New Stock Street Tire class: Are we going to implement that in NER?

[Forcednduckshn]

I haven't seen anything about an additional street tire multiplier.  I know some other clubs use their best guess at one, but we all know that one can't be fairly applied across all stock classes.  It's bad enough that the existing PAX factors aren't going to apply fairly to cars shod with 140+ treadwear tires. 

For those planning on attending the meeting tomorrow in favor of RT*, I'll offer the following advice:
1.   Plan out how you’d like to implement RT*.  Will it be all RT classes combined, or will it be split like the national supplemental classes (RTF, RTR, and RTA)?  What numbers can be used to support this?  Are you willing to bribe me enough to generate these numbers for you?  Answering these questions ahead of time can help prevent extending the meeting an extra hour.
2.   Figure out ahead of time how RT* may dilute open classes.  If it comes down to a need to dissolve the “other” index class, you will have won yourself a few dozen enemies, and the meeting will be extended two hours.
3.   Avoid any talk of how RT* would affect Moss competition.  Absorb your burden of hard PAX until Rick Ruth or someone else designs a sliding PAX scale based on car size and weight.  Otherwise, the meeting will be extended three hours, and you will be spending the night.

Please see Paul's post.  Your concerns have been addressed.

No need to worry about the added work of creating our own street tire multipliers to balance the classes.  I haven't seen the street tire multiplier yet either, but that's ok because we'll use the ones released for use at the Tours and Pro's.  The multiplier doesn't even really matter this year if the class is supplemental and not eligible for moss anyway.  So no additional burden on NER staff.  They aren't going to be ideal by any stretch of the imagination.  It's just a starting point that I am sure will be heavily revised after a year of national experience.

[newportroyal]

So, if I understand correctly, Paul's proposal is to use the stucture of the three national RT classes, with three seperate PAX multipiers for each class, the three classes may or may not run at different times during the event, and all the RT classes will be combined for the final results, correct?

And I may or may not be correct in this, but I don't think the Prosolo's are using a PAX multiplier for the RT class at any point during the event because the challenges are based on dial ins, not pax factors.  If that is the case, then we really should not focus at all on the structure of the Prosolo RT classes, and model after the National RT classes, as Paul has effectively done.

This sounds good to me, and I will do my best to get to the meeting tomorrow to show my support, and to volunteer for anything necessary to ease the work load for this (or to volunteer for anything else needed unrelated to this).

[madame_toussleau]

So, if I understand correctly, Paul's proposal is to use the stucture of the three national RT classes, with three seperate PAX factors for each class, the three classes may or may not run at different times during the event, and all the RT classes will be combined for the final results, correct?

I don't think there is a PAX factor per class. Anyone entering the class would have their regular stock class PAX multiplied, just like the Pro class does.

[pzahornasky]

Three classes period, no combining for a trophy.

The only combination is to determine if the classes have enough participation to remain viable classes.

No modifier on PAX - if they become a class and you run in the Moss, you get what you get and you don't get upset when it comes to having to run a R-Comp PAX number on Street tires.

[newportroyal]

Personally, I'm inclined to accept that structure, but my only fear is that we might make the class less desireable for more experienced drivers, who would run this class, but might choose not to if they are a)potentially giving up their chance at participating in the moss, and b) will have no chance in the moss if the class does get full status and they are able to participate.

Basically, I don't think that structure will be a turnoff for most of the people that would be inclined to subscribe to this class (myself included), but might be a deal breaker for others.   I'm just worried that in itself might hurt the participation numbers, and thus, set the class up to fail.

[pj]

Please see Paul's post.  Your concerns have been addressed.

They aren't concerns, they're pieces of advice from someone who's been in the same boat   I'd say the biggest topic will be #2.

So, if I understand correctly, Paul's proposal is to use the stucture of the three national RT classes, with three seperate PAX multipiers for each class, the three classes may or may not run at different times during the event, and all the RT classes will be combined for the final results, correct?

Each of the three classes will compete independently.  Each will be scored using existing PAX for respective cars within the class. 

And I may or may not be correct in this, but I don't think the Prosolo's are using a PAX multiplier for the RT class at any point during the event because the challenges are based on dial ins, not pax factors.

Indexed classes such as R, B, and L use PAX to determine the winner within the class.  Dial-in is only used if you qualify for the Super Challenge, either by winning your class or being close enough to the leader.

[newportroyal]

I uderstand how the different cars in the individual classes are scored based on their PAX factors, I'm referring to an additional PAX multiplier, like most clubs use, to even things out for PAX rankings against other (non-RT) classes.

NER takes the top ten PAX drivers for the year for the Moss, so if there is no additional multiplier, and the RT cars are stuck with their open class PAX, then there is a serious disadvantage there, and might be a deal breaker for some of the faster drivers that can make it to the Moss in another class.

I'm fine with not having an additional multiplier for the first year.  It is something that can be addressed in the future if the class is successful, but it seems like it is not the norm for how these classes are generally run in most clubs, and may hurt participation in the class.

[batchman]

Just chiming in as this subject was once near/dear and I suspect a work obligation may keep me from making the meeting.

For years I found SCCA off-putting as an autocrosser in an as-delivered car - my choices at competing were either significant mods for ST or expensive consumables for Stock.  So I showed up once or twice a year and stayed focused on the multiple Devens clubs with street tire classing.  After years of this annual smack-down ritual I showed up at an event where my class regulars chose to run street tires, and I was competitive - it was not magic after all.

I think I am not the only person who had a hard time stepping into the ST*/*S structure, and am glad to hear the National Office taking a stab at making a solution for these disenfranchised would-be competitors.  The RT approach should give the no-longer-novice but not-yet-nationally-inclined a place to genuinely compete.

The regional solution I will suggest is not adding the 3 proposed index classes - instead add two, by breaking stock class into R-comp and RT index groups scored on PAX.  The RT group won't play in event-top-PAX this way (unless we adopt Rick Ruth's street tire multiplier) but I think most of those candidates aren't expecting to vie for that - yet.  For those that *are* thinking national status they will have their season on the right recipe and be ready. Once the National recognition comes *RT classes will have their own index and Axware will have adopted them.  We can worry about sub-groups at that time, but I would not be surprised by further refinements to the national formula along the way.  Event trophies, season titles and Moss entry can be worked out depending on subscription.

To my eye the three-index groups look like a toe-in-the-water, and I think it could become much bigger than they expect, and without consuming the traditional stock classes either.  Adding a path for stock cars on street tires will make SCCA accessible to a lot more people and let the migration path from novice to regular to dedicated stay in-house so to speak.

HTH,
- Jeff

[pj]

I uderstand how the different cars in the individual classes are scored based on their PAX factors, I'm referring to an additional PAX multiplier, like most clubs use, to even things out for PAX rankings against other (non-RT) classes.

We can develop one, as we're currently using our own PAX factor for our own NER-only K class.  I'd propose that we have something of a sliding PAX multiplier if one is created, though.  It's obvious that the larger cars will be more disadvantaged by the additional 140 treadwear restriction (I have to stop saying "street tires" since my A6's have seen street use).  Doing it "right" either way would still require at least a year's worth of data, though. 

[pj]

(unless we adopt Rick Ruth's street tire multiplier)

Has Rick Ruth generated an official number now that the class is supplemental nationally?  The last I saw, most people were referring to him saying " I think that a .975 'Street Tire Equalizer' is a bit more appropriate", and taking it as gospel.

[newportroyal]

We can develop one, as we're currently using our own PAX factor for our own NER-only K class.  I'd propose that we have something of a sliding PAX multiplier if one is created, though.  It's obvious that the larger cars will be more disadvantaged by the additional 140 treadwear restriction (I have to stop saying "street tires" since my A6's have seen street use).  Doing it "right" either way would still require at least a year's worth of data, though. 

Sounds good to me.  

I'd assume that the specifics of what those numbers are (for this season) can be worked out at a later time.

[pj]

I'd assume that the specifics of what those numbers are (for this season) can be worked out at a later time.

I wouldn't want to retroactively change results, but it's a topic one could bring up.  It'd be easier to start the year based off what other regions have, but it'd be a good idea to show some evidence that it wouldn't have a huge impact on PAX results.

[pzahornasky]

The regional solution I will suggest is not adding the 3 proposed index classes - instead add two, by breaking stock class into R-comp and RT index groups scored on PAX.  

HTH,
- Jeff

Jeff,

There are many people that have no interest in running in an index class.  

[pzahornasky]

We can develop one, as we're currently using our own PAX factor for our own NER-only K class.  I'd propose that we have something of a sliding PAX multiplier if one is created, though.  It's obvious that the larger cars will be more disadvantaged by the additional 140 treadwear restriction (I have to stop saying "street tires" since my A6's have seen street use).  Doing it "right" either way would still require at least a year's worth of data, though. 

If the Road Tire class is successful at National Events, I am sure that Rick Ruth would be able to generate some RT multipliers for the different classes for NEXT YEAR.

Until then, we shouldn't start guessing or throwing numbers out there.

[DaveT]

I'll leave it up to the people who will actually run in RT* to make arguments for or against a PAX adjustment.  I'll be happy if the RT* classes are created, even provisionally, even with no PAX multiplier.

However, I'll just mention that many regions have been running RT* classes for many years with tons of data to support their RT* PAX multipliers.  I think it would be easy to cut the RT* competitors a bit of a break on PAX without giving them any advantage over those who prefer <Hoosier/Goodyear/Kumho> to <Toyo/Hankook/Dunlop/Conti/Michelin/Yokohama/Bridgestone/etc>.