AspireTec Engineering  468
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 30 Dec 2009 03:13 AM by  Andy Ucter
SMS PAX
 46 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 3 << < 123 > >>
Author Messages
wrheadle
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
17 Dec 2009 04:10 PM
Andy Ucter wrote:

yeah, uh, Bill, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there... /lumburg

SMS isn't really a SM car on street-tires... regardless of it's designation..

Chuck-

You are welcome to disagree, but I think it is pretty clear in both the Indy rules and FWR P&P that SMS (SMT) is exactly SM on steet tires.

From Indy supps for 2009:

4. SMS Class (Indy Region Supplemental Class)

The purpose of this class is to cater to street driven vehicles that may have one or two

modifications that immediately places the vehicle into the "catch all" SM class; and for the competitor who does not intend to run on a National level, but to modify their car to their liking for the street.

This class follows all of the normal Street Modified SCCA National Class rules, except for the following:

- Tires must have a treadwear rating of 140 or greater.

- The PAX multiplier for the class shall reside midway between current STU and SM classes.

From FWR P&P:

4.1.2.1 Regional Class Street Mod Street Tire (SMT)

4.1.2.1.1 All rules for the National Class Street Mod (SM) are applicable with the following exception: Tires must

comply with sections 14.3.B (minimum tread wear rating) and 14.3.C (Street Touring tire exclusion list).

4.1.2.1.2 The Class Index for SMT is the average of the Class Indexes of STU and SM as published under the RTP/PAX

Index for the current competition year on the Chicago Region Website.

Andy Ucter wrote:

As far as I am concerned, once we reach a definitive number, we can talk to INDY (would be glad to do it) for congruence.

Furthermore, it is the offseason, and these weird regional rules can and need to be adjusted asap... like i said, this stuff is up for discussion at the next solo planning meeting. I'm sure whatever is decided there will be brought up for a (...) vote at the next board meeting.

I personally believe that we should be pro-active and work with neighboring regions regarding this type of thing (running the same regional class). It is safe to assume that Indy is not waiting for us to decide if we want to change SMS and then willing to take the change verbatim.

Bill

Andy Ucter
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
17 Dec 2009 05:42 PM

gah!!! I don't know how to make this any more clear.

your quotes from the solo rules are a moot point at this juncture.. you're failing to consider

A. who wrote the rules,..

B. the experience level of those who did.

C.When,

D. what has evolved around it since then.

REGARDLESS of the original intent of the rules.. the limited prep factor of the class is TIRE COMPOUND!!! you of all people should realise... what occurs when you have vehicles with similar weight, tire cross section, and compound. Makes a HUGE difference from R-comps... (which let you get away with murder quite frankly). MOREOVER!!! of all people, Rick and Bill, I figured you'd be the first people to want to dig right into the last three plus years worth of actual data to come up with a more accurate number.... rather than play with antiquated assumptions...

My printer just died.. argh.. I may go to the library tomorrow and print PAX results from every event... then rearange STU / SM percentage/split for certain drivers to see what comes up.. I have the feeling that Andrew's 70/30 is pretty close. something like: (STU PAX x .7) + (SM PAX x .3)

STU .844 x.7 = .5908 +

SM .877 x .3 = .2631 = .8539 ~ .854

very intuitive Andrew.

At the onset of the class setting the pax arbitrarily as an average from STU and SM was about the best we could do with out any further data. Now we have several events worth of data,

At this point, the average number makes as much sense as it would to average AM and CM PAX numbers to determine what BM should be. the data is there, lets use it.

just look at the indy region players.. most notably, Kevin Miller and scott dales.. they are never near the top PAX wise.. but should be.. I ran a friends SMS STi against kevin and was faster by 2-10ths raw.. (no clean runs) he is certainly someone who should be PAX'd higher.. but their index number is too high. yet we both PAX'd way down on the list.. In a region where I've FTD'd from STU and consistently ran in the top 10.

I also still feel confident that once we make a decision, Indy will take our advise after hearing our logic, and adopt what we decide.

We also need to remember who and why people run this class. it's a catch all.. Most of the competitors are there due to one simple usually non-functional mod or a Mod that doesn't do near enough to cause that drastic of a bump.... for full on SM.. thus SMS.. "run-what-ya-brung" spirit of the class.. there is a difference between spirit and intent.. think about cheer leaders..

In the end it really doesn't matter to me, other than the integrity of the class..

bear in mind, I've had the FW solo trophy ROBBED from me the last two years... I'd hate to make it three years in a row, just because people are too hard-headed to stick to an out-dated inaugural supplemental class rule... HOWEVER!!!! it is critical that it is set fairly, because when I run away with the trophy It has to be under completely fair circumstances.

Andy Ucter
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
17 Dec 2009 05:46 PM

argh.. I had a nice reply for you... but the internet ate it..

oh crap...

jist of it was..

the average rule was written based on no actual data, as an inaugural rule for a supplemental class..

we have real data now, lets use it.

I'll compile some data based on the last three years of FW and INDY region events (mostly INDY because the FW fails at teh interwebs) .

then, I'll take this data and conclusion to the solo meeting for their review, discussion, and vote.

Andy Ucter
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
17 Dec 2009 05:47 PM

argh.. I had a nice reply for you... but the internet ate it..

oh crap...

jist of it was..

the average rule was written based on no actual data, as an inaugural rule for a supplemental class..

we have real data now, lets use it.

I'll compile some data based on the last three years of FW and INDY region events (mostly INDY because the FW fails at teh interwebs) .

then, I'll take this data and conclusion to the solo meeting for their review, discussion, and vote.

bmonnin1
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:200


--
17 Dec 2009 06:20 PM
Actually Chuck I am afraid I would have to disagree with you. You are right about one thing, the limiting factor of the class is the compound of the tires. Where you are wrong is that we have actual data to back up where the PAX should be. Until a national level driver driving a fully prepped SM can on street tires to see what his or her times are we really don't have any data to compare to more accurately set the PAX numbers. While I don't know exactly how the PAX is calculated I do know it is based on data from some of the best prepped cars driven by some of the best drivers in the nation. Nobody in Indy or Fort Wayne driving in the SMS classes fit that catagory (no offense to you but your car is not fully prepped for SM and while you are one hell of a driver, better then me and most people I know, you are still not a National Champion level driver, besides you mostly drive STU, not SMS) so we would be comparing apples to oranges.
Andy Ucter
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
17 Dec 2009 06:39 PM

neither is ANYONE else in both Indy or FW.

which makes it easy to use the data for the people we have based on the national numbers.

Board bullshit was my only limiting factor this year to reach a national trophy.

either way.

Fuck it.

rtp.rick
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2434


--
17 Dec 2009 07:10 PM

That's it Andy, create a regional PAX factor. You should do that for all of the classes. You obviously know much more about any of this than anyone. Good luck. Oh, BTW, your performance at this past National Championship was stellar, just as it was for the last 30 years. :-)

Bill, if you want to discuss this, contact me directly. Or, you could just refer to my previous post.

H's & K's,
Rick Ruth

Andy Ucter
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
17 Dec 2009 07:23 PM

rick,

don't get me wrong. I really respect all your insight. As you mentioned, you've fathered this over the last 30 years.. and I've only been here for 3.

but as you said... a regional-ish PAX value for a regional-ish class only makes sense.

If I decide to forego the topic, I'd love to send you my data and conclusion for your experienced review.

Please don't take offence to my posts.. things, may not translate 100% over the internet ;)

I'm merely trying to argue that there IS data there to base a better value than the initial average method.

Do me a favor, if you have the chance.. run a PAX for 3rd heat on Saturday, at the Peru Tour.

I found another post of yours.. here: where you denoted.. classes that were at a disadvantage due to rain.. see what floats to the top there.

(essentially take out the classes that had dry runs that day.)

FWR Solo D
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
17 Dec 2009 07:31 PM

Well...

How many National Drivers are even running this class. This was a local class that was started in our region to hit the new generation of soloist..(and to attend to those with non fucntional class moving rules do to lame SCCA rules moving them...) I remember back in the day we used to call it Street Mod Subaru...lol. I will admit one thing, I am not a PAX King and nor will I act like I know it all. But I do see that this has been an ongoing concern since the class was made in our region. Hell, there was even conversations of creating a street tire class for all our stock class because of the R compounds in that class. I personally think there is enough data out there to work with to create a competitive SMS class.this year. I will dig through the Club Laptop and see if I can find the numbers from when the class was start to date. Then I will attach a pdf file of these numbers in this forum. I sure cannot belive that something can not be setup with a good amount of feedback and constructive debate.

It is not like the wheel is not being reinvented here. Using the same rules/format that was used to create classes has to be very similar way to figure out a standard SMS pax. Keeping a dialog with surrounding regions is good to. Mainly because if they are running the same class, that gets you more variants of data to work with.

As Chuck mentioned. Internet talk should not be taken personally. This is a healthy debate here. It reminds me of the CAR (corrective action reports) we are doing at work right now with the fish diagram. sorry...just funny. Words are words...I bet if it were talking person to person it would be easier. I like that we are talking about this now and not in JUNE! Thank you all for working together and keeping it civil...

Cheers,

Jason

rtp.rick
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2434


--
17 Dec 2009 07:38 PM

If you want it to remain a Regional class you're going about it exactly the right way. What's important is the methodology. Street Mod has nothing to do with STU and should not be related to it. Using an established (sort of) street tire equalizing factor makes a lot more sense. This equalizer can be used against results from over 70 Regions to verify its credence.

I should add that you're doing your group a great disservice by going over your Region's administrators heads with neighboring Regions. Let those who've been elected/appointed do that communication.

BTW, I have not been the PAX administrator for 30 years, only the last nine. I will be entering my 41st year as an autocrosser. I may have said it badly, but my point was that you seem somewhat inexperienced. If that's not the case, I apologize. I couldn't find you in Fort Wayne's results. (??)

H's & K's,
Rick Ruth

Andy Ucter
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
17 Dec 2009 07:51 PM

Andy is my Pen-Name here.

my real name is Chuck McMillion

I fully understand your point about the national direction... but... for now.. the average thing should be dead. take your CP car.

run it on street tires.... then detune 100 hp and run it again on both Race rubber and Street tires..

thats the difference between SM, STU, and SMS

SM and SMS would have similar power-levels.. STU, def down on power compared to the other two.. however, SMS still restricts how much of that extra power you can actually get down to the ground. Even in a straight line, with the best Street-tire could you accel as quickly on the street tire, as you could with your Hoosier or Goodyear slicks??

I've retuned my car to a SMS tune, and ran my 245 width STU tires, and noticed a considerable amount of wheel spin.. even in the AWD car.

with all your experience, what do you think the time differences will be?? that is essentially what is happening here.. from a PAX stand point 90% of SMS cars are STU cars with increased boost.. the rest are godzilla.. swapped cars.. like Subaru RS chassis with STi drive-lines...

still not fully prepped, nor fully sorted. so why hold them to the standard that they are running a car like Hoops or Sias' BMW.. but on Street tires.

ALSO!!! I am NOT on the FW board, but am a member of the FW solo committee. I'm sure I'd have their blessing to discuss this topic with my friends in the indy region.. If not, I'm sure they would at least review my data when one of the other members do so. That being said, I've also been asked by people in the Indy region to help them with their SOLO program next year.

so, no heads to fly over.. but I appreciate your concern.. if I were a regional n00b I would expect that... and as someone who isn't a n00b i'd be a bit chapped if a n00b were to take this amoungst the regions.

The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1817


--
17 Dec 2009 09:06 PM

FWR Solo D wrote:
I personally think there is enough data out there to work with to create a competitive SMS class.this year. I will dig through the Club Laptop and see if I can find the numbers from when the class was start to date. Then I will attach a pdf file of these numbers in this forum. I sure cannot belive that something can not be setup with a good amount of feedback and constructive debate.

Don't bother looking at Indy data as we just don't have good numbers for it. We have almost no SM, and STU regularly out raws SMS. As the 3rd best STU driver (4th when Chuck comes down), I would have won SMS for the season, which shows that there is not good data as there are better SMS drivers than me. The prep is not there at all in our region. Scott is more or less driving an STX car, and Kevin's also probably more like an STX/STU level car. The question for you guys is do you set PAX for the cars you have or the cars you could have?

(Chuck, I think I did your PAX analysis for Peru Tour and I seem to recall you were 1st place in the rain - with one of the most amazing non-Clemens runs I have ever seen!)

rtp.rick
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2434


--
18 Dec 2009 08:17 AM

If I were to run my CP car on Street Tires, I don't think I'd want to detune it, just drive differently. At that point, I'd take the .866 CP factor and multiply it times the .975 "street tire equalizer" and get a "CPS" factor of .844.

Again, SMS (as I understand it, and the written rules state) is Street Mod on street tires. It has no relationship whatsoever with STU, or any other class, for that matter.

Take care and have a great new year,
Rick Ruth

wrheadle
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
18 Dec 2009 11:58 AM

Allow me, for a moment, for take a different path on this topic.

Correct me if I am wrong, but any STU car (including the fully prepped, full-kill national champion capable cars) can run SMS without changing anything but the class designation on the door (or window, fender, etc.), correct? Assuming this is the case, the absolute minimum index for SMS is equal to STU (0.844).

By class definition, any car legal for SM can run SMS with the correct street tires. Assuming this in the case, the absolute maximum index for SMS is equal to SM (0.877).

This should be an easy conclusion to make. I think we can also agree that within a few thousandths of each of those is also off the table.

Assuming you are still with me, we are now talking about a range of approximately 0.850 - 0.870. What we are now left with is discussion of how far the drivetrain, suspension and tire size allowances that are brought in by the SM rules move performance from STU to SM. I honestly don't know. I know that they have benefit and I know they don't get all the way to SM. Is there a street prepared class that the bulk of the STU cars go to? Are there major performance differences between the SP and STU versions other than R-comps? In other words, do we have the ability to predict where an STU car could end up if it ran race rubber? I'm assuming that Rick has looked at that to get to his .9725 "street tire adjustment factor", but don't know for sure.

The rule as it stands right now assumes that the tires are half of the performance gap and the drivetrain and suspension mods are the other half. I think this should be the focus of the discussion for setting the pax for SMS.

Now, if the real issue here is the rules behind the SMS class, then discussing the PAX for it is extraordinarily premature. We need to be discussing what the rules for SMS should be (or what the rules for a new regional class should be, leaving SMS alone). There are people running SMS who are continuing to develop their cars based on the rules as I posted above (SMS on street tires). They need to have a say in the re-write of the rules of their regional class as we could easily be writing their cars out of the class.

In the end, I'm not going to tell you what numerical value the index needs to be. I am confident that Rick is far more astute to that conversation than I and he has presented his case very well. What I want to keep in focus is the logic behind it so that the next guy who comes along doesn't have to maintain an index becasue we were shortsighted and didn't make it float with the PAX as updated yearly.

Bill

JohnSmith
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
18 Dec 2009 12:47 PM
You should be glad that your catch-all class is not like the one in Louisville. They run STO (street tire open) with a PAX of 1.0. I would prefer that for the indy region so that 2 seaters and sports car based vehicles would also be allowed.
wrheadle
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
18 Dec 2009 01:15 PM

JohnSmith wrote:
You should be glad that your catch-all class is not like the one in Louisville. They run STO (street tire open) with a PAX of 1.0. I would prefer that for the indy region so that 2 seaters and sports car based vehicles would also be allowed.

That class is easy. Everyone who wants to run on raw time independent of mods can run A-Mod. All the cars are legal and the index is 1. If we are looking for a run-what-cha-brung class and don't care about anything other than relative performance in the group, no rules changes are required.

bmonnin1
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:200


--
18 Dec 2009 03:54 PM
wrheadle wrote:

Allow me, for a moment, for take a different path on this topic.

Correct me if I am wrong, but any STU car (including the fully prepped, full-kill national champion capable cars) can run SMS without changing anything but the class designation on the door (or window, fender, etc.), correct? Assuming this is the case, the absolute minimum index for SMS is equal to STU (0.844).

By class definition, any car legal for SM can run SMS with the correct street tires. Assuming this in the case, the absolute maximum index for SMS is equal to SM (0.877).

This should be an easy conclusion to make. I think we can also agree that within a few thousandths of each of those is also off the table.

Assuming you are still with me, we are now talking about a range of approximately 0.850 - 0.870. What we are now left with is discussion of how far the drivetrain, suspension and tire size allowances that are brought in by the SM rules move performance from STU to SM. I honestly don't know. I know that they have benefit and I know they don't get all the way to SM. Is there a street prepared class that the bulk of the STU cars go to? Are there major performance differences between the SP and STU versions other than R-comps? In other words, do we have the ability to predict where an STU car could end up if it ran race rubber? I'm assuming that Rick has looked at that to get to his .9725 "street tire adjustment factor", but don't know for sure.

The rule as it stands right now assumes that the tires are half of the performance gap and the drivetrain and suspension mods are the other half. I think this should be the focus of the discussion for setting the pax for SMS.

Now, if the real issue here is the rules behind the SMS class, then discussing the PAX for it is extraordinarily premature. We need to be discussing what the rules for SMS should be (or what the rules for a new regional class should be, leaving SMS alone). There are people running SMS who are continuing to develop their cars based on the rules as I posted above (SMS on street tires). They need to have a say in the re-write of the rules of their regional class as we could easily be writing their cars out of the class.

In the end, I'm not going to tell you what numerical value the index needs to be. I am confident that Rick is far more astute to that conversation than I and he has presented his case very well. What I want to keep in focus is the logic behind it so that the next guy who comes along doesn't have to maintain an index becasue we were shortsighted and didn't make it float with the PAX as updated yearly.

Bill

Bill

I think the only rule change anyone has been talking about in SMS is how we come up with the PAX number. As for what class he STU cars generally go to in SP, since a large portion of STU cars are either Evo's or STi's I would suggest you compare STU to BSP. This year STU is 0.844 and BSP is 0.865, a difference of 0.021. If you do the math to figure out what you would have to multiply 0.865 by to get 0.844 it is , check this out, 0.975. This is the same number that Rick mentioned at the street tire pax equalizer. Since this years PAX number for SM is 0.877, if you multiply that by 0.975 you get 0.855. I believe the number that was expressed earlier is 0.854 as the PAX per our current rules, a little better then the number I just came up with. Now there are a few things in SP you can do to a car that you can't do in STU besides tires but as we all know suspension and tires are where you are going to find the biggest improvement in autocross, Power comes into play but it is not near as significant as it woulld be in say a road race or a drag race since we are always turning. Just my two cents worth.

rtp.rick
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2434


--
20 Dec 2009 03:44 PM

My only reason for entering into this discuusion was to caution against using "unlike" classes to base a Street Tired, Street Mod car. The only Class important here is Street Modified, no other class (street tire compound or not). I think most have now seen that is what is needed. As mentioned, in my test/research/opinion, a simple "street tire equalizer" multiplier can be used, consistently across the entire class structure of categories (obviously other than Street Touring). I think that multipler should be .975, giving a PAX/RTP factor of .855 for SMS. This is not too different than the other factors bandied about, but it is arrived at using Street Mod's factor alone with a consistent multiplier. No other class (similar or dissimilar) has any effect, no matter what happens in those other classes down the road. The multiplier may be modified, if newer street tire technology improves (or slides away from) their relative performance to "R" compound tires. Also, if over time, we find that .975 isn't the best choice, then a change can be impementeed to correct for that as well.

H's & K's,
Rick Ruth

wrheadle
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
21 Dec 2009 01:53 PM
rtp.rick wrote:
My only reason for entering into this discuusion was to caution against using "unlike" classes to base a Street Tired, Street Mod car. The only Class important here is Street Modified, no other class (street tire compound or not). I think most have now seen that is what is needed. As mentioned, in my test/research/opinion, a simple "street tire equalizer" multiplier can be used, consistently across the entire class structure of categories (obviously other than Street Touring). I think that multipler should be .975, giving a PAX/RTP factor of .855 for SMS. This is not too different than the other factors bandied about, but it is arrived at using Street Mod's factor alone with a consistent multiplier. No other class (similar or dissimilar) has any effect, no matter what happens in those other classes down the road. The multiplier may be modified, if newer street tire technology improves (or slides away from) their relative performance to "R" compound tires. Also, if over time, we find that .975 isn't the best choice, then a change can be impementeed to correct for that as well.

H's & K's,
Rick Ruth

If we go this route, the proposal to the Board for a policies and procedures change would look something like this:

Old text:

4.1.2.1.2 The Class Index for SMT is the average of the Class Indexes of STU and SM as published under the RTP/PAX

Index for the current competition year on the Chicago Region Website.

New text (change in bold):

4.1.2.1.2 The Class Index for SMT is equivalent to 97.5% of the SM index as published under the RTP/PAX

Index for the current competition year on the Chicago Region Website.

smitch
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
21 Dec 2009 03:51 PM

This is an interesting read for sure.

My outtake on the matter.

When I coined the idea to run SMS to Conrad several years ago, the reason the main reason was because of all the rules that follow SCCA autox. Most of the people that ran SMS back in the day could care less about how they finished and didnt care so much about the pax. I personally thought it would be a good idea because there was always one guy or two guys that ran race rubber. The race rubber guys seemed to be the guys winning repetively. Secondly, it gave me and a lot of my buddies a place to race together, against each other.

Things really havent changed so much. Most of the F body guys are running tires bellow the street tire minimum of 140 tread wear rating and at 315 wide its back to being close to SM anyways. Doesnt bother me so much, I enjoy the competition. Thats sort or the reason SMS was started, as mentioned before, a catch all for cars with little stupid mods that would bump them out of class anyways. Most of the time they wouldnt be competetive anyways, much like today. STU more times then not was way faster than SMS.

I guess my questions after reading all of this is.....

Who cares about the pax'ing of SMS cars? Is someone raising a stink about it, or is it just something to talk about?

Most of the SMS cars aren't even to the prep level of the STU cars. Until that happens, I guess the discussion is worthless. I say we use Chuck as a guinea pig this year[}] and give me a year to sort my car. Then we'll have this same conversation next year and still have no answers.

Anarchy, I got a light weight pulley and I'm in SMS,

Chris

You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 3 << < 123 > >>


G-Loc Button Vorshlag 88x31 Button
Leroy Engineering Micro Button Sunoco 88x31 Button
Woodhouse Motorsports
SPS 88x31 Button

Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner