Class Consolidation Proposal for 2011

[jim.gandy]

At the January region Board meeting, a Solo class consolidation proposal was given preliminary approval, and a two-month question-and-comment period was set. The proposal will be on the board's agenda for final approval at the March meeting.

The purpose of class consolidation is to increase competition. Under the proposal, entrants would continue to follow the national prep rules and use the national class designations on their cars (including the region's "T" Street Tire handicap). The consolidation would all be handled by the region's timing and scoring software. What follows is a list of the proposed Reno Region 2011 run groups and classes and the corresponding national Open classes. Ladies classes would also be consolidated the same way. Novice and Run No Points would continue unchanged.

PROPOSED Reno Region 2011 Run Groups and Classes with their national classes and PAX factors

RUN GROUP GREEN
Stock One
SS 0.857
AS 0.841
BS 0.839

Stock Two
CS 0.833
ES 0.825
FS 0.827

Stock Three
DS 0.817
GS 0.809
HS 0.791


RUN GROUP WHITE
Street Touring
ST 0.820
STS 0.823
STR 0.836
STX 0.824
STU 0.838

Street Modified
SM 0.869
SMF 0.855
SSM 0.875
SU 0.877


RUN GROUP YELLOW
Street Prepared One
ASP 0.862

Street Prepared Two
BSP 0.859
CSP 0.858

Modified
AM 1.000
BM 0.958
CM 0.906
DM 0.905
EM 0.910
FM 0.904
F125 0.952

Junior Karts
All TBD


RUN GROUP BLUE
Street Prepared Three
DSP 0.844
ESP 0.846
FSP 0.835

Prepared
XP 0.887
BP 0.870
CP 0.860
DP 0.867
EP 0.863
FP 0.872
GP 0.837

Vintage
V n/a

[sperry]

I'm assuming the class groups are scored by PAX, and this isn't just a forced bumping order.

I like the proposed groupings... they seem pretty logical based on Reno's subscription to each class.

[solonut]

I like this..as awas said in the meeeting last night, "it will create more competition" and all but eliminate single car class champs.
I have run with regions & clubs all over and alot have a similar program with great success...

[dsmith]

I'm assuming the class groups are scored by PAX, and this isn't just a forced bumping order.

I like the proposed groupings... they seem pretty logical based on Reno's subscription to each class.

Yes, by PAX.

[dknv]

I like the idea of reducing the number of 1-driver classes!

[tom1977]

^ +1

[AlexR]

Looks great, i love the idea. :D
+1

[vic]

I also like this idea. Stock 1 could see as many as 8 to 10 cars on any given weekend with any of us having a chance to take it. It should be very competitive! I wonder if Matt R. is going to run BS this year?
The only thing that seems odd to me is having ASP by it self. Why not group it with BSP & CSP.

[MattR]

Yes, it looks like I'll be in BS this year...

[jim.gandy]

Vic, ASP is by itself in the plan because historically in this region ASP has enough entries to support competition. There are six Street Prepared classes, A-F, but E and F are not usually well-supported in Reno, leading to questions about how to divvy up the six classes into three, or possibly two, combined classes. Ultimately, we just have to give it our best guess. Any plan we adopt is going to have strong points and weak points, and those are going to change from year to year because we have no control over the changing number of entries in the various classes. But keep the feedback coming -- it's all appreciated!

[dsmith]

Yes, it looks like I'll be in BS this year...

Matt, does this mean you've changed your plans about making it to events? Can you still be our Chief Solo Safety Steward then?

[MattR]

Matt, does this mean you've changed your plans about making it to events? Can you still be our Chief Solo Safety Steward then?


I'll be running part time only this year, if that works for you, then I'm good with whatever.

[dsmith]

I don't see why that won't work out.

[Dean]

Looking over the previous trophy list, I would be tempted to reduce the number of classes further. Not sure if it would require reconfiguring the run groups.

Stock 2 (Combines proposed Stock 2 & 3)
CS, DS, ES, FS, GS, HS
This gives it a closer number of trophies as Stock One historically.

Street (Combines proposed Street Touring and Street Modified classes)
ST, STS, STR, STX, STU, SM, SMF, SSM, SU

Street Prepared One (Combines proposed Street Prepared One and Two)
ASP, BSP, CSP
If not, there is a stronger argument to separate CSP than ASP IMHO.

PreMod (Combine proposed Prepared and Modified classes.)
XP, BP, CP, DP, EP, FP, GP, AM, BM, CM, DM, EM, FM, F125
This would still be the class with the fewest trophies based on history.

[dsmith]

Not sure I like that much contraction, I think maybe baby steps at first with this would be the best bet.

[Kevin M]

If you're going to give out class trophies based on PAX, then the classes should be divided up strictly on having the closest PAX numbers and no regard should be given to the originating class.

[Dean]

Maybe Wes could provide the actual number of drivers for each class that qualified historically. At minimum, I would prefer not to end up with one of our new consolidated classes being uncontested. I realize we can't predict who will show up in what class, but I think if there were not 4 or more drivers in our proposed consolidated classes in the past, we haven't consolidated enough.

I think my PreMod would still have only issued 1 trophy last year. I don't know how to make it any larger

Stock 3 would only have 1 trophy last year as well on it's own, thus combining it with Stock 2 makes sense.

ASP, CSP and DSP had the same number of trophies, 3, last year with CSP actually having more the previous year(3 vs. 2). I was just thinking that no class should be on it's own unless it can support 4 trophies on its own.

[dknv]

Maybe Wes could provide the actual number of drivers for each class that qualified historically... I believe Wes has some numbers, but you have to take into account that in 2010 a few classes were moved (AS became BS, BS merged into CS, 'new' AS).

I like the idea of baby steps (also because these grouped classes will form run groups), and it may lessen the possibility of overloading one run group or another. Which I realize we always try to offset by virtue of Novices and RNP'ers.

[jim.gandy]

Dean, you say "no class should be on its own unless it can support 4 trophies on its own." My opinion is that is good in theory, but it's not a practical goal. We simply can't know from year to year how many participants we'll have. Our best laid plans always can end up with unsupported classes. There's only one way I know of to virtually guarantee contested classes, and that's to use the rulebook's bumping order or something like it. But bumping is not feasible for us, as we'd have to abandon the four-run-group, show-up-half-a-day format we all love. Also, as you point out, any significant change to the proposed new classes needs to be considered from a run grouping viewpoint as well as the impact on Mike Khamis' scoring software.

You also correctly point out that the past trophy data indicates the new Stock 3 class might be under-subscribed. My opinion is that there is no good reason for these three National classes (D, G and H Stock) to be undersubscribed -- they are successful, robust classes in other places and nationally. My hope is that the success of Kevin McDaniel in 2010 will encourage more similar efforts. As I've said for many years (I know, shut up Jim, you're boring), our altitude and open course designs combined with our reliance on PAX to determine "driver of the year" have led to our entries being dominated by high-horsepower cars. I hope that will change.

I am very reluctant to do things like combine Prepared and Modified into one class, or even combine Street Touring and Street Modified. I worry that combining classes with significantly different preparation rules will make consolidation a harder sell to the membership. PAX numbers notwithstanding, it's pretty easy to be ticked off about getting beat by somebody whose car is allowed a lot more mods than yours.

These are only my opinions. The class consolidation proposal is not set in stone. Please, everybody, keep the discussion going, so we can make timely progress and not rush a decision at the March meeting.

[sperry]

"PreMod" is a confusing name. If you're goin to join them, call it "PrepMod" at least so it doesn't sound like it's "before modified".

[Kevin M]

The main issues with low turnouts in D,G and H stock is twofold IMO. One, they're all dominated by 1 or 2 models- DS by 3 series and the ITR, GS by the MCS (until it got bumped to DS) and HS by the standard mini. The other issue is that, by and large, D/G/H stock cars just aren't very fun to drive compared to higher classes cars, or anything you've bumped into SP, ST or SM classes. That's why we have so many underprepared cars- few people locally are committed to seriously competing in Solo, but they want a fun car to drive, at least to the point that their time and money will allow.

That's what makes me against dramatic rule changes intended to increase competition- the lack of competition in Reno is due to a lack of large membership numbers and a lack of people who commit to the sport that much. Additionally, the truly competitive people- Debbie, Mark, etc.- spend their competitive efforts at Div/NT/Nats, which is where it belongs IMO.

There's also the fact that people locally who want more competition locally can get it, via class changes or bumping order. There are plenty of examples of this, from Van bouncing between SU and XP in his swapped Impreza, Larry and Wes Friesen moving to STR, and others.

I just don't believe that giving out fewer trophies is the same thing as having more competition.

[jim.gandy]

Kevin, thanks for your insights about the lower stock classes. I sympathize; I competed in G and H Stock for many, many years. I agree that, by and large, it's less fun soloing a low-powered front-driver. But isn't it also true that it's less fun soloing any car when you have no competition? Am I wrong to hope that the numbers in D/G/H Stock might begin to recover if there was competition? Shouldn't we try something to see if we can bring them back to life locally?

I also want to emphasize that the purpose of this class consolidation proposal is NOT to give out fewer trophies. That has nothing to do with it, and the potential impacts on the region's finances were not part of the committee's decision. I believe that the current consolidation proposal would not radically change the total number of trophies awarded at the end of the year. Basically, there would be fewer class champion trophies, but there would be more 2nd, 3rd, & 4th place trophies. I would even be in favor of altering our Solo Supps to award trophies to places deeper than the current four, although the committee decided not to include that in the proposal.

[Kevin M]

Kevin, thanks for your insights about the lower stock classes. I sympathize; I competed in G and H Stock for many, many years. I agree that, by and large, it's less fun soloing a low-powered front-driver. But isn't it also true that it's less fun soloing any car when you have no competition? Am I wrong to hope that the numbers in D/G/H Stock might begin to recover if there was competition? Shouldn't we try something to see if we can bring them back to life locally?

Speaking strictly for myself, I have really enjoyed the years when I had direct competition that pushed me- Cory in DSP in 2009, the race for PAX last season. And for years there have always been other drivers in reasonably similar setups that I look to as a way to gauge how well I did on a given day. I've always been able to take pride in beating the turbo Subaru ESP guys on the occasions when I've managed it, and it's not that difficult to identify other drivers who I can compare times with and bench race against in the pits. I don't think that manufacturing a trophy race between us based on PAX numbers is truly creating 'competition' though.

More importantly though, SOLO has always been about me against... me. Beating someone else is nice, but unless I felt like I did it by having an excellent day and growing as a driver, it didn't mean much. Same thing with losing if I felt like I drove as fast as I was currently able to at the time. Oddly enough, the faster I get, the less often I feel like I left it all out on the course. When the day comes that I no longer feel like my biggest obstacle to winning is my own skill and effort, I won't look to regional events to prove myself- I'll be at Divs, NTs and ProSolo events looking to prove myself.

I first started autocrossing with Reno region in 2005, and I drove 160 miles one way every weekend to do it, passing up events in the bay area, Sacramento and Stockton that were much closer. I did it because I liked the people I met when I was up here the first time, and I liked the relaxed atmosphere. I am certain many other beginning autocrossers feel the same way- no region has the level of friendliness and accessibility to the veterans that we do when it comes to helping out the new folks.

As for trying to provide more entrants into specific classes- well, I don't really care. I do care about the overall participation at our events though. If we had 8 people running stock classes and 8 more in SP and ST and 75 in SM/P/M, that's perfectly fine by me. The way to keep that participation high is not to try to force-feed more 'competition' but rather to simply keep doing what we're known for- having fun at our events and offering help to those trying to get faster.

In the end I guess I just see our lack of competition being the result of a lack of large numbers of people who are truly competitive by nature. We've tried various ways of getting more committed participation in the past- Pro Class rules, running Divisional events, etc.- and we still field grids with essentially zero entries of fully prepared cars with highly experienced and skilled drivers. Those in the area who do, are going to higher level events to get there "I want to win" fix. This is the place where we just want to enjoy our weekend behind the wheel, push ourselves in whatever we have, or maybe try some oddball setups that you'd be too scared to try at a higher level event. And I don't see what's so bad about that.

[MikeK]

More importantly though, SOLO has always been about me against... me. Beating someone else is nice, but unless I felt like I did it by having an excellent day and growing as a driver, it didn't mean much.

You should try beating Dean by 0.001. It's the gift that keeps on giving!

Hi Dean! :cool:

[tom1977]

I agree with what kevin wrote. I think whatever it takes to have a fun season as the year of 2010 had been. Being through my first year with the reno scca, I must say I had a great experience, learned alot, and I felt welcomed by all. I agree with keeping the sport a competition (of course), But like kevin said, being competitive with one self is a great challenge.

[dknv]

...

[Old Rallyist]

I agree with Debbie in that there is not much satifaction in winnning as a single competitor in a class. It is much more fun and satisfying if you have someone, even if they are in a different class, with whom to compete. To me the class consolidation makes a lot of sense considering the low turn outs of the last couple of years. Who knows maybe having the potential for more competition within a class or group will result in better turnouts.

Some have pointed up the lack of higher level competitors as being a problem. The lack of these higher level competitors along with their fully prepared cars are what I like about the Reno Region. What you find with the higher level competitor typically is a big fish competing against a bunch of small fish which results in the small fish eventually disappearing. It is much more fun to have a bunch of evenly matched competitors than someone consistantly winning against less experienced drivers in unprepared cars.

[jim.gandy]

Once again, I want to thank Kevin for his extensive and thoughtful comments. Clearly, class consolidation is not a slam dunk, and that's why we're getting such good discussion.

I can't help but make a quick response to something Kevin said. If a participant feels, as Kevin stated, "Solo is about me against me," isn't that what Run No Points is for?

[sperry]

If a participant feels, as Kevin stated, "Solo is about me against me," isn't that what Run No Points is for?
Or Street Unlimited. :P

[S2kreno]

We need one more class -- unprepared:)

[jim.gandy]

The next board and general meetings are coming up soon (Feb 2), and I'm sure that Solo Class Consolidation will be an agenda item. You can all judge for yourselves whether the discussion on this thread so far indicates whether consolidation will ultimately be accepted or rejected at the March board meeting. Please, if you have more feedback, positive or negative, keep it coming. We have the ability to be ready from a timing and scoring perspective if we either reject consolidation completely or accept the current proposal with no more than a few tweaks. What we can't handle would be a radically different proposal; something like that would have to wait until 2012.

[Kevin M]

I have nothing further to contribute, except observation of the irony of Jim proposing that we use PAX to determine class trophies. :lol:

[pomspeed]

Jim, if you guys will be discussing the rallycross events for this year and this is open to regular SCCA members, I'd be willing to come up and assist where I can and also get a chance to meet the Reno folks who will be involved with the rallycross events. I was involved with the NORPAC convention. I feel there will be more positive participation at the general meeting.

Brent Blakely
RallyCross Board member and Norcal RallyCross organizer

[dsmith]

The next board and general meetings are coming up soon (Feb 2), and I'm sure that Solo Class Consolidation will be an agenda item. You can all judge for yourselves whether the discussion on this thread so far indicates whether consolidation will ultimately be accepted or rejected at the March board meeting. Please, if you have more feedback, positive or negative, keep it coming. We have the ability to be ready from a timing and scoring perspective if we either reject consolidation completely or accept the current proposal with no more than a few tweaks. What we can't handle would be a radically different proposal; something like that would have to wait until 2012.

Jim, and Mike, with the combined groupings containing multiple PAX factors - each class having a different number - and of course our T-modifier, is there going to be a way for the competitors to know where they finished before they leave Stead, are we going to be able to post results on site after each session?

[MikeK]

... is there going to be a way for the competitors to know where they finished before they leave Stead ...

That depends on how long they are planning on staying at Stead :)

If someone wants to generate interim results onsite and print them out that shouldn't be an issue.

It will take me the same time to generate results and put them on the web site as before.

[dsmith]

That depends on how long they are planning on staying at Stead :)

If someone wants to generate interim results onsite and print them out that shouldn't be an issue.

It will take me the same time to generate results and put them on the web site as before.

Will it be as simple as attaching a printer to the laptop and hitting print? And would what gets printed be able to list the groups, or the classes? I know you'll always get the results up on line in a superhuman short period of time, but I'd really like to be able to provide something at the event as well.

[Kevin M]

The laptop can generate a complete class and PAX report that looks basically like the one we post on the website at any time. It wouldn't be difficult for us to get a cheap printer and do lunch break and end of day class results. Season standing updates might need to wait for website updates though, I've never looked at that.

[MikeK]

Generating the full results only takes a couple of seconds. It is dealing with the inevitable errors in the results that causes the delays. For example, missing driver names, incorrect numbers of runs if drivers forgot to swap numbers or were entered into the laptop incorrectly. People who weren't even at the event occasionally have a run or two if their number was close to someone else's. Things like that.

I think that in the entire history of autocross there was only one run group with no errors, it was back in 1873 and the results on the timing abacus were able to just go straight to the nearest printing press.

If someone is prepared to go through the results after each run group and fix the errors, or if people don't care that what is posted at the event might have issues, then just whacking a printer onto the laptop should be all you need.

Actually I take that back, the last printer we bought a few years back drew too much power from the generator and would kill it every time we tried to print. We might need a printer that has low power consumption or a beefier generator.

[MikeK]

Season standing updates might need to wait for website updates though, I've never looked at that.

Season standings are generated at the same time as the PAX, class and raw time reports.

[dsmith]

Okay, thanks Mike and Kevin.

[sperry]

You could certainly print "unofficial" results at the event (assuming you can get a printer that doesn't trip the breaker) that do not include the once-over Mike gives the data to ensure correctness. That might even help identify timing issues with wrong names earlier than after they're posted to the website if people see their scores are wrong during lunch or something.

[sperry]

I think that in the entire history of autocross there was only one run group with no errors, it was back in 1873 and the results on the timing abacus were able to just go straight to the nearest printing press.

I remember reading about that event. I'm pretty sure Dean was actually there.

Also, the overall PAX winner got protested for pulling his cart with a mule while running in goat-prepared. Everyone knows the most you can run in goat-prepared are the billy or mountain varieties. Equines are right out!

[Dean]

I am working on getting the software current and of course will be working with Mike on any changes to scoring that might be needed.

It is possible the new version may be more stable and userproof, but I doubt it.

It now supports multiple modifiers(PAX, Street tire, etc), so printing "preliminary" data should be relatively easy. Printers are dirt cheap or I am sure somebody has one they would donate as long as it isn't one that the cartridges dry up every event.

I have also asked for the ability to "Display" the PAX/modified time on the big displays ideally alternating with the raw...

And I was not at that race, I was teaching at Outy Quadraped school. :P

[noel]

I'm not a big fan of index racing but do recognize it's benefits when you have limited numbers of competitors. I support the region's consolidation to bring competition into the mix. We have an index class in the SFR region but you really don't know who wins until a couple hours later when the results are posted. They do announce the standing when you're running but I never liked having to bust out an iPhone and calculate how much faster I need to be compared to another car. At this time, there's no app for that. Way back when, before SFR started using computers, we used to physically print out tentative results on the side of the motorhome so you knew where you stood compared to your competition between runs. Since SFR became lazy with it, I never really got into the whole Index class since I want to know where I stand when I come off the course. Announcers call out your raw time and cone penalties. I guess they should read PAX time if you're in the Index class. Index racing would be more fun if you could see how many secs you need to gain or are behind based on raw time. With that, I'm glad you're already looking at printing the results on the same day. I'd suggest getting them printed a couple times during the run group to keep people aware of their times. Increasing competition is good since it'll make better drivers since you have someone to compare to. So, to make this successful you need to have times available with both raw and PAX so the driver knows what he has to do the next run.

[Cody]

So, LCD monitors have gotten really cheap. Could we wrap one in plastic and hang it on the side of the bus to display results during lunch and after the event? Anything you want to print to paper can more easily be printed to PDF and left open in Adobe Reader on a dedicated monitor. LED back lit LCDs are thin, light, and use very little power too. A USB based video card and LED backlit monitor should be had easily for under $150. It should ultimately save money over a printer too.

[Timothy5509]

That sounds like a great idea Cody. I would be there for everyone and wouldn't have to worry about it blowing away in the wind (which we get our fair share of) or someone misplacing it.

[Cody]

Here's a 20" LED for $100

http://www.officemax.com/technology/monitors/product-prod3292959?affcode=performics&cm_mmc=Performics-_-Tech%20Deal%20Digger-_-New%20OfficeMax%20Deep%20Link-_-Text&siteID=k183599

One downside is that it might be hard to read the monitor outside in bright sun. Hopefully it could be situated in shade or something. This thing uses only around 13.6 watts.

[Dean]

One downside is that it might be hard to read the monitor outside in bright sun. Hopefully it could be situated in shade or something. This thing uses only around 13.6 watts.This is why we don't have a PC at Reg. Tried a couple laptops which are more designed for it and they sucked. Our summer sun is a killer.

Kindle might work, but paper and ink is pretty cheap especially if printer gets donated. Plenty of Non-Windows 7 printers around now gathering dust. ;)

[dknv]

Due to privacy concerns, if we're going to print results throughout the day and post them, I might have to adopt a pseudonym, like Mel Torme did. Any ideas?

[Cody]

This is why we don't have a PC at Reg. Tried a couple laptops which are more designed for it and they sucked. Our summer sun is a killer.

Kindle might work, but paper and ink is pretty cheap especially if printer gets donated. Plenty of Non-Windows 7 printers around now gathering dust. ;)

http://seccs.org/forums/images/smilies/icon_brilliant.gif

I think that's a great idea. It even comes in under budget. :cool:

The Kindle has battery life for days, literally, and can be viewed just as easily as paper in direct sunlight. The only issue is the size. A Kindle screen is nearly half the size of a standard sheet of paper. But I think it's a better idea than printing. :)

[sperry]

http://seccs.org/forums/images/smilies/icon_brilliant.gif

I think that's a great idea. It even comes in under budget. :cool:

The Kindle has battery life for days, literally, and can be viewed just as easily as paper in direct sunlight. The only issue is the size. A Kindle screen is nearly half the size of a standard sheet of paper. But I think it's a better idea than printing. :)
There's a large format Kindle.

The problem is getting the results sent to the device... it's not like there's an easy way to point the kindle at the results, with the exception of the web browser... and that means processing and uploading the results to a web page after each round.

If we're going to do that, we might as well just post the results wirelessly and let people use their own devices to look at them.

[Cody]

You can print results to PDF and then upload them to the Kindle via USB I think.

[dsmith]

For those of you you weren't at the meeting Wednesday, the Board of Directors approved implementing the Class Consolidation Proposal, and it will be in effect for this season's points championships.

[Dean]

Due to privacy concerns, if we're going to print results throughout the day and post them, I might have to adopt a pseudonym, like Mel Torme did. Any ideas?Wait, you are OK with your results being published to the world on our web site, but have concerns about the attendees at the event knowing who you are? :huh:

And Carrie Ann Shiftknob or whatever it was is available. ;)

[vic]

Due to privacy concerns, if we're going to print results throughout the day and post them, I might have to adopt a pseudonym, like Mel Torme did. Any ideas?

How about ( Cammie Gearz ):cool:
( Lily Ledphoot ):devil:
( Carrie Kones ):D

[dknv]

Wait, you are OK with your results being published to the world on our web site, but have concerns about the attendees at the event knowing who you are? :huh: ;)I have concerns with paper, with names, floating all over the place. You know how it'll go -- results will be printed, and printed again each day; then end up in the trash, or flying away in the wind. At least I don't have a new car and worry about warranty coverage anymore, but still...

[dknv]

How about ( Cammie Gearz ):cool:
( Lily Ledphoot ):devil:
( Carrie Kones ):D
Fun!

[MattR]

So were the groupings approved as posted in the beginning of this thread? Or were there any changes made?

In a recent twist, it looks like I'll be running in Stock Two (C stock)

[dsmith]

So were the groupings approved as posted in the beginning of this thread? Or were there any changes made?

In a recent twist, it looks like I'll be running in Stock Two (C stock)

The only change made was to combine ASP with the Group containing BSP and CSP.

[miataman]

I would never, in a million years, have guessed a Mini.

[Alan. M]

I like this consolidation and the idea of more competition. It should a lot of fun this year competing against other classes.