Show your support for SCCA & SECCS: VOTE!!!

[Nick Koan]

Originally Posted by cody

I already have street tires (RE01R's) for next year and Nick's going to run race tires so we won't be in the same class with the new supps now right?

Well, the only way you would be able to steal the trophy from me was if you did it in the parking lot after the banquet with a crowbar and a ski mask

Race tires or not.

[sperry]

Kevin I think the problem is more fundamental, and it's not necessarily about the people and the cars, it's about the goals of our autocross program.

There are two nearly mutually-exclusive goals:

1) Provide a fun venue for regional competition that allows the vast majority of people that show up all season long with tight competition in highly contested classes.

2) Provide a venue for drivers with national aspirations to refine their driving to become more competitive at the divisional and national tours.

The vast majority of drivers (both RT and ST) fit into goal 1. But, IMO, the more "important" goal is 2. The problem is that doing things to cater to goal 1 tends to reduce our ability to achieve goal 2.

The whole RT vs. ST issue is really an issue internal to goal 1. It's essentially the same issue as "is PAX fair at this altitude" and "should we use a bumping order", etc. In order to provide deep competition with the number of people in the region, we have to have some method of grouping people together, and there will inevitably be people that think they're getting screwed due to the rules, and the rules alone. I think integrated ST is really a good thing that helps us achieve goal 1, but the factor may need to be changed in order to make people feel like the playing field is level.

The real problem we need to solve is "how can we provide the non-national level drivers fun competition, without reducing the region's ability to provide useful practice for national drivers?". That's where the PRO class was coming from, and that seems to be getting killed.

It's my opinion that the proposed changes from last night are actually going to hurt both goals. Splitting RT and ST hurts goal 1 because it plainly reduces competition. Randy made a big point that his RT Vette was getting beat by John Perry's ST Solstice. But that was one of the closest races all season long! Congrats Randy, next year you'll get the win, because if John doesn't go to R-tires, he'll be racing in the ST class.

Meanwhile, the few national driver we have will only be racing against the few race tire drivers in smaller classes. Whereas, they could have been up against a larger field, which would contain potentially more talent to challenge themselves against. What helps a national driver practice more? Beating up on the same one or two drivers, or going up against 6 drivers, 4 of which have what may be a handicap advantage? Frankly, racing against drivers on street tires that have that ST PAX should help national drivers go faster. I don't believe the ST factor is too harsh to be insurmountable (and if it is, then it should be softened). If a national driver is getting beat by a ST car, shouldn't that be incentive to reach deep down inside and find a way to drive faster? Isn't that the whole point of goal 2?

But like I said, I'm not getting real feedback from the most of the region. The really vocal people are the race tire drivers from goal 1... so Reno SCCA is going to end up with rules that make them happy.

[Nick Koan]

Yeah, I still don't exactly know where I stand on the street tire issue. I certainly don't think it'll really affect me how it was or how it is.

Since I am planning on trying out race tires next year, it would be nice to be able to flip back and forth between classes, but I don't know if that'll really be a big deal. This time next year, I might change my tune if I switch back to street tires, but can't catch 1st in TESP due to missing 2-4 events on race tires. I guess I'll just try to commit one way or another before the season starts.

Also, as it stands, ESP was basically TESP last year anyway. IIRC, there was only a handful of instances when a race tire car came in first Raw. That was Bill from Sac or Vegas guys from Hawthorne, both of which won both raw and after the street tire modifier was applied.

It would be nice to keep competition with Cody and others in TESP, but I am also really curious about race tires. Next year, it sounds like I won't be able to do both. I guess I could always run in TESP for points and run RNP with the race tires while I'm still trying them out and figuring where I want to go.

I certainly can say I don't feel strong enough to really start complaining about it as loudly as some of our members on the race tire side. I do feel like it'll actually lessen competition, but we'll have to see. I don't remember much heads up street tire vs. race tire match-ups in class outside of A Stock, and PAX was dominated by race tires this year. I'm guessing the street tire friendly classes (like ESP and SM) will continue to be large and this might not really affect much but hopefully make people happier.

[dknv]

Originally Posted by sperry

I'm actually pretty disappointed. Mostly because there are a ton of street tire drivers (I'm looking at you SECCS) that weren't represented at the meeting.

Not only that, but also, many who didn't take time to fill out & send in a ballot. Nevertheless, for those who did not vote, and if you were going to vote for Dean, he still won so no harm no foul.

Originally Posted by sperry

I think the SCCA is getting man-handled by the minority of louder race tire folks, and competition will suffer because of it. While I understand their point that integrated street tire classes reduces the "purity" of racing under the SCCA national rules, and while I understand that providing a national-like environment is crucial to helping the development of national level drivers from our region, I think in general it's a disservice to the majority of members as we are reducing overall competition to coddle those that are making the effort to show up to the meetings and be heard.

I'm still trying to understand how competition is going to suffer, and how this will reduce overall competition. It seems like there will still be fast drivers in ST classes and fast drivers in RT classes.

For me, I see the street tire handicap as not fair. 1) I don't see there being one factor that applies across the board to every class; (and it can go both ways, there are probably instances where the factor is too much for certain cars or classes, and others where it is too lenient). 2) I don't see a way to determine a factor based on controlled testing even, because there will always be variances among cars and setup, tires/condition, course, driver, weather, temperature, how much gas is in the tank, etc etc etc (to use a Dean-ism ). Even if we could come close, there will still always be the suspicion that something influenced the outcome, leading to "the factor is flawed' mentality. And because of this, we end up taking away some of that element of 'fairness' in competition, and then the fun starts to go away too.

So - I keep wondering why it's not more understandable when race tire or national-prep car drivers see the street tire pax as a take-away, a penalty to them, and why it is considered that asking for a split seems like coddling to others. And why is the split of street tires into its own class being perceived as a take-away for street tire drivers. At least we are still incorporating street tires in Reno region, some regions don't do anything extra for them. (Not sure if LV is still that way, but they used to be.)

[dknv]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Seems like Novice class is going to be pretty much unchanged. The unofficial Novice Committee is going to work on a way to give/sell/lease magnetic numbers to Novices so they have a single number for the whole year to ease registration.

RNP will not be unilaterally denied in the afternoons, and will remain at the Event Chair's discretion it seems.

The work exemption for drivers over 65 will probably also remain at the discretion of the Event Chair. Senior and disabled drivers will be permitted not to work if there is sufficient coverage to run the event safely and efficiently.

Thanks Kevin. For whoever is on the unofficial Novice Committee, I have several numbers and class letters I could donate. I could also volunteer Rachel to help by making some additional numbers/letters. (I still have magnetic material and black gloss spray paint left over from this year's purchase.)

[Nick Koan]

Yeah, I think a lot of regions don't do much for street tire classes (outside of STS/X/U). They certainly let them run, but they don't get the modifier.

In talking with people that run street tires in those regions, I think they continue to go because they enjoy going fast but they also know they won't win classes with street tires. It's tough to say whether that really encourages people to buy race tires, or whether it just makes them get to a point where they stagnate or leave due to being uncompetitive overall and not willing to make the jump. And most regions larger regions probably don't care because there is a large enough RT contingent.

In our region, I think it would really make membership shrink rather then be more competitive. If that happened here, we'd probably lose a good majority of ST members, a few would stay and continue with street tires and even fewer would switch to race tires. We definitely should do something for street tire drivers.

As always, we could call this season a learning experience. I think we should keep track at registration whether we significantly lose or gain people over the last few years. I'd willing to do that if I had access to more than just this year and last years results.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by dknv

For me, I see the street tire handicap as not fair. 1) I don't see there being one factor that applies across the board to every class; (and it can go both ways, there are probably instances where the factor is too much for certain cars or classes, and others where it is too lenient).

2) I don't see a way to determine a factor based on controlled testing even, because there will always be variances among cars and setup, tires/condition, course, driver, weather, temperature, how much gas is in the tank, etc etc etc (to use a Dean-ism ). Even if we could come close, there will still always be the suspicion that something influenced the outcome, leading to "the factor is flawed' mentality. And because of this, we end up taking away some of that element of 'fairness' in competition, and then the fun starts to go away too.

Of course it's a compromise. The only way to ensure an absolutely fair playing field is if we have a single car challenge with new tires every run for every driver, or if we were somehow able to calculate a perfect factor for every car in every class. Since neither is possible, the best we can do is to do the best we can do. If the majority of people feel like the factor is hurting their chances, then the factor needs to be changed. But I still contend that the level of competition in our region is still so low that we have none of our drivers out there getting 100% out of a car that's 100% prepped. Not to be brash, but if you're not winning, just drive faster. I would be willing to be anyone that goes out and drives their car to 100% of its capability will walk away with a class win and top PAX every time in our region regardless of tires or PAX factors etc, because most people are only getting 85% out of there cars. Every time the national champ drivers from out of region show up, they clean our clocks, and every time our "good" drivers go to a national tour (with the exception of those of you that I consider our "national prep" drivers), they get embarrassed (for example, Dean's no slouch behind the wheel, and he got killed at tour events in a very well prepped STX car).

Originally Posted by dknv

So - I keep wondering why it's not more understandable when race tire or national-prep car drivers see the street tire pax as a take-away, a penalty to them, and why it is considered that asking for a split seems like coddling to others. And why is the split of street tires into its own class being perceived as a take-away for street tire drivers. At least we are still incorporating street tires in Reno region, some regions don't do anything extra for them. (Not sure if LV is still that way, but they used to be.)

I understand the complaints from the RT crowd. If the factor is indeed too aggressive, it needs to be fixed. But I don't see the split as good for either camp. And I don't understand why the people looking for national level practice (like yourself) are so concerned. If your goal is to get real practice in, chances are you won't be winning everyday because you should be trying new things, and seeing what works, what doesn't, etc... so when you do go to a national tour or a national pro, you've got knowledge and experience about what your car will do. If you're truly part of goal 2 from my other post, then ST vs RT should be a moot issue, right? Help me to understand where the national prep folks are coming from.

[dknv]

Originally Posted by sperry

Congrats Randy, next year you'll get the win, because if John doesn't go to R-tires, he'll be racing in the ST class.

Isn't Dave Janssen going to AS?

[dknv]

Originally Posted by sperry

...I understand the complaints from the RT crowd. If the factor is indeed too aggressive, it needs to be fixed. But I don't see the split as good for either camp. And I don't understand why the people looking for national level practice (like yourself) are so concerned. If your goal is to get real practice in, chances are you won't be winning everyday because you should be trying new things, and seeing what works, what doesn't, etc... so when you do go to a national tour or a national pro, you've got knowledge and experience about what your car will do. If you're truly part of goal 2 from my other post, then ST vs RT should be a moot issue, right? Help me to understand where the national prep folks are coming from.

And, help me understand why you see a split as not good for either camp? Because of diluting competition? How is a split making it less meaningful? When I stopped running for points this summer, I still looked at my results and compared them with others. Running out of class or 'away' from my previous competition did not change how hard I drove, or what I tried to learn. What else am I not seeing, that a split of RT and ST causes drivers from both camps from not being able to do this informally?

Why are national prep drivers so concerned? I can only speak for myself. First and foremost I am a Reno Region member/driver. I want to compete in Reno Region as well as at national events, and when I compete in Reno Region I want a fair game. But when I am playing a game where I believe a rule is flawed, it no longer provides me with a fair game. So I have some choices, don't play/go somewhere else, ignore it, if you can't beat them join them, or speak up. I already did the 'don't play/ignore it' thing this year. And since it's more valuable to me to get race tire seat time in BS, switching wasn't a good option. (But, keep in mind that some of my seat time was in Mark's STU car.) Now that the season is over, I want an opportunity to speak up and see if it can be fixed. I'm wondering why that is seen as whining and complaining?

However, I have a problem with seeing if the 'flaw' can be fixed - I can't see a way for us to come up with a better number. Closer might be better, but when we deal in tenths and hundredths of a second sometimes, the old saying 'close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades' comes to mind. The closest way I can see to fixing the factor would be to see test results from somebody like TireRack, or GRM, someone who has the money and resources to:

1) use a driver who is 95-100% consistent in their driving skill
2) setup 3 or 5 or more car types to test the 'best' race tire, and the 'best' street tire, on the same wheel, with appropriate alignment settings.
3) segment test on asphast and concrete, on a course with multiple elements, measuring lateral g's, acceleration, braking and probably some other stuff that affects Solo times that I can't remember right now.

I hope people realize this is not only a Reno Region issue, several other regions have this sentiment as well. Some clips from other folks on sccaforums.com:

1. Rick Ruth's (PAX guy) comments from June 2007:
Re: Local Street Tire Indexed Class Issue: PAX Handicap
I have been asked about this issue for years. As has been mentioned, the easiest way would be to have a common multiplier (Reno does this). In the studies I've done, the situation is not workable. Comparing "R" compounds to Street Tires is too varying. The same cars can be 2 to 8 seconds apart from course to course, and week to week, depending on surface, temperature, weather, and other conditions.

Where I come from (Chicago), the Indexed Street Tire class is also very popular, to the point of being the largest class, by far. In discussing the possibility (or impossibility) of creating a workable multiplier, those folks didn't want to mess with all of the fun they're having. Not being able to be competitive in the overall scoring must not be a real issue for most. With the advent of an Indexed Street Tire class here in my new home (St. Louis), it has easily become the most popular class and continues to grow from event to event. It is very impressive when a car from the Street Tire group can break into the Top 20 on the overall Index results. I believe this system works, obviously well, and that the common Street Tire multiplier idea is not feasible.

Most understand that the PAX/RTP Index has inherent flaws. Certain course conditions may favor certain cars on a given day, but tend to even out over several events. That's why it is usable for certain Championships and other comparisons. To throw something that has a HUGE, obvious, flaw into the mix, would tend to make it absolutely meaningless. I suppose some think it already is. :-) I'm pleased to see that most find the Index very useful, for a lot of things. I work really hard trying to make it work out that way.

H's & K's,
Rick Ruth
- - -
When our club was small (25-40 entries) we thought about giving people who ran on street tires in a race tire class a PAX handicap. (ie: G-stock Mini on street tires would get additional time subtracted because they were running street tires instead of race tires). At first we thought it would be a good idea because it would increase the class sizes. But the more we thought about it, the more we realized we were actually penalizing the "serious" drivers who chose to make the extra effort to run race tires ($$$ and time spent changing them). So instead, we formed a "Street Tire Class" where all the SCCA classes (except for STS, STS2, STX & STU) are combined and PAX'd to determine a winner. An unexpected result occured. The class ended up being an unofficial sportsmans class that was perfect for the less serious drivers.
- - -
I think that the performance difference between street tires and R tires varies widely among different sites, from clean pavement to sandy asphalt. Perhaps a conservative adjustment would be in order, such that street and R tires would come out roughly even on gravelly asphalt. That would give R tired cars the advantage on grippier more predictable surfaces but the street tires cars would have a big advantage in the rain. The R tire classes might even be running the same street tires in that case, but with an index disadvantage. Perhaps eliminate the Street Tire adjustment for days when it rains.
I wouldn't like to see the index set up so that on typical local sites, drivers who have invested the time and money to have the equipment to compete in National events are actually at a disadvantage to drivers in more casually prepped vehicles.
It seems like an adjustment for street tires is guaranteed to upset some group of people, and probably won't really satisfy anybody.
- - -
Or, another interesting option, Open PAX class for those who want to run national-prep (similar to our Pro class concept) - I am not adverse to this one:
Our region went the opposite direction. We dropped an indexed Tire class a few years ago and went with an Open PAX indexed class. We promote the Open PAX as a place for intermediate-to-advanced drivers and those who are looking to compete at higher levels (Prosolo, Nats, etc) and also understand the PAX system (something newbs generally don't get). Anyone is allowed to run Open PAX or in the regular classes of course, but we really try to get the R-comp and fast Street Touring guys into Open PAX to help open up the regular classes to regional/slower competitors.

[cody]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Swing and a miss dude.

Ack!

[Joeyy]

Is this split written in stone yet and will there be one PAX champion or two?

[Nick Koan]

Nothing is written in stone just yet, but it sounds like everyone is leaning towards 4 pax championships now. Open, Open Ladies, Street Tire and Street Tire Ladies.

Also, for classes it will only be the Stock, Street Prepared and Street Modified classes that are eligible for the Street Tire classes.

[Joeyy]

Originally Posted by Nick Koan

Nothing is written in stone just yet, but it sounds like everyone is leaning towards 4 pax championships now. Open, Open Ladies, Street Tire and Street Tire Ladies.

Also, for classes it will only be the Stock, Street Prepared and Street Modified classes that are eligible for the Street Tire classes.

Thanks for the quick reply Nick.

[Dean]

I don't think splitting hurts anything or anyone unless you value a piece of Lucite or other chachki handed out at the end of the season.

I still compared my times to Matt's, Ken's and Ray's in BSP as well as Mike's obviously, and I'm pretty sure at least Matt did likewise to Mike and I. I know at least the 3 Subaru drivers did so after almost every run. We would talk smack as well as talk about how we were driving the course, etc. which I think was a benefit to all of us. This rule change isn't going to change any of that, and that IMHO is the core of what is great about this club. In general we are more likely to help and encourage our fellow drivers than to hoard information and wish them ill.

Competitive people will find ways to compare themselves to others and we should encourage that by continuing to publish a T modified time in our results in addition to raw times for Street tire cars so those who choose to compare can do so easily and those who don't want to know can choose not to. Debbie ran RNP a bunch of times last year, Debbie, did you still compare your times to other's?

Heck, I know at least some of us compare our T raw times with R drivers in other classes and get a big kick when we are faster than them without the modifier.

There is no perfect T factor and there is no perfect inter class factor. I would like to see the PAX trophies dropped for the same reasons we split T & R. As somebody who has looked at the math, I know PAX is broken and unfair and does not really equalize anything and believe it causes as much gripping as the T factor if not more.

You know what would be interesting... making a points system similar to bowling handicapping. With each event, you get a new adjustment based on how you have done in the past. Major race series do this all the time by adding weight or changing intake sizes on winners and losers, we could do something similar only add or subtract time based on finishing position. you might actually get some interest in such a system not based on PAX.

Those types of systems usually reward consistency and slight improvement over time. Isn't that what we are looking for?

[Joeyy]

Originally Posted by Dean

You know what would be interesting... making a points system similar to bowling handicapping. With each event, you get a new adjustment based on how you have done in the past. major race series do this all the time by adding weight or changing intake sizes on winners and losers, we could do something similar only add or subtract time based on finishing position. you might actually get some interest in such a system not based on PAX.

Those types of systems usually reward consistency and slight improvement over time. Isn't that what we are looking for?

I always thought the weight adjustments caused folks to sandbag a little.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by Dean

You know what would be interesting... making a points system similar to bowling handicapping. With each event, you get a new adjustment based on how you have done in the past.

Jim Gandy proposed this to me earlier this year.

[sperry]

Debbie, thanks a ton for all the comments. I think I understand more about what you're looking for out of the region. I certainly want a solution that keeps drivers like you and Mark happy and helps you guys get better on a national level.

I totally understand the want for racing in a regional championship where the doubt about "did I win/lose just because of the PAX factor?" is gone. I understand that does help competition, in that the competition is more pure.

On the other hand, we already have so many lightly contested classes, splitting RT and ST is only going to exacerbate that issue. I guess my perspective is that altitude already throws a question mark over the classes themselves, not to mention the PAX factors and street tire factor, such that no matter what, we're going to have over/underdog cars (not to mention the plain old issues w/ SCCA classes that every region worries about). Since we already race with unfair rules, what makes having a ST factor more unfair to the point where it's unacceptable? Is it having a factor at all (which seems to be what I'm hearing) or is it just the value selected for the factor?

If I could have my way, we'd agree upon a factor that keeps the ST folks from being excluded from class championship contention, but still allows those folks that spend the extra money on race tires, or that are looking for national level practice, an advantage... all while keeping classes as full as possible without having to go to groupings or bumping orders. i.e. I don't think things are broken from the way we were doing it last season with the integrated ST and PRO class for those that want to run without the ST folks, the only issue is the number for the ST factor itself. Personally I think the current factor isn't too far off considering the PAX results are dominated by RT cars, but changing the factor isn't a huge deal to me.

However, it appears I'm more and more in the minority on this, and I'm not hearing anything from the ST camp other than "meh, splitting them doesn't make a big difference to me". If I'm the only person that feels strongly that the split is unnecessary, I have no problem at all going the other direction. My goal truly is to make the club fun and useful to the majority, and if that means running under rules that I don't necessarily agree with, I can suck it up and get in the car and drive anyway... no hard feelings. After all, that's what a lot of the RT folks have been doing the last few seasons. I just want to make sure that the changes are in fact in the best interest of the club.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by MikeK

Jim Gandy proposed this to me earlier this year.

Probably after he read it in the email I wrote:

Originally Posted by sperry

...if the majority of members really would rather just bump up the competition locally and thumb their noses at the better drivers from other regions that come out, we should just dump all the SCCA classes, and just run three or four big classes and use a handicap system... you win, next time you get a +1 on your times. Think of it as the solo equivalent of victory weight.. victory cones. If we're going to manipulate the rules to generate competition, let's cut to the chase and actually start manipulating based ON results.

[MattR]

Originally Posted by dknv

Seconded!
Matt, you did a great job facilitating that discussion. Maybe you should think about politics someday!

Thanks! I don't know about politics, I have enough fun managing my 76 employees as it is . Don't say these things too loudly! I don't want to become the RE any time soon.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

...if the majority of members really would rather just bump up the competition locally and thumb their noses at the better drivers from other regions that come out, we should just dump all the SCCA classes, and just run three or four big classes and use a handicap system... you win, next time you get a +1 on your times. Think of it as the solo equivalent of victory weight.. victory cones. If we're going to manipulate the rules to generate competition, let's cut to the chase and actually start manipulating based ON results.

I was thinking something more ordinal than time based.

I've never done something like this before, but it can't be that hard. Almost like golf...

Anybody ever done one?

Starts something like this...
Damn Smilies... Fixed...

5 drivers, A-E, handicap = finish position -1 after first race, so 0 through 4 for the drivers after race 1. A=0h, B=1h, C-2h, D=3h, E-4h

Every one finishes in the same order A-E . Current standing(s) = Finishing position(p) - handicap(h)
A:p1-0h=1s B:p2-1h=1s C:p3-2h=1s, D:p4-3h=1s E:p5-4h=1s Everyone tied for first as it should be.

Ok, I think this is where my brain start to hurt... I'm not sure I got .these formulas right.

New Handicap(h) = old handicap(h) + current standing(s) - 1 Since everyone is tied for first,
new handicap(h) = 0h,1h,2h,3h,4h + s1,s1,s1,s1,s1 - 1 = same. A=0h, B=1h, C-2h, D=3h, E-4h

Finish ACBDE, so standings are
A:p1-0h=1s B:p3-1=2s C:p2-3h= -1s, D:p4-3h=1s E:p5-4=1s Order is now C,(ADE tied),B
New handicaps: A:0h+1s-1=0h B:1h+2s-1=2h C:3h+(-1s)-1=1h, D:3h+1s-1=3h E:4h+1s-1=1h

Something like that...

As you finish higher, your handicap gets lower and vice a versa...

So if you are a 4h and somebody else is a 15h if you have to beat them by 11 positions to maintain relative position in the standings. that sounds right...

[sperry]

Dean, as much ass as a well designed handicap system would kick, we will never get it passed the general membership because the vast majority of the club is not made up of mathematicians, computer programmers, and accountants.

[Dean]

If bowlers and golfers can understand handicapping systems, I think our group can as well. They don't have to understand the math, just the results and how to use their number.

I just realized, I think there is a handicapping system built into the AXWARE Software...

Somebody got current version? Mike??? Vitek killed my logon to download SW.

[Kevin M]

A handicap system is not really a good idea IMO. It rewards people who drove well relative to their own performance, not relative to their competition. The highest Handi-PAX finishers every week would be novices who are early in their learning curve that are still making huge improvements from event to event. Almost everyone involved in the debate of this thread is ecstatic if we can get two-tenths better times than we are shooting for by our final run, whereas first- and second-year drivers who are making the effort to go faster can easily see one to two second improvements in their PAX scores from one event to another.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

A handicap system is not really a good idea IMO. It rewards people who drove well relative to their own performance, not relative to their competition. The highest Handi-PAX finishers every week would be novices who are early in their learning curve that are still making huge improvements from event to event. Almost everyone involved in the debate of this thread is ecstatic if we can get two-tenths better times than we are shooting for by our final run, whereas first- and second-year drivers who are making the effort to go faster can easily see one to two second improvements in their PAX scores from one event to another.

Um... no.

Dean was talking about a rewards/penalty based system where your position relative to others determines your handicap. This is not a golf handicap system.

Either way, it'll never happen.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

Um... no.

Dean was talking about a rewards/penalty based system where your position relative to others determines your handicap. This is not a golf handicap system.

Either way, it'll never happen.

Okay, I guess I'm missing something.

As I understand it, a handicap system is intended to level the playing field for two competitiors who are at different skill levels. The one who played better relative to his or her usual level of play is the winner, not the one who was better on the absolute scale for the game in question. So I don't see how a system like that works for autocorss, when the whole idea of classing and PAX is to isolate the skill of each competitor so that other factors (budget, car choice, level of mods, etc.) aren't what solely determine the winner. I think "position relative to others" is not relevant to the arguments related to street tires. If you beat me by an average of 20 PAX spots this season, and the next event you only beat me by 5, does that mean I drove better than you, or does it mean you beat me by a smaller margin? I don't think improving relative to you should be a basis for awarding me a victory if you're still better than me by any objective/absolute scale of scoring. Or I could still be missing what you and Dean are actually trying to explain.