK]

I almost agree with Mike. I think the 1st Hp class should be <125hp rather than 100. the difference between 110 and 175 is too great.

[Gonz]

.

As for HP, I believe that up to a point, more power doesn't really help you with auto-x. I think the HP categories should look something like this:

<100HP: 1.00
101-175HP: 1.01
176-250HP: 1.02
250+HP: 1.03

But that's just my opinion.

I don't know about 250+ all being the same.

I recently drove a tuned STi, and let me tell you, it was shockingly faster than the same car prior to it's tune.

You'll get to see for yourself next season

[BugBomb]

I don't know about 250+ all being the same.

Yeah, he brought that over shortly after the tune and let me drive it. His torque band is certainly improved, but I am anxious to see how it affects his performance next year. One thing I have learned from upgrading a turbo Subaru is more power = more difficult to control. That sudden wall of torque gets harder and harder to deal with.

Maybe 250+ is a little too broad. We could nudge it up a little to exclude stock STIs and EVOs, but then the STi and WRX would be in the same HP category. I personally feel that an STi would be more comparable to a modded STi than to a WRX (at CDC events). There's just no way to please everyone when we slice things into such huge chunks.

We only have about 10 car models that make up a huge majority of the typical CDC field. Unfortunately they all have pretty unique curb weights and HP levels. Dividing each category into 4 levels always leaves someone at a disadvantage.

[Tedzilla]

The current CDC Index insures that if you don't drive a car prepared to SCCA Class SM, XP or higher you won't be in contention for a top finish. Playing with the tire indexes and pretending high horsepower isn't that big an advantage is a waste of time. In a car race racecars win. If we want an index we should have the real one... read it before you build or build what you want and stop whining

Ted

[ButtDyno]

Any thoughts on my "1.01 handicap for anything other than OEM springs" idea?

[wrathe74]

Any thoughts on my "1.01 handicap for anything other than OEM springs" idea?

IMO...and its just an opinion...

Springs won't create a defining win, unless they are part of a whole suspension upgrade and tuned correctly, even then I think the actual gains to be minimal considering our low speeds.

Maybe a handicap for a complete suspension upgrade... Springs, Adjustable Dampers, Race alignment, Torsion bar etc. ... when its all tied together (and properly tuned) you can easily achieve a 1 sec or more gain.

[ButtDyno]

Any thoughts on my "1.01 handicap for anything other than OEM springs" idea?

IMO...and its just an opinion...

Springs won't create a defining win, unless they are part of a whole suspension upgrade and tuned correctly, even then I think the actual gains to be minimal considering our low speeds.

Maybe a handicap for a complete suspension upgrade... Springs, Adjustable Dampers, Race alignment, Torsion bar etc. ... when its all tied together (and properly tuned) you can easily achieve a 1 sec or more gain.

OK let me rewind a little.

The rules do not penalize suspension parts now. So a Miata with just shocks and a Miata with coilovers are treated the same. When R-compounds come into play at least, stiffer springs are pretty much a requirement for getting the most out of them. Otherwise, the crazy lateral grip of the springs = a lot of body roll and you're really only using the tires on the outside of the car.

The goal is to differentiate between those cars. You can do a lot of stuff with suspension mods, but you are pretty limited to how much benefit you can get for autox without making the springs stiffer.

This is AFAIK the *simplest* way to accomplish that. If you have to start looking at multiple suspension parts, whether the shocks are adjustable, bushings, etc etc... you end up with the NASA TT ruleset

Concrete example - this would differentiate Pete's AS S2000 from Calvin's BSP S2000.

[wrathe74]

Sign-up as either Competitive, or Non-Competitive.

If you signup as NON-Comp. Then run what you brung, no street illegal R-compounds. Your here to have fun, check it out, and see what times you can get. No index.

If you signup as competitive.
Large Bore Index Mods:
* R-compound
* HP
* Weight
* Suspension .005 for each of 4 suspension upgrades: Springs, Shocks, Roll bar/Swaybar/Torsion bar, and Cage/X-brace

Small Bore - keep as is

[AJ_RDR_Civic]

We picked 1.8 liters as the cut-off with normal aspiration, no V-TECH, no engine swaps, and to make sure everyone is about equal, we listed the approved cars on the web (we'll post it again).

that bothers me a little. V-TEC really isn't a serious advantage and other cars have similar valve timing like Toyota's VVT-I. even with the v-tec motor, i still make what, 110 to the wheels?(if that). it bothers me because SCCA rules throw my car into DSP if i ran r-comps just because of V-TEC. it isn't a huge advantage at all..

[kyle.bowker]

I think Ed just didn't want to figure out which Honda motors made 90hp with VTEC (SOHC D15Z1) and which can make 220hp+ with nothing more than bolt-ons (K20A).

[echan]

We picked 1.8 liters as the cut-off with normal aspiration, no V-TECH, no engine swaps, and to make sure everyone is about equal, we listed the approved cars on the web (we'll post it again).

that bothers me a little. V-TEC really isn't a serious advantage and other cars have similar valve timing like Toyota's VVT-I. even with the v-tec motor, i still make what, 110 to the wheels?(if that). it bothers me because SCCA rules throw my car into DSP if i ran r-comps just because of V-TEC. it isn't a huge advantage at all..

V-TEC was not allowed in the 2008 small bore series. So we really aren't changing any of the rules for 2009. If you have a V-TEC motor, we didn't make it clear enough. Kyle is correct that what we really don't want is the large HP small bore motor. You have to realize that the HP with all the cars in the series are all at most in the 130 HP range. I understand your point, and the organizers can talk about it before the 2009 season starts.

[Tedzilla]

We picked 1.8 liters as the cut-off with normal aspiration, no V-TECH, no engine swaps, and to make sure everyone is about equal, we listed the approved cars on the web (we'll post it again).

that bothers me a little. V-TEC really isn't a serious advantage and other cars have similar valve timing like Toyota's VVT-I. even with the v-tec motor, i still make what, 110 to the wheels?(if that). it bothers me because SCCA rules throw my car into DSP if i ran r-comps just because of V-TEC. it isn't a huge advantage at all..

Whether it's SCCA, NASA or CDC read the rules before picking a class... V-TEC hasn't ever been permitted in 'Small Bore'.
The 'Small Bore' rules as they're now written would permit other very light DSP cars that can have NA non-V-TEC 170+ HP motors.

Ted

[Jim Harris]

If there is to be a handicap for suspension work, I'd suggest keeping it really simple, like shocks and front bars are free (SCCA stock style), but 1.01 for anything beyond it (camber plates, springs, whatever). Simplicity in general is a virtue. Focus on improving the index system, rather than on perfecting it to a bunch of decimal points.

My own request is that there be more discrimination on weight. My Bullitt weighs in at 3550 pounds, about a half ton heavier than the Cobras. Not to mention the Civics. The present index system appropriately contains a handicap, but not enough I don't think.

Just my totally unbaised and altruistic opinion.

Jim
2008 Bullitt

[ProDarwin]

Ed, I agree that the small-bore series should be about cheap racing. That's why I think you guys should ban r-compounds from that.

I think the problem with this is that being a budget class, its likely that a lot of cars have 13" or 14" wheels. Good luck finding a good street tire in those sizes. One can find a 215/60-13 R comp all day long (is that still the spec tire for spec RX7?), where street tires on 13" wheels are laughable at best. In 14" you have the option of the narrow as hell 195 Azenis, but that's it.


As far as the index goes, I agree with these suggestions:

1. Split the 2500-3500lb weight class
2. Split the 150-250hp class
3. Use John's suggestion (or a similar one) for a suspension multiplier

I think addressing suspension is very important. I'd love to prep my Miata for CS in SCCA, but it sucks that a CSP Miata with 35 more whp, 275 Hoosier A6s, and $3k coil-overs would fall into the same class under CDC indexing At least suspension would help differentiate between stock/mild suspension, and those will race setups.

A suggestion I might add, although it could complicate things: It's clear that there are 2 different levels of R comps run at CDC. V710s and A6s are a night and day difference from the track-day R comps like RA1s.

Rcomp A 1.02:
Toyo RA1
Toyo R888
Nitto NT01
Kumho Victoracers
etc.

Rcomp B 1.04:
Kumho V710
Hoosier A6

[mla163]

1. Split the 2500-3500lb weight class
2. Split the 150-250hp class

I like.

... shocks and front bars are free (SCCA stock style), but 1.01 for anything beyond it (camber plates, springs, whatever)

Not bad. Even though the suspension thing hurts me, there should be some difference between a stock setup and a full race coilover suspension. Although this may complicate things.

Rcomp A 1.02:
Toyo RA1
Toyo R888
Nitto NT01
Kumho Victoracers
etc.

Rcomp B 1.04:
Kumho V710
Hoosier A6

Makes sense. Is there a way to enforce this with treadwear numbers instead of makes?

[moxnix]

Makes sense. Is there a way to enforce this with treadwear numbers instead of makes?

NASA uses 40 treadwear as their cutoff.

Quote from NASA rules.

1) DOT-approved R-compound tires with a UTQG treadwear rating of 40 or less (ex. BFG R1, Hankook Z214, Hoosier R6 & A6, Kumho V710, etc.—note: G.A.C. Hoosiers OK) +10
2) DOT-approved R-compound tires with a UTQG treadwear rating of 50 to 130 (ex. Kumho V700, Michelin Pilot Sport Cup, Nitto NT01, Pirelli PZero Corsa, Toyo R888, Yokahama A048, etc.—note: see exception below in 3) +7
3) Toyo RA-1 and Nitto NT555RII +5
4) Non-DOT-approved racing slicks +30 (of any origin, re-caps and re-treads are not permitted)

[Gonz]

I vote keep it simple and fun. This is what CDC autocross is all about

Even if that means my Mustang will still run head to head with an S2000.

I don't think more complicated indices will lead to "more fun." We have our hands full just getting all the cars lined up on grid, on time, in the right order, with the right #'s on them. Having to know whether or not one of those drivers changed their sway bar since the last event doesn't seem like it's going add much "fun" to the event.

[Tedzilla]

Quote NASA:
1) DOT-approved R-compound tires with a UTQG treadwear rating of 40 or less (ex. BFG R1, Hankook Z214, Hoosier R6 & A6, Kumho V710, etc.—note: G.A.C. Hoosiers OK) +10
2) DOT-approved R-compound tires with a UTQG treadwear rating of 50 to 130 (ex. Kumho V700, Michelin Pilot Sport Cup, Nitto NT01, Pirelli PZero Corsa, Toyo R888, Yokahama A048, etc.—note: see exception below in 3) +7
3) Toyo RA-1 and Nitto NT555RII +5
4) Non-DOT-approved racing slicks +30 (of any origin, re-caps and re-treads are not permitted)

4 classes of R-Comps... from UTQG 130 down. That's about 1 class change for every 30 point UTQG change. To be fair to all we'll apply this to all tires so when I run Cooper Mega Invincas (UTQG 720) on my Porsche those sissies on slicks will have to spot me 24 points, them being at 1.04 and me at .80. Sounds simple to me

Ted

[FredK]

LOL

[gnhovis]

How about this for a proposal: Two championships -- Small Bore and CDC Index and but also recognize 3 class winners: Fastest Overall (raw); Fastest Street Tire (index) and PAX.

For the index, build on last year's index multipliers, but with a bit more fidelity:

Vehicle Weight Multiplier
Vehicle weight < 2000 lbs = 1.03
Vehicle weight 2000 to 2500 lbs = 1.01
Vehicle weight 2501 to 3000 lbs = 1.00
Vehicle weight 3001 to 3500 lbs = 0.99
Vehicle weight > 3500 lbs = 0.98

Horsepower Multiplier
Below 150 hp = 0.99
150 hp to 200 hp = 1.00
201 hp to 250 hp = 1.01
251 hp to 300 hp = 1.02
301 hp to 350 hp = 1.03
Over 350 hp = 1.04

Add a Suspension Multiplier if you want, but keep it simple (shocks and springs are free):
Suspension Multiplier
No swaybars = 0.99
Swaybars (stock or aftermarket on original mounting points) = 1.00
Coilovers or Camber plates = 1.01
Coilovers and Camber plates = 1.02

And then determine the R-comp tire multiplier at the test and tune. See if there are a few volunteers from the top 10 last year who have both R-comps and a competitive street tire (like RT 615s). Do a bunch of runs on each, average the results and compare the relative performance. An alternative test would be to test each on the same car with a G-Techpro to measure the lateral g-force difference. (I think I read somewhere that the difference between the RT 615 and A6s was 5% but couldn't find the reference.)

Tire Multiplier
Street Tires = 1.00 (tread rating 140+)
R-Compounds = 1.0X (TBD)

[echan]

How about this for a proposal: Two championships -- Small Bore and CDC Index and but also recognize 3 class winners: Fastest Overall (raw); Fastest Street Tire (index) and PAX.

For the index, build on last year's index multipliers, but with a bit more fidelity:

Vehicle Weight Multiplier
Vehicle weight < 2000 lbs = 1.03
Vehicle weight 2000 to 2500 lbs = 1.01
Vehicle weight 2501 to 3000 lbs = 1.00
Vehicle weight 3001 to 3500 lbs = 0.99
Vehicle weight > 3500 lbs = 0.98

Horsepower Multiplier
Below 150 hp = 0.99
150 hp to 200 hp = 1.00
201 hp to 250 hp = 1.01
251 hp to 300 hp = 1.02
301 hp to 350 hp = 1.03
Over 350 hp = 1.04

Add a Suspension Multiplier if you want, but keep it simple (shocks and springs are free):
Suspension Multiplier
No swaybars = 0.99
Swaybars (stock or aftermarket on original mounting points) = 1.00
Coilovers or Camber plates = 1.01
Coilovers and Camber plates = 1.02

And then determine the R-comp tire multiplier at the test and tune. See if there are a few volunteers from the top 10 last year who have both R-comps and a competitive street tire (like RT 615s). Do a bunch of runs on each, average the results and compare the relative performance. An alternative test would be to test each on the same car with a G-Techpro to measure the lateral g-force difference. (I think I read somewhere that the difference between the RT 615 and A6s was 5% but couldn't find the reference.)

Tire Multiplier
Street Tires = 1.00 (tread rating 140+)
R-Compounds = 1.0X (TBD)

I like most of this idea conceptually (We can take a poll to to come up with a consensus with the exact multiplier values and exact cut-off values of each, but the concept sounds good) , except the suspension modifier. Like Gonz said, we have enough to worry about without checking suspension on cars. In addition I think based on earlier conversations on the forum, most everyone agrees that the 2008 r-compond multiplier is a little too low. I think if we just bump up the multipler to 1.04, we should be good. I really don't think we should have more multipliers for different r-compounds. This updated index would probably be an improvement to the 2008 system. I guess in theory, the best system would allow the same driver in any car an equal chance to get the best indexed time. I think the 2008 index won't get us there, but the improvements may get us closer.

[BugBomb]

Horsepower Multiplier
Below 150 hp = 0.99
150 hp to 200 hp = 1.00
201 hp to 250 hp = 1.01
251 hp to 300 hp = 1.02
301+ hp = 1.03

Fixed!