On the nature of rules and racing

[Peter Olivola]

As long as you don't ever want to develop this into a national championship program you might be able to dodge the bullet for some time. I don't think your faith in the immutability of the premise is justified, but good luck to you.

Originally posted by zracer22:
This isn't pro racing. No body will be putting their car in a wind tunnel. No set of rules can ever totally cancel big wallet factor. But what our rules prevents is the problem that plagues IT racing, where an E36 with minimal prep can kick the crap out of a 944 or E30 prepped to the max. You can spend all day thinking of exceptions to the rule, but the truth is, that 99.9% of the cars that race are not exceptions to the rule. In GTS Challenge, there is no "car to beat". Instead our focus is on driver and car tuning skills.

[zracer22]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I liked the simplicity of just translating the NASA/PCA/BMWCCA/SCCA rules straight to the GTS classes. It looks like you're going to a straight weight/power formula - what was the thinking behind that?

PCA Stock and BMW CCA Stock rules mandate that interiors, A/C, etc... remain intact. This is a huge wieght disadvantage for those cars. BMW CCA Prepared rules are similar to IT rules, but they are allowed cams and bigger wheels. An ITS 944 would be a GT car in PCA. Basically, between SCCA and PCA or SCCA and BMWCCA you could have 3-4 very different configs of the same car. For whatever reason, people prep their cars to various levels. A BMWCCA KS (stock) E30 325i is SCCA ITS legal but could never be competitive against an ITS E30, while an ITS E30 would run in BMWCCA KP(Prepared) with no chance at being competitve with a fully prepped KP E30. Looking at those examples, what is the biggest variable? Answer: The weight to power ratio! By classing according to weight to power ratio, we are saying that you can run your PCA Stock 944 in GTS1, or you can unbolt a couple hundred pounds and run in GTS2.
Our rules don't guarantee that you will be competitive, but they certainly make it possible.

Originally posted by Knestis:

I still wish that VWs were fancy enough for the series.

K

You never know!!!!

[zracer22]

Originally posted by Peter Olivola:
As long as you don't ever want to develop this into a national championship program you might be able to dodge the bullet for some time.

We have no idea how this may or may not evolve. Right now, GTS Challenge is just a place to come and get a ton of track time and a good price, have a chance to finish on the podium, have fun and meet new people. The BMWCCA guys love racing against the Porsche guys and vice versa.

Who knows, you guys may be right and this could flop. But we won't know until we try.

Originally posted by Peter Olivola:
I don't think your faith in the immutability of the premise is justified

This made me think of one of my favorite lines from Blazin' Saddles when Slim Pickens says to Harvey Korman, "You use yer tongue purtier than a 20 doller whore!"

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Scooter:
...For instance, in the NHRA there are classes where you drag race someone to beat them, but you can't go faster than some set time. What the hell is that?

It's Bracket Racing, and it's a hoot! I did some when I was in college, but there were no classes then.

It's drive what ya brung, with random pairings of competitors. When you sign in you must claim an ET, but if your real ET is more than 0.10 seconds faster you are eliminated. The tree is set to launch the two cars with a delay corresponding to the difference between the claimed ETs.

The best race I saw was some old geezer in a 1962 Chevy II (4 cylinder, automatic) matched up against a "rail." The rail had to wait nearly 13 seconds for the green. The geezer won.

Great fun.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[zracer22]

Back in the 80s I lived on the Maryland Eastern Shore. I had a neighbor that would race is everyday chevy pickup at the dragstrip in Delmar, Delaware. His truck was a 1979 1/2 ton with an auto transmission that he used evryday in his constuction business. He'd take out his tools and go racing. Most weeks he would come home with a trophy. There was nothing funnier than watching his side of the tree go green 10 seconds before the other side.

[JohnRW]

Roadracing 'bracket racing' has been done before - look up the 'Canada G.T. Challenge Cup' series. Usually shared the track facility with them at the Mosport SCCA Nat'l, in the past. Series passed into oblivion in 2002.

Very cool series. Rule book was about 2 pages long - go faster than a certain time and you get kicked up a class, IIRC. Wild stuff showed up - old Trans-Am cars, new Ultima (GTP look-alikes), turbo VW bugs, Porsche GT1's (think 'big snorkle on the roof'...), etc. - http://www.theracesite.com/index.cfm?paget...rm_article=3410

Guess what ? The guys with the biggest wallets won.

I do wish GTS luck. That said, and racers being racers, it won't be long before there will be pressures on rules and 'equalization'. All of which will sound like all of the whining that the internet offers, in spades.

[zracer22]

I don't quite see how GTS challenge rules have anything in common with "bracket racing". No body is given a head start based on their performance potential. Instead, we are equalizing performance potential by using the two great performance attributes; weight and HP.
Many very successful race series are based on power to weight ratios.
NASCAR, IRL, Grand AM DP, and others all have minimum weights and HP limiting rules. BMW CCA and PCA have always based their classes on power to weight ratios. (with a few exceptions)

[Peter Olivola]

The alternative wouldn't be tolerated, but I think you get the picture.

Originally posted by zracer22:
This made me think of one of my favorite lines from Blazin' Saddles when Slim Pickens says to Harvey Korman, "You use yer tongue purtier than a 20 doller whore!"

[Scooter]

Originally posted by zracer22:
Here's my $0.02 since Scooter started this thread by referencing one of my posts in another thread.

I really wasn't trying to pick on the GTS Challenge series. (Although it is a case in point.) And plus, like I said, at the beginning of the series it's a lot of fun with fewer rules. A series with BMWs, Porsches and Audis and practically unlimited modifications doesn't really sound very budget-conscious, but I know very few actual poor people racing anyway.

"Then the next thing ya know, you have a mature rules set that actually tries very hard to make racing fair for everyone. This is where the SCCA is now." That was meant as a joke, right?

No, not really. That's what the comp board tries to do. That's their whole job. It's just frustrating because they're trying not to move the bar on us every 5 minutes. We expect that they should see the light on everything we think of, and implement it immediately. This is neither possible nor responsible.

The whole idea of weight adjustments for IT cars is an example of a seemingly simple idea that is, I think, pretty complicated. It seems like you could just adjust the weights of the E36 BMWs to make them a little slower since they're usually killing everyone in ITS. But then everyone wants their car adjusted, too. And the original intent of the rules was that you take a stock car's weight and subtract a little for taking out the interior and whatever, (plus a little magic that I don't understand) and that's the race weight of the car. The weight was supposed to be based on the stock car, not on whether or not it would run within .5 seconds of every other car in it's class.

So then in order to change the rules to make people happy, you have to change the philosophy of weight. Now it's supposed to make every (!) car competitive. But that ITC Rabbit is like 25 years old. We have to make that competitive with the CRXs? What about the guy who wants to run his Chrysler TC by Maserati? Should it's weight be 1500lbs?

Point is, yes, they try very hard to make the rules fair. It's hard.

(My solution, btw, is another class between ITS and ITA, and adjustable weights, but only within a certain limit of the original factory weight of the car.)

[Scooter]

Originally posted by zracer22:
I don't quite see how GTS challenge rules have anything in common with "bracket racing".

My point was that the reason there is bracket racing, is because of extreme rules maturity in drag racing. There are a lot of classes of bracket racers now, and even semi-pro E.T. racers where people race against each other but are limited to a certain E.T. Like an 8.5 or whatever. A very limiting, but popular, rules set.

There is always some new series that starts up, (like Pro Modified) but it always ends up the same way. I personally believe it's an immutable law of the rules of competition. It's the nature of people and competitiveness.

[racer_tim]

There is bracket racing in SCCA. It's called SRF and SM.

True bracket racing would be very difficult in a road racing environment, but I have seen it work in Solo 1's.




------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit (Bent)
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Scooter:
....... But then everyone wants their car adjusted, too. And the original intent of the rules was that you take a stock car's weight and subtract a little for taking out the interior and whatever, (plus a little magic that I don't understand) and that's the race weight of the car. The weight was supposed to be based on the stock car, not on whether or not it would run within .5 seconds of every other car in it's class.

So then in order to change the rules to make people happy, you have to change the philosophy of weight. Now it's supposed to make every (!) car competitive. But that ITC Rabbit is like 25 years old. We have to make that competitive with the CRXs? What about the guy who wants to run his Chrysler TC by Maserati? Should it's weight be 1500lbs?

Point is, yes, they try very hard to make the rules fair. It's hard.


(My solution, btw, is another class between ITS and ITA, and adjustable weights, but only within a certain limit of the original factory weight of the car.)

Scooter, you make an excellent case, and really, your commentary is one I agree with wholeheartedly.

The SCCA has a much tougher battle than NASA, as they are servicing an audience that wants to run cars that represent a much broader technological base.

The GTS challenge is trying to work with a very limited sample, and then divideds them into greater divisions, but they will still run into the overdog/underdog situation, and the wallet will surely be a major factor. I wonder, this whole power to weight ratio thing...how will they police inventive racers who have switchable power curves? The old secret switch that cuts out 30 hp? And don't tell me it can't be done, or it won't be done! It can and will.

Anyway, I do disagree slightly with your thoughts on the philosophy of the initial weight set. You said "plus a little majic that I don't understand", and I think that hits the nail on the head. I think the CRB has tried to create an equal playing field, but they are hampered by a lack of a crystal ball, as there are just too many intangibles to accurately predict actual performance on a multitude of tracks. In the begining, IT was created, along with other reasons, to give retiring SS cars a place to race. The classification of those cars was easier, as their on track perforance was a known. That case is the exception today, as the class has become very popular and the bulk of cars never saw SS duty.

I don't think the basic philosophy has changed, but that time has changed the situation, and a safety net is being installed to give the CRB an opportunity to remedy obvious issues.

I do not think that anyone invlved in the PCA concept has any desire or intention of creating a scenario where all models will have an equal chance, or even one where all models will be treated fairly. That's just impossible considering the scope involved here. But I do think that there is a desire to right some obvious wrongs, and while there will never be a completely equal playing field, the scales will end up being more balanced.

And given the scope and complexity of the situation, thats all we can ask for.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Knestis]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
...I do not think that anyone invlved in the PCA concept has any desire or intention of creating a scenario where all models will have an equal chance, or even one where all models will be treated fairly.

This is treading on thin topical ice but, while I agree with you, Jake about their desires, the actual substance of a rule change in this respect will be rooted in what is allowed to "trigger" the PCA process. The very first time that a member is allowed - formally or through back channels - to request, nudge, initiate, suggest, hint, beg, buy, or steal PCA consideration for his or her car, the barn door is open and there is NO way that all of the horses will be saved.

I'll watch the progress of the GTS Challenge - and all of the others - with interest. I too wonder how the dyno process will work, particularly since it ups the cost of tech inspections both in time and direct expense. If that challenge is effectively met, it might become a useful model.

Further, people need to get it through their heads that there is only one policy option that will act to directly limit costs in a racing class - a claim rule. That has even less of a chance of flying in a PCA/BMWCCA setting than it would in a SCCA/NASA paddock, that is to say less than zero.

Any other rule can only encourage or discourage specific spending behaviors, by limiting the return on investment but over, and over, and over, and over, racers have proven that they will spend everything that they have available - and often more - for even marginal gains. Or no gains.

K

[cherokee]

Originally posted by Knestis:
The very first time that a member is allowed - formally or through back channels - to request, nudge, initiate, suggest, hint, beg, buy, or steal PCA consideration for his or her car, the barn door is open and there is NO way that all of the horses will be saved.

I agree with this....and with the current system you know it will happen. Getting something changed for a car should require a VAST number of people to sign off on it. Not just people in official offices of the club but everyone from corner workers to drivers to timing and scoring....from various parts of the country.

[Tom Donnelly]

"This isn't pro racing. No body will be putting their car in a wind tunnel"

I have to agree about the mature rules issue.
Money does buy development and raises the bar.

Don't for one minute think that someone hasn't already put an IT car in a wind tunnel.

And not just an ITS car either. When you have teams willing to spend $20k plus on engine development/dyno time and the same or more on shock development, wind tunnel time is just p$%%ing in the wind comparatively.

Tom

[This message has been edited by Tom Donnelly (edited February 04, 2004).]

[zracer22]

You guys are missing the point. Sure, you can cheat on the dyno, but who cares. Our intention isn't to stop cheaters, we have better things to do with our time. Rules aren't written for those that cheat, they are written for those that follow them. There will always be cheaters in all of racing.

You all have put way too much thought into this. And since when has everyone been so happy with the way SCCA IT cars are classes? GTS rules are designed to take care of the obvious flaws in IT and to be PCA and BMWCCA friendly.

Your making the same mistake that we did when we first started GTS. We looked at it strictly with the SCCA IT state of mind. After 2 or 3 GTS events, we quickly realized that we needed to get over our SCCA issues and focus on the 95% of our entrants that come from BMWCCA and PCA.

There has been lots of wordy opinions and theories in this thread, but how many of them are based on practical, personal experience. "_______ will happen", how do you know? These predictions are based solely on assumptions.

GTS Challenge is %100 racer administrated. EVERY GTS entrant is encouraged to gives us their opinions and suggestions, and they do. Every change or rule that we make is backed by racer input. That's what makes us successful. Just as the lack of such interaction is hurting the SCCA right now.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by cherokee:
Getting something changed for a car should require a VAST number of people to sign off on it. Not just people in official offices of the club but everyone from corner workers to drivers to timing and scoring....from various parts of the country.

WHAT???!!!

You have GOT to be kidding!??? Yah, I want them to go to timing and scoring and ask the wife of the guy who works in turn 4, neither of which has ever turned a wheel in a race car themselves, but love racing as a sport so they volunteered, to be even remotely involved in making decisions concerning the performance of MY car...

Now that I've put it into my own words... I'm even more convinced that you HAD to be kidding around and couldn't have POSSIBLY been serious...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[RSTPerformance]

zracer22

My .02 cents...

No FWD is very disappointing as that eliminates a lot of German cars including mine.

There are no races scheduled in the Northeast

Love the idea of the GTS challenge... seems very cool although I think it is a slight bit misleading. I think your advertising says that you (a customer) will be competitive because we will put you in a class with equal HP and weight cars. You leave out the most important part of Road Racing, which is suspension.

I would argue that only a fully prepped racecar would win in each of your classes. My entire life I have grown up with the knowledge that HP is a small part of the equation. The most important part is the handling of the car. A full prepped GT or Prod car will certainly handle much better than an IT or SS car, thus weight and HP is basically irrelevant. I feel that weight and HP is only a factor if there is an equality of suspension tuning. In our SCCA IT Audi’s on a 1-½ mile road course we have gained about 1-2 seconds a lap (at a stretch) with engine tuning from stock, and we have realistically gained 6-8 seconds a lap with suspension tuning.

Raymond Blethen


------------------

RST Performance Racing
www.rstperformance.com
1st and 2nd 2003 ITB NARRC Championship
1st and 6th 2003 ITB NERRC Championship
3rd 2003 ITB ARRC Sprint Race
4th 2003 ITB ARRC Endoro
1st 2003 AS NERRC and NARRC Championships

[cherokee]

Yea...I drove off the cliff to over illustrate my point. Too much power in one persons hands is always a bad thing, and if that person can get his wishes approved by leaning on just a few people thats no better.

[zracer22]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
zracer22

My .02 cents...

No FWD is very disappointing as that eliminates a lot of German cars including mine.

There are no races scheduled in the Northeast

Love the idea of the GTS challenge... seems very cool although I think it is a slight bit misleading. I think your advertising says that you (a customer) will be competitive because we will put you in a class with equal HP and weight cars. You leave out the most important part of Road Racing, which is suspension.

I would argue that only a fully prepped racecar would win in each of your classes.

Yes, your right. But it's because the entrant chooses to run a stock suspension, not because the rules say he must.

Mortheast NASA only has a DE program, but racing is in their future. Beaverun or Summit would be the closest for you.

FWD is allowed, as long as it's on an Audi, BMW, Porsche or Mercedes. We haven't had any FWD cars in GTS yet, but we do have an AWD A4 1.8T
The VW issue is still being discussed, and they may be added in the future.