INDEX SYSTEM

[mla163]

FWIW

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... 7R2XpvwfUw

I set up a spreadsheet to compare base times vs. CDC index times vs. PAX times for those who provided PAX numbers earlier for the 10/20 Autocross.

[echan]

Interesting. The CDC points standing is based on the CDC index PLUS the raw time results. Did you include this combination in your comparisions?

[FamilyTruckster]

So I'm SM, which would be .856. That's painful. I think I need to go up a few inches in tire width.


Found the 2007 PAX index...So here it is...
SS 0.848 ASP 0.858 XP 0.874 AM 1.000
AS 0.838 BSP 0.853 BP 0.866 BM 0.944
BS 0.828 CSP 0.845 CP 0.864 CM 0.909
CS 0.822 DSP 0.836 DP 0.860 DM 0.889
DS 0.804 ESP 0.834 EP 0.863 EM 0.879
ES 0.812 FSP 0.823 FP 0.868 FM 0.890
FS 0.809 GP 0.847 FSAE 0.949
GS 0.803 STS 0.805
HS 0.789 STS2 0.806 F125 0.946
STX 0.808 FJ1 0.790
STU 0.821 FJ2 0.800
SM 0.856 FJ3 (FJB) 0.833
SM2 0.862 FJ4 (FJA) 0.851
Rick Ruth PAX/RTP Administrator

[ButtDyno]

Interesting. The CDC points standing is based on the CDC index PLUS the raw time results. Did you include this combination in your comparisions?

I added a new column to mine called "CDC Total" that reflects CDC Index + CDC Overall.

[Gonz]

So I'm SM, which would be .856. That's painful. I think I need to go up a few inches in tire width.


Found the 2007 PAX index...So here it is...
SS 0.848 ASP 0.858 XP 0.874 AM 1.000
AS 0.838 BSP 0.853 BP 0.866 BM 0.944
BS 0.828 CSP 0.845 CP 0.864 CM 0.909
CS 0.822 DSP 0.836 DP 0.860 DM 0.889
DS 0.804 ESP 0.834 EP 0.863 EM 0.879
ES 0.812 FSP 0.823 FP 0.868 FM 0.890
FS 0.809 GP 0.847 FSAE 0.949
GS 0.803 STS 0.805
HS 0.789 STS2 0.806 F125 0.946
STX 0.808 FJ1 0.790
STU 0.821 FJ2 0.800
SM 0.856 FJ3 (FJB) 0.833
SM2 0.862 FJ4 (FJA) 0.851
Rick Ruth PAX/RTP Administrator

Try this on for pain: show up in a 2.0 liter WRX, with nothing more than an ALK bushing, and you get to run E-Prepared with a 0.863 index

Same goes for Mustang guys who install a set of frame connectors. They get to run C-Prepared (0.864)

Even though both of these are some of the most basic and necessary mods on these two cars they'd be placed alongside, unstreetable race prepared cars. Once again

I hear SFC will be legal for next year. They should do the ALK as well...... but since there is no "inspection" at our events, who's to say if my ALK will be in place next year or not

[ten tenths]

Sounds to me like a SCCA PAX that does things like allow an ALK in STX is the way to go. I think CDC could keep the "just for fun" mantra while using a some type of PAX. I would be for allowing changes to boost in STU, I think the added power makes my car more difficult to drive on a CDC course.

As noob I'd like to know what it means if I got my butt kicked by a sts2 miata or a crossfire on rcomps. Mahmoud was almost a full second faster than me at the last event, but I placed 6 or 7 spots better then him in the indexed times because I'm a noob, that just seems silly. I think you may still see the fast cars at the top of a PAX list, but I think the guys in those cars are also the ones that have some of the most seat time and know their cars the best.

~Ryan

[ButtDyno]

There is no big evil agency that makes sure your cars are legal for the classes they're in. It's up to the competitors to protest. Personally I don't give a five if someone has an ALK in STX as long as they're not trying to hide it. We're not exactly playing for $$ here And so far at least, PAX is for entertainment value only.

john

[kyle.bowker]

Except there is something of value at stake, namely honor and rewards that carries with them some monetary value (season pass, trophy, etc.).

[TubeDriver]

Cheating just is not an issue with SCCA, Kyle why do you think it will be such an issue for CDC members?



Maybe we can make an exception for ALK kits just for Gonz. To put thinks into perspective, a strut tower bar puts my car into BSP and it does a lot less than an ALK on a WRX.

[kyle.bowker]

Pardon me for playing devil's advocate for a moment, but cheating IS a rampant issue in virtually every form of motorsports, from go-karts on up to F1. Some of it is seemingly benign while other times it is intentional and deliberate. Cheating includes incidents like, "Whoops! Sorry, I forgot to change my PAX to account for the fact I switched cars for the last run of the day which also happened to be my fastest by 2 seconds and I didn't realize until after you compiled the results." I'm confident that some amount of cheating occurs at nearly every SCCA event but not that many people protest and/or are caught at the local level. It seems that it's only at the national level that competitors are scrutinized more closely because more is at stake. I guess none of this would matter if we didn't have a season championship with a season pass as the prize.

[TubeDriver]

Kyle,

I run in several clubs that use SCCA PAX and I have NEVER heard of a cheating incident. NEVER.

This is not devil's advocacy, or hypothetical rambling rather it is my actual experience autoXing for years with clubs that use SCCA PAX. I will repeat: Cheating is not an issue. Period.

Cheating is very different in wheel to wheel racing (everything from carst to F1) where a part that is .1mm out of spec could be considered cheating but we are talking about autoX.

Will some people intentionally cheat (and almost certainly get away with it)? Probably yes. Will some folks mistakenly classify their cars in the wrong class, again the answer is probably yes. But none of this changes the fundamental fact that the SCCA PAX type system is way more fair and balanced than our current system.

You concerns about cheating do not weaken the argument for the SCCA PAX, it just demonstrates that there will always be some issues with people making mistakes or intentionally cheat.

The current system is so useless that it makes cheating completely not an issue since the system itself makes no real sense.

Pardon me for playing devil's advocate for a moment, but cheating IS a rampant issue in virtually every form of motorsports, from go-karts on up to F1. Some of it is seemingly benign while other times it is intentional and deliberate. Cheating includes incidents like, "Whoops! Sorry, I forgot to change my PAX to account for the fact I switched cars for the last run of the day which also happened to be my fastest by 2 seconds and I didn't realize until after you compiled the results." I'm confident that some amount of cheating occurs at nearly every SCCA event but not that many people protest and/or are caught at the local level. It seems that it's only at the national level that competitors are scrutinized more closely because more is at stake. I guess none of this would matter if we didn't have a season championship with a season pass as the prize.

[DaveL20]

The system we are using makes sense in theory.

However there are people that "work" the system to improve themselves in the standings, ect.

I think switching to the PAX system would be better because there is no way to really "work" that system.

The car is either legal or not legal in whatever class you put it in. There are enough guys running around that know exactly what is on who's car and what is legal in what class I think the "cheating" would be eliminated.

[Gonz]

......

Maybe we can make an exception for ALK kits just for Gonz. To put thinks into perspective, a strut tower bar puts my car into BSP and it does a lot less than an ALK on a WRX.

here's what bothers me about PAX. why in the world does a Strut Tower bar put you into BSP? BSP is for highly modified cars. A strut tower bar an otherwise stock car is "stock " in my book.

As for cheating, well, I know WRX11 used to run STX class with an STi hood scoop on his o2 WRX. This was clearly a Street MOD car. I never complained about him, nor would i because neither he nor I nor anyone else is good enough to make a STREET MOD capable time on a car with just a hood scoop In other words, take the hood scoop OFF and his times will be IDENTICAL to his street mod times. He might even be faster because of weight savings, and if given 100 runs I bet you couldn't tell me which had the hood scoop and which didn't. Yet the SCCA thinks having a hood scoop deserves him a 0.836 index, instead of a .789 index.

That's a handicap of 2.3 seconds on a 50 second course........

That's why we can't adopt SCCA PAX; because none of us prepared our cars according to some arcane SCCA rules. We've prepared them for CDC competition, and for personal enjoyment. To suddenly confine us to this arbitrary indexing system would be a very unfair way to keep score.

[TubeDriver]

Jeese, most of this thread has been about using the "stock" classes as a starting point and making out own modified classes which makes all your arguments about ALK and STB redundent.

The reason SCCA classes things like ALK and STB is that they are essentually the same as someone making their own suspension attachment points and welding in a tube frame. After all, what would be different? Both a custom tube frame car and things like ALK and braces that triangulate the frame are essentually the same thing (ibeit one is more extreme than the other).

The whole point of my system was to use the SCCA stock classes as a STARTING point and then add some general modifiers for bolt on mods. Let me put it to you this way: if you think your ALK (which increases caster and dynamic camber) does nothing, then you would have no problem with me dialing in a couple more degrees of camber on my S2000 using a different upper A-arm?


Regardless of your answer, my system allows all sorts of bolt on mods (some which will have some effect on performance and some which will not). My system basically lumps most bolt on mods in one group and serious mods (engine swaps, FI etc.) in another group. It also allows us to compare r-comps and adjust for those that want to run street tires. But since we use the SCCA stock class as a start is has some external validity instead of just randomly assigning cars to groups.

......

Maybe we can make an exception for ALK kits just for Gonz. To put thinks into perspective, a strut tower bar puts my car into BSP and it does a lot less than an ALK on a WRX.

here's what bothers me about PAX. why in the world does a Strut Tower bar put you into BSP? BSP is for highly modified cars. A strut tower bar an otherwise stock car is "stock " in my book.

As for cheating, well, I know WRX11 used to run STX class with an STi hood scoop on his o2 WRX. This was clearly a Street MOD car. I never complained about him, nor would i because neither he nor I nor anyone else is good enough to make a STREET MOD capable time on a car with just a hood scoop In other words, take the hood scoop OFF and his times will be IDENTICAL to his street mod times. He might even be faster because of weight savings, and if given 100 runs I bet you couldn't tell me which had the hood scoop and which didn't. Yet the SCCA thinks having a hood scoop deserves him a 0.836 index, instead of a .789 index.

That's a handicap of 2.3 seconds on a 50 second course........

That's why we can't adopt SCCA PAX; because none of us prepared our cars according to some arcane SCCA rules. We've prepared them for CDC competition, and for personal enjoyment. To suddenly confine us to this arbitrary indexing system would be a very unfair way to keep score.

[Gonz]

Jeese, most of this thread has been about using the "stock" classes as a starting point and making out own modified classes which makes all your arguments about ALK and STB redundent.

The whole point of my system was to use the SCCA stock classes as a STARTING point and then add some general modifiers for bolt on mods. Let me put it to you this way: if you think your ALK (which increases caster and dynamic camber) does nothing, then you would have no problem with me dialing in a couple more degrees of camber on my S2000 using a different upper A-arm?


Regardless of your answer, my system allows all sorts of bolt on mods (some which will have some effect on performance and some which will not). My system basically lumps most bolt on mods in one group and serious mods (engine swaps, FI etc.) in another group. It also allows us to compare r-comps and adjust for those that want to run street tires. But since we use the SCCA stock class as a start is has some external validity instead of just randomly assigning cars to groups.

Well, since we are basically on the same page with this, why then don't we just put the index into place and see how it works ?

It seems 95% of those who have commented are OK with this kind of system, and one or two voices in the crowd don't want to change because "it will allow fast drivers in fast cars to win."

Let's stop talking about it and simply put it into place. We can do it outside of any official "CDC Sanctioned" results and just tabulate ourselves as ButtDyno and others have already started to do.

All we need to know is where you draw the line between "bolt on" mods and " fabrication/custom/extreme mods."


G

[kyle.bowker]

one or two voices in the crowd don't want to change because "it will allow fast drivers in fast cars to win.

I think you misunderstand. No matter what you do fast drivers in fast cars will win even if you completely ignore raw times and base finishing position solely on a PAX adjusted time.

[TubeDriver]

Actually that is the whole point of a SCCA PAX: fast drivers in slower cars can (AND WILL) win in the PAX scores.

I bet that if we adopt a modified SCCA PAX system we will see Miatas and Minis and other "slower" cars with fast drivers start to do better.

Of course a fast driver in a fast car will do well, that will happen with any system (except the CDC system where I can get FTD in a nearly stock car and still rank 17th in PAX).

one or two voices in the crowd don't want to change because "it will allow fast drivers in fast cars to win.

I think you misunderstand. No matter what you do fast drivers in fast cars will win even if you completely ignore raw times and base finishing position solely on a PAX adjusted time.

[kyle.bowker]

The CDC system is less favorable to those who look at each event in isolation (for instance, where you placed in PAX) but the index tends to fade into the background when you look at it from a season championship perspective, at which point the RAW times become dominant factor. The ones that are doing best in the points standing drive fast cars on R-comps and attend every event. In the current CDC index the only person to top both RAW and adjusted results was Mike Moran after an event where he sandbagged to get a favorable index. With a handicap that gives slow cars a theoretical advantage it might be possible for allegedly fast drivers in slow cars to do better overall but there will always be a fuzziness to the figure that makes people wonder who really was the best.

[ButtDyno]

As for cheating, well, I know WRX11 used to run STX class with an STi hood scoop on his o2 WRX. This was clearly a Street MOD car. I never complained about him, nor would i because neither he nor I nor anyone else is good enough to make a STREET MOD capable time on a car with just a hood scoop In other words, take the hood scoop OFF and his times will be IDENTICAL to his street mod times. He might even be faster because of weight savings, and if given 100 runs I bet you couldn't tell me which had the hood scoop and which didn't. Yet the SCCA thinks having a hood scoop deserves him a 0.836 index, instead of a .789 index.

Quick story. I believe it was the 2003 SCCA Nationals when Tom Hoppe won in STX in his WRX. There was a rule that allowed big brake kits but no explicit rule allowing you to modify the dust shields. He won, and one of the Mini's protested. The protest committee found that he violated the rules... and did not penalize him. And that's why The punishment is up to the protest committee and if the rules violation wasn't a true performance enhancement they can choose to offer a warning instead of a DNF. No reason that couldn't work...

That's why we can't adopt SCCA PAX; because none of us prepared our cars according to some arcane SCCA rules. We've prepared them for CDC competition, and for personal enjoyment.

That's not true for everyone...

And anyone who is purely concerned with enjoyment doesn't have to register their car as existing in a class. They just wouldn't be in the runnings for a free season pass or whatever.

[DaveL20]

The CDC system is less favorable to those who look at each event in isolation (for instance, where you placed in PAX) but the index tends to fade into the background when you look at it from a season championship perspective, at which point the RAW times become dominant factor. The ones that are doing best in the points standing drive fast cars on R-comps and attend every event. In the current CDC index the only person to top both RAW and adjusted results was Mike Moran after an event where he sandbagged to get a favorable index. With a handicap that gives slow cars a theoretical advantage it might be possible for allegedly fast drivers in slow cars to do better overall but there will always be a fuzziness to the figure that makes people wonder who really was the best.

I think the majority of us have a problem with the index system because it allows someone to "sandbag" and then do well the next two or three weeks and since we drop the lowest 4 scores the sandbagging does not hurt you. The reason for dropping low scores I would believe started to not make everyone feel they had to show up every week not to allow people to sandbag and drop their index.

This is the whole fault with this system.

[TubeDriver]

I actually think sandbagging is one of the least of the problems with the current system. An autoX index system that does not account for vehicle difference makes no sense to me.

The CDC system is less favorable to those who look at each event in isolation (for instance, where you placed in PAX) but the index tends to fade into the background when you look at it from a season championship perspective, at which point the RAW times become dominant factor. The ones that are doing best in the points standing drive fast cars on R-comps and attend every event. In the current CDC index the only person to top both RAW and adjusted results was Mike Moran after an event where he sandbagged to get a favorable index. With a handicap that gives slow cars a theoretical advantage it might be possible for allegedly fast drivers in slow cars to do better overall but there will always be a fuzziness to the figure that makes people wonder who really was the best.

I think the majority of us have a problem with the index system because it allows someone to "sandbag" and then do well the next two or three weeks and since we drop the lowest 4 scores the sandbagging does not hurt you. The reason for dropping low scores I would believe started to not make everyone feel they had to show up every week not to allow people to sandbag and drop their index.

This is the whole fault with this system.

[1M3ANM3]

Ok, I finally came up with the perfect way to resolve our differences. It occurred to me while playing a game of "Quarters". Heads we stay with the current system, Tails we go with the ammended SCCA system.
Everyone can thank me later.
Fernando.

[Hobbs5313]

Hello everyone. Finally decided to join this forum. I had a great time this year with the CDC... learned a lot and met great people.

Does anyone know when the decision will be made about this ranking system? I'm going to start doing SCCA events next year too and it looks like I'll have to take off my coilovers to go from BSP to A stock. This might make my decision a bit easier.

[ProDarwin]

All I can say is Sunday was very fun because of the shootout competition, which was based on raw times. It was a step in the right direction for sure.

[kyle.bowker]

I had a great time this year with the CDC... learned a lot and met great people.

Thanks for the positive feedback.

Does anyone know when the decision will be made about this ranking system?

Sometime after the new year. It has been a long season and we all need some time to relax. The holidays are coming up and we have other issues to sort out first. It'll be next year sometime, February or March is my guess.

I'm going to start doing SCCA events next year too and it looks like I'll have to take off my coilovers to go from BSP to A stock. This might make my decision a bit easier.

All I can say is do whatever is best for you and don't hinge your decision on what CDC may or may not do next year.