SCCAForums.com

CamaroFS34:

motoring:

why does everyone discount Bart's accomplishments?  Because it is only one guy doing that well?  Isn't car classing based on the best driver driving the best prepared car?    So when he beats the best GS drivers whenever he meets them (milwaukee nt and Nationals), no one remembers.  But Everyone remembers when one of the top GS drivers beats a low to mid pack DS nats finisher.

Funny. In 2006, Bartek ran a 61.3 to Greg Reno's 61.1 at the Milwaukee Tour. Last I checked, that would mean the MCS would have won DS.

GS is ahead of DS in PAX, so a MCS should beat DS. (now, whether the MCS should be in GS is another question)

---

Jason P.
Indy Region Moderator
STU - M3 e46

The Nebulizer:

GS is ahead of DS in PAX, so a MCS should beat DS. (now, whether the MCS should be in GS is another question)

PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing.

Pat

---

'92 Sentra SE-R, daily driver and track car
'82 Camaro Z28, ESP, 65% prepared, 50% ownership

Upset about Stock class proposals? Get PISST!

ffs, itr in GS where it obv belongs, it's like all the other cars in GS, jeez louise

---

Mize
03 G35 Sedan - DS

slowSER:

The Nebulizer:

GS is ahead of DS in PAX, so a MCS should beat DS. (now, whether the MCS should be in GS is another question)

PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing.

Pat

So, the idea of merging DS and GS has nothing to do with the fact that they have nearly identical PAX?

---

Jason P.
Indy Region Moderator
STU - M3 e46

The Nebulizer:

So, the idea of merging DS and GS has nothing to do with the fact that they have nearly identical PAX?

One step back....   The idea of merging DS and GS has everything to do with the fact that they are similar cars that run nearly identical times.  PAX is one persons interpretation of run times. 

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'87 Toyota Corolla in EP
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.

slowSER:

PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing. PAX has nothing to do with car classing.

Actually, I think PAX is relevant.  It's not magic and it's not the end-all, be-all, but it's valuable data.   The fact that G and D are so close on index should raise some questions.

---

Bryan
2008 Corvette Z51
SS #TBD

NoCones:

  It's not magic and it's not the end-all, be-all, but it's valuable data.   The fact that G and D are so close on index should raise some questions.

So were ES and FS for years, and now CS and BS...   should we be looking to combine those classes? 

---

Keith
'90 Miata with a really big roll bar
www.chaserace.com
www.tightntidyracing.com
www.vorschlag.com

motoring:

NoCones:

  It's not magic and it's not the end-all, be-all, but it's valuable data.   The fact that G and D are so close on index should raise some questions.

So were ES and FS for years, and now CS and BS...   should we be looking to combine those classes? 

Maybe.  All I said was that it should raise questions.  In some cases you decide to keep them separate (likely because of course dependency issues with very dissimilar cars and/or because each class is healthy on it's own.  In other cases, maybe you combine them. 

 Classing is about combining cars with similar autox capabilities.  PAX is designed to measure cars' autox capabilities.  Why would you not consider it?  (as one of many factors)

---

Bryan
2008 Corvette Z51
SS #TBD

NoCones:

PAX is designed to measure cars' autox capabilities.  Why would you not consider it?  (as one of many factors)

PAX is designed to measure a class's autocross capability.  It by definition only applies to the fastest car in the class.  Actually sorting cars into classes is a completely separate exercise.

---

Dave Heinig

07 GXP Z0K (Thanks Rob!)

PAX/RTP comes from Rick Ruth's interpretation of data from a bunch of events.  It can be a pretty good approximate guide to what's going on with the top cars in each class.  When PAX values are similar, the SAC does give consideration to why, what exactly is going on, and whether the classes could be combined or if one particular car is responsible.  They are not used as the absolute basis for classing decisions as Nebulizer seems to suggest.

ES and FS are similar in PAX...but not similar in how they achieve it.  Course dependence.  If PAX was the only criterion, the classes would have been merged long ago.

CS and BS are similar in PAX...could be that someone has figured something out to make Miatas faster, could be that aliens walk (and drive) among us.  Could be that everyone thinks that because the three-peat national champ runs off the shelf Konis that there's not a better setup for the car.  And what motivation does that champ have to look for one?  We'll see what happens this year.
 

---

John S.
S2000 #42as

One of the problems with PAX, or classing dissimilar cars by PAX is that PAX does not represent differences in course types. The obvious differences between cars, small slow and nible, big wide and powerful, or medium sized but heavy and AWD all perform differently based on different courses. PAX looks at the average. This is one reason that dissimilar cars should not be classed together despite their average speed.

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

Orthonormal:

PAX/RTP comes from Rick Ruth's interpretation of data from a bunch of events.  It can be a pretty good approximate guide to what's going on with the top cars in each class.  When PAX values are similar, the SAC does give consideration to why, what exactly is going on, and whether the classes could be combined or if one particular car is responsible.  They are not used as the absolute basis for classing decisions as Nebulizer seems to suggest.

I certainly did not mean to suggest PAX be used as the absolute basis for classing. But rather, as you state, PAX should be used as an approximate guide and play a role in classing decisions - my point should have been that it is a valuable summary of data that the SEB should consider - as data, not absolute TRUTH.

As mentioned above, GS is now PAX'd higher than DS. But, certainly the SEB should look further into whether this is an anomoly caused by one or two cars (perhaps the MCS), or whether the logic used to separate the classes with DS originally meant to be a faster class no longer holds. If GS and DS are each considered to be pretty tight, then it only makes sense to merge them. If it is only the case that the MCS is near DS and therefore skewing the PAX (while other GS are far below DS), then the clear answer is to move the MCS and keep them as separate classes. PAX can be effectively used to lead further analysis.  

But, the fact that GS to BS are PAXd so closely, suggest there may be some better ways to class these cars that would open up another class between AS and SS which are far apart on PAX. Again, maybe there is much more to the picture. (Like maybe there is a clear separation of cars in AS vs. SS and each class is very tight. In that case it would be silly to create a new class.) Its all about representing the population of cars used through the best divisions.

---

Jason P.
Indy Region Moderator
STU - M3 e46

DaveH:

NoCones:

PAX is designed to measure cars' autox capabilities.  Why would you not consider it?  (as one of many factors)

PAX is designed to measure a class's autocross capability.  It by definition only applies to the fastest car in the class.  Actually sorting cars into classes is a completely separate exercise.

Yes, it measures car's capabilities, but only the fastest one(s) in a class.  In the case of the ITR and the MCS, they are the fastest cars in their classes, so I see no issue in using those data points to say "hey, here are 2 cars that perform very similarly...why aren't they classed together?"  Relative age and availability is the only reason to not class them together.

True, when a car is not close to the top of it's class, you've got a separate exercise.

---

Bryan
2008 Corvette Z51
SS #TBD

NoCones:

Relative age and availability is the only reason to not class them together.

Exactly.  And I imagine that if a letter writing campaign manages to convince the SEB that they shouldn't kill the car (which they are deliberately proposing) it will end up in GS.

---

Dave Heinig

07 GXP Z0K (Thanks Rob!)

DaveH:

NoCones:

Relative age and availability is the only reason to not class them together.

Exactly.  And I imagine that if a letter writing campaign manages to convince the SEB that they shouldn't kill the car (which they are deliberately proposing) it will end up in GS.

I can't end up in GS, though, can it?  That hasn't been proposed.  (for 09 anyway)

---

Bryan
2008 Corvette Z51
SS #TBD

modernbeat:

One of the problems with PAX, or classing dissimilar cars by PAX is that PAX does not represent differences in course types. The obvious differences between cars, small slow and nible, big wide and powerful, or medium sized but heavy and AWD all perform differently based on different courses. PAX looks at the average. This is one reason that dissimilar cars should not be classed together despite their average speed.

This is not so much a problem with PAX, but a problem with classing (and then extended to PAX). By choosing to class based on things like age, price, number of seats, number of doors, availability, etc instead of strictly on performance metrics (drivetrain, hp, weight, size, etc), these course dependant elements are built into the system. (PAX actually averages these dependancies and reduces the variation.)

---

Jason P.
Indy Region Moderator
STU - M3 e46

NoCones:

I can't end up in GS, though, can it?  That hasn't been proposed.  (for 09 anyway)

 

Thats correct;  For 2009 the ITR will either stay in DS or move to BS.  

There is one issue with PAX;  I personally use it and like it but its a trailing indicator.  Additionally, it moves incrementally.  I've noticed that big moves take 2 or 3 years to factor in.

 

bconners:

NoCones:

I can't end up in GS, though, can it?  That hasn't been proposed.  (for 09 anyway)

 

Thats correct;  For 2009 the ITR will either stay in DS or move to BS.  

I meant in the long run.  2010.

---

Dave Heinig

07 GXP Z0K (Thanks Rob!)

bconners:

There is one issue with PAX;  I personally use it and like it but its a trailing indicator.  Additionally, it moves incrementally.  I've noticed that big moves take 2 or 3 years to factor in.

Absolutely true.  That's why I made a point of saying it's not the be-all, end-all when I first posted.  Everyone loves to dump on PAX, but if kept in context, it can be one of many valuable data points.

---

Bryan
2008 Corvette Z51
SS #TBD