914 Cup Proposed Rules and Classes! now is the, time to make suggestions&modifications! Options

[nebreitling]

QUOTE (Aaron Cox @ Jan 23 2005, 11:03 PM)

it may be just me.... but how can a v8 car be in the same class as a 2.0 4????  doesnt seem logical.... like modified if the minimum conversions should be.

V8 conversions are all over the board...

the average V8 conversion 914 is NOT a particularly competitive AX car. i've only heard of 2 which were really strong AXers, and both of those would be well into modified or super-modified.

an average Bi or Bp car SHOULD beat the average V8 conversion at an AX.

that said, i'm happy to raise conversion points. what do people think: 75points? remember, V8 cars are adding weight -- and adding that weight higher.


EDIT: i thought about it and i think you're right, aaron. changed V8 conversion to +70, suby/rotary to +75. sorry, andrew!

[Joseph Mills]

QUOTE (ottox914 @ Jan 23 2005, 11:12 PM)

Any additional handicaps for HUGE paddocks?  Our local auto cross club puts on maybe a dozen events in a year, and maybe 1 or 2 will draw LESS than 100 cars.  We had a couple last season that closed the registration at 150, and had a waiting list.  The possibility of having a personal time closer to the TTOD is much better in a 15 car draw than a 150 car draw.

That is a very good point and seems fair.

If we're going to penalize drivers for small paddocks, we should consider handicapping drivers for larger paddocks on a plateau basis.

40-60, a factor of __? 61-80, __? 81-100__?

[J P Stein]

Hay, V8s should be -75 points (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

The field size issue makes this get rather complicated. IMO, we shouldn't get into that. Nathan is trying to make this as simple as possible, me thinks.

If you really want to get into that, your PAX index (which we don't do at our PCA) is the way to go. This is for fun (despite what the ulfster thinks) and our benevolent dictator is doin' fine. Consider this a trial year.

[Trekkor]

Hmmm... (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/idea.gif)

Most GGR events pull in 120+ drivers at Alameda.
I plan on being in the top 10-20. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/mueba.gif)

KT

[Joseph Mills]

QUOTE (J P Stein @ Jan 24 2005, 01:36 AM)

The field size issue makes this get rather complicated. IMO, we shouldn't get into that. Nathan is trying to make this as simple as possible, me thinks.

But we are already doing this on the other end of the scale.

I don't see what is complicated about 2-3 group size categories on the larger end while we have 3 group size categories on the smaller end.

This is certainly for fun, but we're all trying to think ahead and make it as fair as possible across the board. Correct?

You send your time in, the TTOD, and paddock size. Factors are applied for the short end and long end of the stick. Simple. No big deal.

[nebreitling]

thought about this myself, and dismissed it at first because of it seemed to make scoring too "fussy" and inelegant. but later, we had to create penalty rules to make sure the riverside pca guys were included (who apparently have freakishly low turn out).

i feel like we can have that particular penalty rule stand without sliding down the statistical slope...

I don't think i support this, but to be clear:
SUCH A SYSTEM DOES MAKE THE 914CUP MORE FAIR, AT THE PRICE OF SIMPLICITY.

I am happy to admin either scenario.

What do people want?
Vote on one:

1. just the present penalty for low-attendance events

2. A sliding scale penalty/handicap system depending on paddock size

e.g.
100+ total entries = 1.0 (no penalty)
90-99 = .99
80-89 = .98
70-79 = .97
60-69 = .96
50-59 = .95
40-49 = .94
30-39 = .93
20-29 = .92
15-19 entries = .91
10-14 entries = .9
5-9 entries = .8

[J P Stein]

At SCCA we run between 110 & 175.....avg about 140 (WAG)......Don't fit the scale too well. Fairness gets complicated, eh.?....but I'll vote with the majority. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

[nebreitling]

yeah, fairness is always so complicated!

shoot, i'll go for it, though. as trekkor said -- we usually have high turnouts out here, so i'm happy to penalize most everyone else but me!

my concern is more than the added complexity of the system (which isn't at all great) -- i simply want everyone to have a good time. i really DON'T want people in smaller regions getting discouraged or feeling like they "don't have a chance".


there is also one additional solution: we could take (require) field size in each submission and try both systems out simultaneously.

[eric914]

Sounds like a good excuse to get out to as many events as I can, that is if my car is running by then.

[GaroldShaffer]

QUOTE (J P Stein @ Jan 24 2005, 12:10 AM)

At SCCA we run between 110 & 175.....avg about 140 (WAG)......Don't fit the scale too well. Fairness gets complicated, eh.?....but I'll vote with the majority.  :D

We usually have between 40 & 60 in our region also. It really doesn't matter to me, I'll vote with the majority also.

[Joseph Mills]

QUOTE (nebreitling @ Jan 24 2005, 02:55 AM)

shoot, i'll go for it, though.  as trekkor said -- we usually have high turnouts out here, so i'm happy to penalize most everyone else but me! my concern is more than the added complexity of the system (which isn't at all great) -- i simply want everyone to have a good time.  i really DON'T want people in smaller regions getting discouraged or feeling like they "don't have a chance".

Since my SCCA driver turnout is usually around 60 cars, it will penalize me for the larger groups. If I race with PCA I will be penalized even more as a smaller group - so I gain nothing (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

BUT, it still just seems to be a more accurate and fair accounting as best we can make it.

I don't want those in smaller fields to be discouraged as well, but won't those in larger fields be discouraged? It doesn't matter to me, but I just had a feeling it might matter to others.

Whatever the majority or board decides, is fine and dandy with me.

When do we receive our 914CUP car decals? (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/laugh.gif)

[Joe Ricard]

This is so simple so listen up.
"if you want to win the 914 cup Drive faster" Don't make difficult rules so you can weasel in and appear to be fast.

Nathan amazes me with his patience (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/pray.gif)
I work on the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid. Let's just drive the cars post your results and see what happens. Not like we are competing for $$$$ or anything else material.

I recommend we freeze the rules as they are and run it. If I had a 51% vote I woulda froze the rules after page 2. or High noon Saturday past.

[URY914]

I'm in.
I only came up with 375 points but I should add another 100 to make things fair. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/happy11.gif)

Paul

[Part Pricer]

QUOTE

2. A sliding scale penalty/handicap system depending on paddock size e.g. 100+ total entries = 1.0 (no penalty) 90-99 = .99 80-89 = .98 70-79 = .97 60-69 = .96 50-59 = .95 40-49 = .94 30-39 = .93 20-29 = .92 15-19 entries = .91 10-14 entries = .9 5-9 entries = .8

I have to voice an extremely strong objection to this.

One of the groups that I compete with limits the field to the first 75 drivers. Of those 75 spots, they reserve a number for "board members". Well, three of those board members also happen to be National Champions. So, if I compete in one of these events I'm whacked 3% because of field size and then my time is calculated against one of the three fastest guys in the country. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/sad.gif)

[Andyrew]

I dont mind the added points...

Im still with aaron!!! Hahahahha

245 baby... (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/tongue.gif)

Really doesnt matter to me. Want to bump me up another 5 points I would still be fine with that...

Aaron.. Keep in mind you got 300 lbs over me, and sticker tires. You'd probably get better times than me on an autox course...

[URY914]

Add one point for every pound your car is under the stock weight.

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif) I just added 800 points (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/wacko.gif)

Paul

[jdogg]

I am coming in at 215-235 points, depending on my tire decision for next year. Improved class for me, please.

Great suggestions so far, I feel we are really close to a ruleset as it sits now.

[carr914]

Paul, I was wondering when you were going to be heard from. I was beginning to to think you were sandbagging us.
T.C.

[URY914]

QUOTE (carr914 @ Jan 24 2005, 07:22 AM)

Paul, I was wondering when you were going to be heard from. I was beginning to to think you were sandbagging us. T.C.

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/beer.gif) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/laugh.gif) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/happy11.gif) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/idea.gif) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/driving.gif) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/confused24.gif)

Paul

[Demick]

Some simple advise for Nathan:

The more complicated this gets, the more work it is for you, and the more complaints you will get from the participants.

I think it is good to get everyones feedback like this, but don't get too caught up in trying to appease everyone. The bottom line is, there is no possible way to make this a 'fair' competition.

It doesn't matter how complicated or simple the rules are, there will always be cars that have an advantage, and ones that are disadvantaged. There is no way around that.

The most important thing that everyone realize, is that this is a FUN competition, not a FAIR competition.

You will have complaints from some people - that is a given. But I think the simpler the rules are, the less complaints you will have.

I also think the scorekeeping is going to be much more involved than you think. I'd keep things as simple as possible.

Demick