S.A.S.C.
Solo => SASC Events => Topic started by: MurrayPeterson on September 18, 2017, 09:39:44 AM
-
Access denied to your picture (but I know exactly what you mean anyway).
I played around with those elements all day, although I never did do it Ryan's way. However, I did try keeping more left after the kink, as well as letting the car drift far right like your video. I also tried a super tight line into the finish, as well as letting the car track out into the center of the finish lane.
The results were pretty inconclusive for me -- I never did find that .5 second I needed to move ahead of Quentin. All 5 of my afternoon times were within a tenth or so of each other (36.971, 36.833, 36.942, 36.858, 36.823).
-
I did exactly what Ryan did for all of my runs.
Granted looking at some of Reijo's photos from the event (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.10156043230731686&type=1) at the last corner it looks like Ryan was a bit wider than I was for that last corner before the finish... (I was around where Q was in the FR-S as far as car placement).
I see that James in the WRX kept it very tight from the photos i could see.
i was tempted to try your option Stephen but im 99% sure if I tried to lift/carry more speed through the kink and stay right it would be just a understeery mess in my car
-
I went with the same approach Stephen did, shedding lots of speed to maintain a very tight right hand arc into the finish (so much so that I coned the apex pylon of the right hander twice). I felt the biggest difference in my best afternoon lap was that I actually managed to stay very tight in that corner (whereas I was pushing out on exit in other laps), but unfortunately I didn't run data in the afternoon.
-
(I was around where Q was in the FR-S as far as car placement)
I would have said that I approached it the way Stephen did. I.E. I came out of the second slalom as fast as I possibly could without hitting the first cone on the INSIDE of the final sweeper. From there I had to bleed a fair bit of speed to get around last corner, and then accelerate briefly to the finish.
Ryan mentioned to me that he was bleeding speed all the way through that corner and across the finish, which I presume a wider entry allowed him to do.
-
I was braking right before the last offset slalom before the kink so that I could set up better and keep it tight for the final right hander.
-
Sound logs for yesterday attached.
You'll have to rotate the view in Adobe to look at these, I had to scan them in upside down due to the pages all being bent on the left hand side.
-
Quick brake tap right at the end of the slalom to set the front end and get the car to rotate, then keep it tight all the way around the right hander.
https://youtu.be/YBdIJrJw_78
-
(I was around where Q was in the FR-S as far as car placement)
I would have said that I approached it the way Stephen did. I.E. I came out of the second slalom as fast as I possibly could without hitting the first cone on the INSIDE of the final sweeper. From there I had to bleed a fair bit of speed to get around last corner, and then accelerate briefly to the finish.
Ryan mentioned to me that he was bleeding speed all the way through that corner and across the finish, which I presume a wider entry allowed him to do.
Interesting I was just assuming from where you car was that you went a bit wider, looking at the photos again, I see it was Shane driving... not you.
-
if i just go by the video and your discussion with Ryan. I would have modified your line and braked a bit more for the kink and keep the Maita speed up between the kink and the final corner.
You're covering more distance after the kink and giving up momentum (by the sound of the engine) ... perhaps you were losing time in between the kink and the final corner entry. Slowing down a tiny bit more meant you will travel less distance between the kink and the final turn as well at a *higher* avg speed. As a result, you would be able to make the final corner a larger radius corner.
The total distance cover would probably the same but one with higher average speed => short time
my backseat driving analysis ;D
-
Although it was a great course and it was, it was also a HP course.
Would Ryan still have won in Julie's ES Miata. I think not !
Not only is Ryan and extraordinary driver he's a fu..ing genius at picking the right car. When I see Ryan at the top of the PAX scales in an ES Miata I'll retract my previous comments and agree with Stephen that the Miata is the car to have, until then Im not convinced.
-
Since I'm never at the top of the index standings now you are right that an ES Miata is unlikely to change that :-\
THis was not a power course. In fact, through our first 4 runs each in the morning session Cam and I both were barely 1 tenth in front of Quentin in his not so powerful FRS and others. I personally took this as a clue that I should stop trying to drive it point and shoot and instead start concentrating on maximizing my speed in the corners (drive it like a Miata). That epiphany had me drop a 1 sec from my last run of the morning.
Cam's the real genius at picking cars :) Corvette is apparently always the right answer eh Terry?
-
I also do acknowledge that any normally aspirated car is at a distinct disadvantage at Calgary's altitude but that does not directly affect my car buying decisions :)
-
When I walked the course (four times total) I really thought it would be a power course but in practice driving it, it really wasn't. The tight corners are a real challenge in being patient on the throttle to deal with exit understeer, and the fast quick direction change (last slalom cone on the second slalom) and the very first eyebrow were excersizes in getting the timing right of a quick squeeze of the brakes to get the front of my car turned in and the rear rotated around so I could be on the throttle fully immediately and take advantage of all wheel drive acceleration grip. I don't feel like I ever got that left hander exiting the second slalom or the final corner strung together well at all.
-
Ryan's been grumbling my ear off all day, so let me share some of his thoughts on his behalf. :P
Firstly, here's a truer representation of the shape of the corner from his data: https://i.imgur.com/7bpcbd3.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/7bpcbd3.jpg).
Ryan points out that the line I drove (the blue line in B) actually covered more distance in addition to tightening the entrance to the sweeper. I think those are totally valid points.
He also points out that, although he shed about 20 kph for the kink, he gained all this speed back accelerating between the kink and the right-hand turn before having to brake again. While true, I think that with less than half the power, it would have been a lot harder for me to claw back any speed I shed going into the kink. I think it's reasonable to approach the kink slightly differently depending on the type of car being driven.
When I see Ryan at the top of the PAX scales in an ES Miata I'll retract my previous comments and agree with Stephen that the Miata is the car to have, until then Im not convinced.
I think you misunderstood what I said. I said (and maintain) that a Miata was the car to have on *that specific course at Fort Macleod*. A course that's heavy on slaloms, and where you're only making relatively small speed adjustments between elements, favors nimble cars over powerful ones. Conversely, courses with lots of heavy braking followed by long, straight acceleration zones favor power cars over nimble ones. I thought this Sunday's courses were pretty well balanced.
Like Ryan, I also suspect that lower-powered cars, especially normally-aspirated ones, are at a disadvantage in general locally -- both because of the altitude, and also because Red Deer courses invariably include multiple pin turns followed by acceleration zones that favor powerful cars. If my goal was to win PAX for the season, then I wouldn't pick a car with less than 200 hp (or ideally 300 hp). But we do have courses at Fort Macleod where a low-power car can not only win, but is the favorite to win.
-
Sorry, I sort of messed up splitting this topic ... missing the original post by Stephen so I'll try to recover that.
Anyway, this is such an interesting topic I thought we should separate it out so we can find it more easily later ... also that the topic deserved its' own title!
R
-
He also points out that, although he shed about 20 kph for the kink, he gained all this speed back accelerating between the kink and the right-hand turn before having to brake again. While true, I think that with less than half the power, it would have been a lot harder for me to claw back any speed I shed going into the kink. I think it's reasonable to approach the kink slightly differently depending on the type of car being driven.
I actually didn't point that out...or at least not like that as I didn't look at the data until this evening...and also don't think that is particularly relevant that I made the speed back. That said, I do believe a Miata would have made the speed back too, see below.
In the end, I do not accept that the correct line changes drastically from car to car. When I say line really I mean strategy...maybe you won't end up on the exact some line car to car but the what you are trying to do doesn't change. Even with little power you need to maximize the time on the throttle. Even with lots of power you can't drive triangles everywhere. I chose my line because it was the shortest distance from the end of the slalom to the finish lights. I would have attempted to do the exact same thing in a Miata. Lets not just look at power when deciding what to do in a Miata or 'low powered' car....because there is no such thing as a low powered and big and heavy and competitive autocross car. In an NB Miata that is some 1,000 pounds(!) lighter than my M2 I would not have had to slow nearly as much to make the left turn out of the slalom while being on the same line. Therefore would have had less to 'make up' on throttle. I would still have been on the shortest path to the finish and spent less time in the slow 180 degree turn.
It's possible I'm completely off the mark but I haven't heard a thing so far to change my mind.
-
Here's Stephen's 1st post for this topic that is missing. I don't see a way to post it where I want it unfortunately ... but at least it is here (I'll leave the other one separate for now just in case):
Had an interesting debate about line choice with Ryan after the event, and figured it could be an interesting topic for everyone else as well.
The last twenty seconds of the course consisted of a fairly quick slalom, followed by a left-hand link, followed by a fairly tight constant-radius right-hand turn, with the timing lights at the exit of that turn. In Julie's Miata, the slalom was fast enough that I was kissing the limiter at the end.
Here's my in-car video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L53EnYaLFuU?t=34. Skip to the 34 second mark if the link doesn't automatically.
Here's a map of the section: https://i.imgur.com/7bpcbd3.jpg.
My approach was to lift right before the kink, shed the absolute minimum amount of speed required to make it through, then let the car drift all the way track right. This meant I wasn't able to set up for the right-hander at all, but since there was no straightaway afterward, I figured a big brake and keeping it super tight through the corner was the right approach anyway. This is Option B above.
Ryan braked before the kink so that he could set up more for the right-hander. After a squirt of gas between the kink and the turn, he entered the right-hander much wider than I did, allowing him to carve a larger radius through the turn and carry more speed. This is Option A above.
I'm curious -- how did you all approach these elements? Did any of you try both approaches? If so, what did you think?
Ryan crushed me at this event, so if in doubt, he's probably right. :)
Edit: Updated the course map and the descriptions of Ryan's line.
-
When I see Ryan at the top of the PAX scales in an ES Miata I'll retract my previous comments and agree with Stephen that the Miata is the car to have, until then Im not convinced.
While you may never see me at the top of any PAX standings so may be safe there... I'll point out for those with short memories that our current Index king did just fine in an ES car with two dead cylinders in 2014.
To add insult to injury he was also tops in RAW ::)
-
He also points out that, although he shed about 20 kph for the kink, he gained all this speed back accelerating between the kink and the right-hand turn before having to brake again. While true, I think that with less than half the power, it would have been a lot harder for me to claw back any speed I shed going into the kink. I think it's reasonable to approach the kink slightly differently depending on the type of car being driven.
I actually didn't point that out...or at least not like that as I didn't look at the data until this evening...and also don't think that is particularly relevant that I made the speed back. That said, I do believe a Miata would have made the speed back too, see below.
In the end, I do not accept that the correct line changes drastically from car to car. When I say line really I mean strategy...maybe you won't end up on the exact some line car to car but the what you are trying to do doesn't change. Even with little power you need to maximize the time on the throttle. Even with lots of power you can't drive triangles everywhere. I chose my line because it was the shortest distance from the end of the slalom to the finish lights. I would have attempted to do the exact same thing in a Miata. Lets not just look at power when deciding what to do in a Miata or 'low powered' car....because there is no such thing as a low powered and big and heavy and competitive autocross car. In an NB Miata that is some 1,000 pounds(!) lighter than my M2 I would not have had to slow nearly as much to make the left turn out of the slalom while being on the same line. Therefore would have had less to 'make up' on throttle. I would still have been on the shortest path to the finish and spent less time in the slow 180 degree turn.
It's possible I'm completely off the mark but I haven't heard a thing so far to change my mind.
After I walked the course in the morning the first time I had it memorized. I thought what an easy course to memorize ... and drive? hehe ... I guess I was wrong. :)
Of course, I helped setup the course on the evening before but that is never the same as walking the course with the purpose of analysing what you need to do.
Interestingly enough, by coincidence more than anything, I drove two very different cars (BMod thingie with aero, and a 2005 M3 STU car). Unfortunately we got disqualified on sound in the BMod (but that is another story ... it seems the wind shifted and despite our efforts to reduce sound, sound got worse ... but that is another topic).
In the end, Clara kindly offered her M3 to drive in the afternoon which you could say was more of a momentum car - not overly powerful, much wider and no aero.
1. The B-Mod car - was surprisingly powerful (670cc Rotax/CVT trans - hence BMod ... and not FM (max. 500 cc) ... never mind the aero) and, of course, very narrow and short.
For the first run I was plagued by being tossed around in the seat side-to-side resulting in jerkiness in steering compounded by massive understeer which meant I picked up a number of cones. Warned on sound (think it was 92.9 db).
2nd run - tighten the seat belts = more control but still tossed about in the cabin and picked up more cones but the time picked up a few seconds. Massive understeer: I tried everything I could to get some traction/weight on the front wheels but there is only so much you can do. The second slalom was flat out in that thing! Keep steering! lol ... fun stuff. At the end of the slalom, interestingly enough, the car turned in! I think the front wing at speed was starting to work so I could actually steer the car. A light lift, turn-in as per Ryan's method (shortest distance more or less) seemed to work really well and I thought was the ideal line. Even with the speed, I could basically choose whatever line I wanted - such was the turn-in. Over on sound despite the mods (93.0 db). Or is that right on? Another discussion for the future.
3rd (and final) run: One more mod to sound and now I used my fleece jacket between the body work/frame and myself to hold myself in position. The run was much better however this time we blew over 94 db despite our "improvement"! After the run I got out of the car (I had sat in the car the entire 3 runs due to difficulty of getting in and out) and noticed that the wind had shifted toward the sound across the track. Anyway, we called it quits there. Incidentally on that last run I also changed my line into the final corner to aid the sound so I went wider to be further from the sound and more like the line Stephen mentioned. My time was about a second faster (and 1st clean run) however that was more due to learning the car, controlling the massive understeer as best I could (slow in the corners .. ugh!), and actually being held in place better by the belts and fleece padding! But that last run did not seem like the ideal line after the 2nd slalom since I had to slow down more to make that last corner ... and longer distance. The last corner felt slow in comparison to the first two runs.
2. M3/afternoon: Obviously this is a much heavier car but a good, balanced car but not with the greatest tires (Continentals - current DW equivalent) and stock alignment. I had to slow down for all the 2nd slalom cones and for the left kink at the end of the slalom because I would've shot past the next pointer otherwise (a certain difference in momentum, eh?). Nevertheless, a quick stab on the brake and the car would rotate into the kink however with the greater mass and the tires, it did not want to turn as much as I would have liked so I went with the flow and probably drove a line in between what Stephen and Ryan were talking about. I think with some alignment work and better tires, I could have got the car further to the left or obviously more brake. Basically I compromised and went with the flow and it ended up being a hybrid run shall we say (no pun intended :) ). Hmmm....so interestingly I found a slightly "different" line seemed to work for this car.
I agree with Ryan's comments in that (don't remember who said this originally) that all cars are momentum cars - e.g. you drive the same line. In fact, that is one of my "secrets" of why I can drive so fast in almost any car! I drive the same line. Go figure, eh? :) Even in a so-called HP car, it takes much longer to accelerate back to speed than it takes to lose the speed (look at distances/time/G's for braking and acceleration ... braking is superior). Momentum is the way to drive fast in any car - QED.
And, in the words of Joe Cheng (of Vancouver and A-Mod fame from the '90's some time), if in doubt (about line), choose the shortest distance (in autox). That way, you may or may not have the ideal line but you will certainly not lose much to the "ideal" line ... maybe a tenth or two. BTW, in my opinion, it is also one of the reasons road racers don't often make good autoxers because of the different lines.
As a final note, I found Murray's comment interesting and telling in that he did not find much difference no matter which line he used (his runs were within tenths of each other). So, in the end, I have a suspicion that there was not a whole lot of difference in the time based on line (within reason - not including extreme) in that last section as long as you drove it well which is interesting! I think this would have been a good time for data analysis to really figure it out. And, as I found out, i.t could be a little bit dependent on the car.
As for that B-Mod, I figure it could have gone a couple of seconds faster with more wing in the front (e.g. fill in the wing missing in the center of the car - more than doubling the front wing area) which would have given the front end some bite in the corners and hence more speed in the bigger but slower corners. I suspect it needs more work on alignment as well as spring rates (I was picking up the inside front wheel coming out of corners which was kinda fun but indicative of not enough spring rate in the back due to compression). It is a work in progress. Look for it to go faster. As for sound he can't do more with pipes but he could put up more body work to "hide" the engine and Dave said he was going to put a turbo on it to silence it some more! LOL Thanks Dave! That was a fun ride! :)
-
I'll just add a bit of a disclaimer here: I'm not entirely sure I am correct either!
Some data analysis would've been the best way to figure this one out ...
And a final note, reflecting upon this a bit, I think I was adjusting to the M3 more and more each run, incrementally cleaning up the runs/corners/slaloms/inputs etc. and I found I was carrying more and more speed in the 2nd slalom and as the speed picked up I was tending to drift slightly more and more to the right closer to Stephen's line. A couple of times I had to dodge the next cone around the kink ... so pretty far out. However there did not seem to be as much difference in the final corner speed compared to the B-Mod. Curious.
-
I have a simulator where I can set up autox courses of my choice and run them with cars of my choice. If I have enough time (probably this winter), I will set up something like that sequence and go at it repeatedly. Or if anyone else wants to have a go, let me know and we can make an evening of the exercise.
-
I have a simulator where I can set up autox courses of my choice and run them with cars of my choice. If I have enough time (probably this winter), I will set up something like that sequence and go at it repeatedly. Or if anyone else wants to have a go, let me know and we can make an evening of the exercise.
Ooooooo.......now that could be fun! hahahaha
Count me in!
R
-
Ryan says
because there is no such thing as a low powered and big and heavy and competitive autocross car. In an NB Miata that is some 1,000 pounds lighter than my M2 I would not have had to slow nearly as much to make the left turn out of the slalom while being on the same line.
That's because the Miata wouldn't have been going as fast.
I wholeheartedly agree with Stephen to win in PAX at YYC a 300 HP car is a real advantage, that must mean that a big HP car has an advantage, and by definition the lowered powered car is disadvantaged. Just take a look at the time difference between the fastest RAW big power Corvette and the low powered CS Miata of Murray, who is one of our very best drivers, 3.992 slower, than the Corvette. I buy 3 tenths, or even 8 tenths difference, but Murray nearly 4 seconds slower, no sorry dont buy it.
My argument all along is that PAX isn't accurate and is dependant on course design.
I am more than happy to let any of our quickest drivers in high powered car, Cam, Ryan, Tom, Stephen borrow my car and see if they can beat or equal their own time in a low powered car.
Who'd like to take the challenge???
-
That's because the Miata wouldn't have been going as fast.
I have to disagree with you here Terry. The Miata may be acceleration limited, but those increasing offsets in the slalom would allow a lighter car to go much faster. The Miata should be the one needing extra braking.
-
(http://qrgarage.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sept17-line-choice.jpg)
I imagined that I was doing something like C, taking an obviously shorter line with a faster exit from the slalom. Slowing down to get left was not a consideration...
It feels like this was the wrong choice - something I chalk up to my inability to see the exact lay of the land during my walk. I think if I grew a few more inches, I could really get that birds eye view that I'm looking for.
I may also be horrifically impatient on course, and often overdrive the car, carrying too much speed into elements and thinking it's OK because the car still fits between the lines.
-
Looking at Stephen's video as well as the Reijo's photos, it appears that there are/were three approaches to the corner:
1. Keep the most speed possible past the last slalom cone
This appeared to be Stephen's line, and I feel that it adds distance without gaining any speed into the finish. He ends up close to the first cone on the final curve (see 37 second mark in his video).
2. Go for shortest distance (point to point)
Aim for the leftmost cone of the final curve that is visible after the slalom exit. In other words, go in a straight line from the slalom exit to a point tangent to the final curve, and then follow the curve around into the finish. From Stephen's video, this means that the second cone of the curve is where the car comes closest.
This is how I drove this element most often. And what Quentin shows.
3. Backside the final turn
More distance here, but allows a longer acceleration zone into the finish line. Keep left longer, and then turn in so that you do not comes close to either the first or second cones of the final curve, but the 3rd and last cone is where you come closest.
Ryan -- was #3 your line choice? The photo evidence suggests that this is the case.
-
Quentin -- I love your diagram, but I think things are a bit misleading. The actual finish is very close to the point where the curve finishes, not way out right. Which means the acceleration zone is very small after coming around the corner. Which makes it not so obvious that your line was wrong.
-
That's because the Miata wouldn't have been going as fast.
I have to disagree with you here Terry. The Miata may be acceleration limited, but those increasing offsets in the slalom would allow a lighter car to go much faster. The Miata should be the one needing extra braking.
You cant be serious, if the lighter car is going much faster, how do you explain your nearly 4 seconds slower than fastest RAW.
-
That's because the Miata wouldn't have been going as fast.
I have to disagree with you here Terry. The Miata may be acceleration limited, but those increasing offsets in the slalom would allow a lighter car to go much faster. The Miata should be the one needing extra braking.
You cant be serious, if the lighter car is going much faster, how do you explain your nearly 4 seconds slower than fastest RAW.
I didn't say faster for the entire course, just at that particular point. Ryan's car will get up to maximum speed in that slalom long before me. However, due to his car's weight and width, that maximum speed will be slower than the Miata's.
-
That's because the Miata wouldn't have been going as fast.
I have to disagree with you here Terry. The Miata may be acceleration limited, but those increasing offsets in the slalom would allow a lighter car to go much faster. The Miata should be the one needing extra braking.
You cant be serious, if the lighter car is going much faster, how do you explain your nearly 4 seconds slower than fastest RAW.
I didn't say faster for the entire course, just at that particular point. Ryan's car will get up to maximum speed in that slalom long before me. However, due to his car's weight and width, that maximum speed will be slower than the Miata's.
As long as your convinced I guess that's all that matters.
Standing half way along the 1st slalom which where I marshalled Ryan and Cam where noticeably quicker than anyone else by a country mile.
-
As long as your convinced I guess that's all that matters.
Umm, are you trying to deny the laws of physics here? Given equal lateral grip (and equal driving skills), a lighter car can go through a slalom faster than a heavier car and a narrower car can go through a slalom faster than a wider car.
Now, Ryan can certainly drive better than I can, but I don't think his car has more grip than mine. So, in any slalom, I should be able to gain on Ryan in the latter part of any slalom where I am not speed limited by my rev limiter. It's about the only place where I can gain on him, but hey, I'll take what I can get :)
-
So, Reijo, re: comment that road racers don't make good autoxers, do autoxers make good road racers?
-
As long as your convinced I guess that's all that matters.
Umm, are you trying to deny the laws of physics here? Given equal lateral grip (and equal driving skills), a lighter car can go through a slalom faster than a heavier car and a narrower car can go through a slalom faster than a wider car.
Now, Ryan can certainly drive better than I can, but I don't think his car has more grip than mine. So, in any slalom, I should be able to gain on Ryan in the latter part of any slalom where I am not speed limited by my rev limiter. It's about the only place where I can gain on him, but hey, I'll take what I can get :)
So if Ryan is slower than you down the slaloms, where is he taking 4 seconds off you? in the other short sections, sorry, I dont by it. I dont believe for a nano-second that Ryan is a 4 second better driver than you in a sub 40 second lap, but if your convinced then be happy. :)
-
So if Ryan is slower than you down the slaloms, where is he taking 4 seconds off you? in the other short sections, sorry, I dont buy. I dont believe for a nano-second that Ryan is a 4 second better driver than you in a sub 40 second lap, but if your convinced then be happy. :)
I am only faster than him after my car manages to get up to speed in a slalom, which is only the last little bit. He is not slower than me for the entire slalom, so he is gaining time pretty well everywhere.
-
So if Ryan is slower than you down the slaloms, where is he taking 4 seconds off you? in the other short sections, sorry, I dont buy. I dont believe for a nano-second that Ryan is a 4 second better driver than you in a sub 40 second lap, but if your convinced then be happy. :)
I am only faster than him after my car manages to get up to speed in a slalom, which is only the last little bit. He is not slower than me for the entire slalom, so he is gaining time pretty well everywhere.
Why because he has more HP?
-
You're definitely missing something here Terry and there's just no having this debate when we can't agree on the fundamentals. A 3400lbs car that is top heavy and as wide as a Corvette is debatably even competitive in BStreet never mind the car to have dominate your local PAX.
Also, I'm absolutely not claiming that YOUR car necessarily has any hope on index. But I would say that in a top car for its class that has been prepared and sorted properly (save my disclaimer regarding our altitude) a top driver will index well. Of course the system isn't perfect and can't account for everything but on average this has already been proven the case for years here at this club.
-
As long as your convinced I guess that's all that matters.
Umm, are you trying to deny the laws of physics here? Given equal lateral grip (and equal driving skills), a lighter car can go through a slalom faster than a heavier car and a narrower car can go through a slalom faster than a wider car.
Now, Ryan can certainly drive better than I can, but I don't think his car has more grip than mine. So, in any slalom, I should be able to gain on Ryan in the latter part of any slalom where I am not speed limited by my rev limiter. It's about the only place where I can gain on him, but hey, I'll take what I can get :)
So if Ryan is slower than you down the slaloms, where is he taking 4 seconds off you? in the other short sections, sorry, I dont by it. I dont believe for a nano-second that Ryan is a 4 second better driver than you in a sub 40 second lap, but if your convinced then be happy. :)
Am I crazy, or didn't Ryan only raw Murray by 1.3 second? (Murray 36.8 in afternoon, Ryan 35.5) Or what is the 4 seconds you're referring to?
-
He is sensationalizing things in an attempt to prove a point that isn't there.
Murray was actually only 1.7 indexed seconds behind Cam (which is more relevant) over two courses are less than 1 indexed second behind per course. Even less behind me. Quentin, in a car with even less thrust than Murray, was closer still.
-
And he only beat me by 0.52 seconds in the morning. Unfortunately, CS has a tough PAX index this year (that's my excuse :) ), so I needed to be within .2 seconds of his time for the day.
To be honest though, Sunday's courses had me hoping that I could do it -- that was seriously Miata friendly course. Very few points where I had to brake, and very little braking even there.
Edit: Ignoring the PAX "whinge", I really think driving skill was a prime factor on Sunday. I just needed to be better, pretty well everywhere.
-
Umm, are you trying to deny the laws of physics here?
Yes.
/discussion
-
This discussion has nothing to do with the laws of physics its to do with PAX & HP. Put Ryan and Cam in the M2 & then move both to a ES Miata and my best guess is on last Sundays course the M2 would be quicker. Which is exactly why Stephen was down in 13th place.
-
This discussion has nothing to do with the laws of physics its to do with PAX & HP. Put Ryan and Cam in the M2 & then move both to a ES Miata and my best guess is on last Sundays course the M2 would be quicker. Which is exactly why Stephen was down in 13th place.
As Ryan pointed out, a couple years back Cam in his 120hp MR2 put everyone and everything in the ground, so I don't think it's necessarily true.
That said, there is certainly a difference between our local course design and altitude, from the general average south of the border on which PAX is based. The index is still king for me though, and the only thing I look at when examining local results...
-
This discussion has nothing to do with the laws of physics its to do with PAX & HP.
Neither has anything to do with this thread anymore?
Maybe start a 'All our courses favor power' / 'PAX doesn't work in general (again)' thread? Then those inclined can re-hash the debate without having to stumble upon it in another thread. Or maybe it's the Line choice discussion that would be quicker to move haha
-
So, Reijo, re: comment that road racers don't make good autoxers, do autoxers make good road racers?
lol ... I knew someone would pick up on this. :) However, not to rain on anyone's parade here, but autoxers DO make very good road racers with very good car control skills - Randy Pobst being an example ... Jason Isley another etc. Even some of our local road racers who have done well have come from autox! Chris S. being one example.
Think of it this way, in autox we throw the cars around with abandon (well, not quite entirely), at the very limits ... basically like qualifying laps - every run. We don't have to conserve brakes, tires or worry about overheating etc. You simply cannot drive like that on the track. Even my stock-engined Miata back in the day could only do a few laps of Race City at the limits before I had to slow down to cool down the brakes (pedal was going soft! With 116 hp! .. indicated 171-172 kph max. down the 1/2 mile front straight and maybe 155 in turn 1 ... so not much braking needed even there.) and the tires would get greasy. After a lap or so, I could start pushing again but in the end it would be faster over a 20 minute session to slow down a bit and be able to keep a higher overall speed via not overheating the brakes and tires.
Autox? Well, you don't really have that problem, except that on "hot" days and more so with 2 drivers, you will have to cool the tires with a water sprayer.
Another factor is the intensity and how fast elements come at you. On the road course, you will have an opportunity to check your gages, mirrors, etc. on straights. Ever try that at an autox? Ever look in the rear view mirror to see if you hit a cone? Not a good idea. You'll probably end up off-course, lost or off-line!
And, of course, we all build habits. So if you have a built-up habit of under-driving the car to conserve tires and brakes? What happens when you all of a sudden go to an autox?
So, where am I going with this?
1. Well, I'm firmly of the opinion that road racers could learn a few things from autox and sharpen their car control skills by coming out and running the occasional autox.
2. In fact, even more importantly, I think everyone wanting to road race or track their car should really take an autox school (or more) and, ideally, do at least a few events before venturing onto the big track.
The consequences of an "off" or a spin are usually a lot less at an autox than at a track ... even without concrete barriers. We have had people wreck/write-off cars on their first autox ... more than once locally sad to say. What would have happened on a track? The visuals are not good.
But this leads into another topic that has come up and been mentioned in driver's meetings - the recent rash of crashes/incidents at autox's across Canada. ASN-FiA Canada is looking into this and we have also been trying to be proactive about this issue as well.
One of the common factors has been driver inexperience (often on their very first event!) and then (and I might add grossly) over-driving their cars. I did not hear of a single "incident" involving an experienced driver (guess we have learned something - go figure?). If you begin throwing a car around with abandon, bad things can and do happen. Those factors seem to be the common theme in those "incidents". We want to reduce them, obviously. They are not good for sport, people and, of course, those involved. It is not a good day when you wreck your car.
I think we may be looking and discussing that issue at the coming WCMA AGM in Leduc in a few weeks mid-October. And, of course, future planning for the upcoming year is also discussed, elections/appointments etc.
By the way everyone is welcome to attend and the cost if right: Free! :)
So, solo/autox people please feel free to come out and find out what has been happening across the region and not just in solo but also in road racing and other forms of motorsport. Apparently Jim is working in Europe and will not be able to make it so I'll be leading the solo/autox group meeting in the afternoon after lunch. There is an awards banquet in the evening and everyone is welcome to stay for that as well. Most stay overnight at the hotel or one nearby - plenty of choices there.
-
Ryan says
because there is no such thing as a low powered and big and heavy and competitive autocross car. In an NB Miata that is some 1,000 pounds lighter than my M2 I would not have had to slow nearly as much to make the left turn out of the slalom while being on the same line.
That's because the Miata wouldn't have been going as fast.
I wholeheartedly agree with Stephen to win in PAX at YYC a 300 HP car is a real advantage, that must mean that a big HP car has an advantage, and by definition the lowered powered car is disadvantaged. Just take a look at the time difference between the fastest RAW big power Corvette and the low powered CS Miata of Murray, who is one of our very best drivers, 3.992 slower, than the Corvette. I buy 3 tenths, or even 8 tenths difference, but Murray nearly 4 seconds slower, no sorry dont buy it.
My argument all along is that PAX isn't accurate and is dependant on course design.
I am more than happy to let any of our quickest drivers in high powered car, Cam, Ryan, Tom, Stephen borrow my car and see if they can beat or equal their own time in a low powered car.
Who'd like to take the challenge???
OK, gentlemen, the lines are drawn! Shall we set up the time and place of the duel?
How much tire do you have left, Terry?
How about October 1 at the YYC event at the conclusion of the day after all the official runs are done.
Rules: Each driver will get 3 runs with watering of tires etc. provided for to ensure consistent tire temps and no overheating. Other rules such cones counting etc. will be the same.
I suggest Terry goes first since he is the most used to the car on cold tires etc. and would be disadvantaged the least and we will draw lots or flip coins for the rest of the run order.
Winner will be based on normal solo rules with the best/fastest run including cone penalties, DNF's etc. counting.
Participants (let me know who is in): Terry, Murray, Ryan, Stephen, Cam - any others?
We can compensate Terry for tire wear, gasoline upon agreement etc.
Sound good?
Any further suggestions?
:)
-
Or maybe it's the Line choice discussion that would be quicker to move haha
I want to get back to the line choice debate/discussion. I like Quentin's latest diagrams, although I want to see the "real" finish line marked on them.
The choice between Quentin's line and Ryan's line is interesting for a finish line that is very close. Does backsiding work best when the acceleration zone is small, or does shortest line win? And how much distance for acceleration count in this situation? How much line difference is dependant on thrust?
This one seems to deserve it's own test and tune. With data collection and analysis in addition to just the clock.
-
OK, gentlemen, the lines are drawn! Shall we set up the time and place of the duel?
How much tire do you have left, Terry?
How about October 1 at the YYC event at the conclusion of the day after all the official runs are done.
Rules: Each driver will get 3 runs with watering of tires etc. provided for to ensure consistent tire temps and no overheating. Other rules such cones counting etc. will be the same.
I suggest Terry goes first since he is the most used to the car on cold tires etc. and would be disadvantaged the least and we will draw lots or flip coins for the rest of the run order.
Winner will be based on normal solo rules with the best/fastest run including cone penalties, DNF's etc. counting.
Participants (let me know who is in): Terry, Murray, Ryan, Stephen, Cam - any others?
We can compensate Terry for tire wear, gasoline upon agreement etc.
Sound good?
Any further suggestions?
:)
Wow,
I learned so much from reading this thread but moreso, its exciting to see friendly "call outs" or grudge match styled racing coming to AutoX.
Thats usually reserved for the drag scene.
I'm expected to be up north on that Oct1 weekend but I'm thinking I need to feed the wife an excuse so I can be present to watch this battle ::)
-
Sorry Reijo, I have no idea what Terry is even arguing? I suspect he doesn't either. Maybe you can translate?
In the post you quote above he is suggesting it's crazy Tom (in an SSP Vette on Hoosiers) raw timed Murray (in a CS Miata on street tires) by 4 seconds (actually ONLY by ~2sec per course) and offers that as evidence that PAX doesn't work. All the while ignoring the fact that Murray beat Tom on index. All this of course on a course that he contends is a Power course.
I don't think Terry knows what PAX is and what it is used for. His car is the wrong choice for CS and it is questionably prepared if at all. I don't see anyone arguing that any driver should be able to jump in it and come anywhere close to Tom Gs raw times on any day on any course...except Terry...confusingly enough.
-
Here's my video with telemtry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qxgoO7OTIU
I'm interested to know if higher powered cars were significantly faster than the corolla through the kink, I look to be at around 73kph before lifting. I'm a ultra low powered car (~100hp atw new 26 years ago).
I take Line A. I do think I have a video of taking line B. I will try and get a side by side to see what difference there is tongiht. Fastest time in afternoon was a 39.6
-
I am more than happy to let any of our quickest drivers in high powered car, Cam, Ryan, Tom, Stephen borrow my car and see if they can beat or equal their own time in a low powered car.
Who'd like to take the challenge???
OK, gentlemen, the lines are drawn! Shall we set up the time and place of the duel?
Participants (let me know who is in): Terry, Murray, Ryan, Stephen, Cam - any others?
I am 100% in, and would be happy to contribute to expenses.
-
Sure, I'll buy into this challenge. Win or lose, sounds like a *lot* of fun.
-
I only recorded data in the morning, here are 4 of my laps over those sections.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jdxYCshW0ZdMM-p8K1kD-Wrvuq16ejJ4Yw
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kmOK5rpZzJ86b6B2HTkCVjL5cX4TWI99UQ
https://drive.google.com/open?id=14qmfEc-DMLK3WkfP-r6rh75W2RvDQH_VnQ
Between the three images, you can see my car speed at various points, and the time delta for the lines. Unfortunately it looks like lap 2 was perhaps just driven better (third image), since I had lots of speed mid corner despite the tighter line.
-
Same data output but for Tom Kerns:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RPFMdwQQ1AZIq7NtP8WruAC2swPD84vvCg
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WFQKSlNRP3etYE-b671DXKLwxhkNmGxxnw
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZkIZkzY2Jx7tPi5O2B0FMVN-JVU7AWekFg
-
Sorry Reijo, I have no idea what Terry is even arguing? I suspect he doesn't either. Maybe you can translate?
In the post you quote above he is suggesting it's crazy Tom (in an SSP Vette on Hoosiers) raw timed Murray (in a CS Miata on street tires) by 4 seconds (actually ONLY by ~2sec per course) and offers that as evidence that PAX doesn't work. All the while ignoring the fact that Murray beat Tom on index. All this of course on a course that he contends is a Power course.
I don't think Terry knows what PAX is and what it is used for. His car is the wrong choice for CS and it is questionably prepared if at all. I don't see anyone arguing that any driver should be able to jump in it and come anywhere close to Tom Gs raw times on any day on any course...except Terry...confusingly enough.
Ryan, I agree with that there are some mistaken notions about what PAX (Professional Autocross Index - by Rick Ruth) is.
So let's rehash what it is:
But, first adding a bit of humour to this (a video Rick Ruth put on YouTube):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uouXAYx--fI
So what is PAX/RTP (Racer's Theoretical Performance)?
1. It is not an official SCCA standard. Although I noticed this year for the first time they included PAX times for National level events. In the past they did not post PAX results.
2. There is a separate PAX set of numbers for Pro Solo. They are not the same. I believe Howard Duncan may be taking care of the Pro Solo PAX if I am not mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong.
3. The PAX/RTP numbers are generated by Rick Ruth. Yep, one person looks after this on his own volition. He studies results from National-level events and also some other ones from some bigger and key regions (e.g. CalClub/LA is one of them).
Here's a listing of the events that Rick uses to do his calculations (I think he omits some of them if it, say, rains):
http://solotime.info/pax/rtp2017.html
So how do you explain these PAX/RTP numbers?
Well, obviously Rick compares the relative times of competitors from major events and then calculates an approximate index number so that you can compare times between classes. A-Mod, being the fastest class, is assigned a value of 1.0. The rest of the classes go down from there.
Interestingly enough when Joe Cheng and Gary Milligan (both are from the Vancouver, BC area) re-wrote the book a couple of times on how you build an A-Mod and decimate the competition, PAX values went down for everyone across the board. Same thing happens on a smaller scale for a class such as when someone builds a new ringer car for any class including stock classes (e.g. the new MX-5/Miata is doing this now).
So what does all this mean?
Well, generally, SCCA National level events are held to a particular standard for course design, the way the events are held and even the lots where they are run. Often they are run on huge lots and they aim for mostly flowing courses, lined, marked out well etc. (see Roger Johnson's Course Design Manual) and there are often 250 or more competitors. They are held at huge venues like major sports arenas, race tracks and airports (often military).
There is some variance due to the surface and venue - age, concrete or asphalt, elevation, weather etc. I know Rick tends to ignore wet results for the most part. I don't know if he accounts for elevation and temperature etc.. And, of course, he also follows people and who are at the top of the rankings for the most part because they tend to have fully or nearly fully prepared car and drive them well.
Rick observes the results from every year and if it appears that some class has sped up all of a sudden due to a new car that has not been re-classified, he may or may not adjust the PAX for that class or might wait a year to confirm it. That is often caused by some new technology (e.g. 275-35-15 Hoosiers) or some new car that is substantially faster than the last generation of competitive cars.
It is an immense task that Rick has taken on and by no means the end-all and be-all of comparing results. It is not perfect. It can never be perfect. But it is the best that we have.
If a region is really far north (let's say Edmonton), with cold weather, a small venue on asphalt, small tight course designs (not saying that is what they are running ... this is just an example), and very few cars that are fully prepared to the letter of the rules. Will the PAX appear fair or consistent for them? More than likely not, although in some cases by sheer fluke they may.
So in the end there are a lot of factors that figure in and if you really want to know where you stand, prepare your car and yourself (especially), and go south and compete at a big Tour or even the SCCA Nationals and find out where you "really" stand. :)
Well, I could write a book on this topic, but there is no time for that right now on this one thread on our forum. Hopefully this gives everyone a bit more understanding into what PAX is. In the end it can be a useful tool to compare yourself with others locally but take the results with a grain of salt and realize that the original parameters may not entirely reflect ours. We do try and set up National-style courses and methods of operating as much as possible and often even copy elements from Tours/Nationals etc. if we can. Our best lot right now if YYC obviously and even it is a bit on the small side for a SCCA National style event as many of us know but it is not bad.
Hopefully my rambling on this note is not too confusing and makes sense. Take a look at the site mentioned above for more information. Just for fun, I noticed the 2007 Nationals from Heartland Park were also listed there and I placed 6th in PAX at the event in Bill's CSP Miata. Not bad. :)
-
Here's some really good and more background info on PAX/RTP (incidentally, maybe we should be rightfully calling it the RTP index!) almost directly from Rick Ruth and presented by our friends just south of us in Great Falls:
http://www.greatfallsracing.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2310
R
-
Also, keep in mind that Rick Ruth can assign PAX values "out of the blue", with aerguments that don't ring right to me. And of course, there are the new cars to a class (2016 Miata), where he has to make some sort of a wild-assed guess. Next year, one hopes the PAX will align with the other classed.
However, I must note that I came in 32th overall PAX at Packwood this year, and that aligns with my belief about how well I drove. Cam PAXed 16th, and Ryan 21st. So, probably no (relative) change to PAX values for CS this year. Basically, I need to drive very, very close to the same scratch times as BS cars (Hi Ryan!).
-
My suggestion is after the event is over, we get the top 2 guys in PAX, (probably Ryan or Cam) and let them do their thing in my car. If they equal their PAX time in my car I will retract my statements and admit defeat. I will choose the event just in case the top 2 PAX winners are sand bagging.
The issue for me is about course design, HP & PAX not creating a level playing field.
Who wants to play :)
-
Also, keep in mind that Rick Ruth can assign PAX values "out of the blue", with aerguments that don't ring right to me. And of course, there are the new cars to a class (2016 Miata), where he has to make some sort of a wild-assed guess. Next year, one hopes the PAX will align with the other classed.
However, I must note that I came in 32th overall PAX at Packwood this year, and that aligns with my belief about how well I drove. Cam PAXed 16th, and Ryan 21st. So, probably no (relative) change to PAX values for CS this year. Basically, I need to drive very, very close to the same scratch times as BS cars (Hi Ryan!).
And if we think of it from Rick's perspective, what choice does he have. A new popular car comes along like the new MX-5/Miata and people "have" to know what the PAX nos. are. A WAG is the only way.
Another thing to note here is that the SCCA affects the whole picture as well via classification of cars. Some times an overdog car ends up in a class and changes it entirely .... as well as the RTP.
So there is a lot to this. :)
-
My suggestion is after the event is over, we get the top 2 guys in PAX, (probably Ryan or Cam) and let them do their thing in my car. If they equal their PAX time in my car I will retract my statements and admit defeat. I will choose the event just in case the top 2 PAX winners are sand bagging.
The issue for me is about course design, HP & PAX not creating a level playing field.
That experiment's doomed to fail, because if PAX works correctly, Ryan and Cam won't be able to match their PAX times in your car.
Why? Because Ryan and Cam are each driving fully prepped, class-leading cars. Conversely, you're in the wrong car (you're in an NC Miata, but the class-leading car in CS is the ND Miata, so the PAX is based on it), the wrong model car (you've got a PRHT Miata, and the PRHT mechanism adds about 75 lbs. to the car, all up high), and your car's not fully prepped (a full prep NC would have fancy shocks, lightweight wheels, a lightweight exhaust). I'd expect these factors to result in times very roughly 0.5-1.0 seconds slower than those of a fully prepped CS ND Miata.
Furthermore, no one, not even Ryan and Cam, can jump into a strange car and immediately drive it to its full potential.
*Furthermore*, no one's saying that we don't sometimes have power-intensive courses. We're just disagreeing with your contention that *all* courses are power-intensive courses. If you cherry-pick a power-intensive course, that will defeat the purpose.
You've basically designed a "test" that's impossible for you to fail. I don't know what that would prove.
-
My suggestion is after the event is over, we get the top 2 guys in PAX, (probably Ryan or Cam) and let them do their thing in my car. If they equal their PAX time in my car I will retract my statements and admit defeat. I will choose the event just in case the top 2 PAX winners are sand bagging.
The issue for me is about course design, HP & PAX not creating a level playing field.
Who wants to play :)
That is a good idea.
However, also note that any two cars are not necessarily equal wrt PAX. Some cars are "more equal" shall we say?
For instance, Cam's Corvette is a PAX monster (if that is appropriate to say). It is capable of winning BS at the SCCA Nationals. So I would already venture to guess that his time in your car (which is no longer the car to have in CS) would be slower in PAX.....as might be expected.
So, how about you take Cam's Corvette for a run in the contest? (provided that is ok, Cam?).
Hmmm.....maybe we can swap a few cars/drivers and see what happens? Murray? Stephen (don't know what you are driving but ...)
I think this would give a fairer comparison all around. Everyone would also have seen the course the same number of times then.
And, I'll admit, I have an ulterior motive. :) hehehehe
I want to compare drivers. :) :) :) :) PAX can get affected by aliens. Let's see if there are some among us! :)
-
Cam's Corvette [...] is capable of winning BS at the SCCA Nationals.
I should hope so since Cam's car runs in AS. ;D
-
My suggestion is after the event is over, we get the top 2 guys in PAX, (probably Ryan or Cam) and let them do their thing in my car. If they equal their PAX time in my car I will retract my statements and admit defeat. I will choose the event just in case the top 2 PAX winners are sand bagging.
The issue for me is about course design, HP & PAX not creating a level playing field.
That experiment's doomed to fail, because if PAX works correctly, Ryan and Cam won't be able to match their PAX times in your car.
Why? Because Ryan and Cam are each driving fully prepped, class-leading cars. Conversely, you're in the wrong car (you're in an NC Miata, but the class-leading car in CS is the ND Miata, so the PAX is based on it), the wrong model car (you've got a PRHT Miata, and the PRHT mechanism adds about 75 lbs. to the car, all up high), and your car's not fully prepped (a full prep NC would have fancy shocks, lightweight wheels, a lightweight exhaust). I'd expect these factors to result in times very roughly 0.5-1.0 seconds slower than those of a fully prepped CS ND Miata.
Furthermore, no one, not even Ryan and Cam, can jump into a strange car and immediately drive it to its full potential.
*Furthermore*, no one's saying that we don't sometimes have power-intensive courses. We're just disagreeing with your contention that *all* courses are power-intensive courses. If you cherry-pick a power-intensive course, that will defeat the purpose.
You've basically designed a "test" that's impossible for you to fail. I don't know what that would prove.
Your quite correct about my car not being fully prepped. So maybe Murray would be kind enough to lend his (fully prepped car)
-
I'm beginning to think that this is starting to get complicated, more involved and, hence, more time consuming.
Hmmmm.....
Maybe we need to set up a separate practice day and then run during the practice event. I'll come up with what I think is a fair course (in fact, believe it or not, I always do try to design a "fair" course such that there is no advantage to any particular car. However the last couple of events at FM I did not set up as fair courses to be sure but they actually turned out to be quite "fair" anyway ... go figure.).
I have been getting inquiries about more test/practice days/evenings at YYC (even a few on Sunday) and have been thinking about setting one up anyway.
Maybe that's what we should do.
-
Cam's Corvette [...] is capable of winning BS at the SCCA Nationals.
I should hope so since Cam's car runs in AS. ;D
haha....right you are! I stand corrected ... AS car!
Reijo
-
The issue for me is about course design, HP & PAX not creating a level playing field.
I agree with you.
Furthermore, we should add in car width, car weight, altitude, tires, time of day, temperature, racing surface...PAX has an impossible job and cannot create a perfectly level playing field. We should all just ignore it.
-
My suggestion is after the event is over, we get the top 2 guys in PAX, (probably Ryan or Cam) and let them do their thing in my car. If they equal their PAX time in my car I will retract my statements and admit defeat. I will choose the event just in case the top 2 PAX winners are sand bagging.
The issue for me is about course design, HP & PAX not creating a level playing field.
That experiment's doomed to fail, because if PAX works correctly, Ryan and Cam won't be able to match their PAX times in your car.
Why? Because Ryan and Cam are each driving fully prepped, class-leading cars. Conversely, you're in the wrong car (you're in an NC Miata, but the class-leading car in CS is the ND Miata, so the PAX is based on it), the wrong model car (you've got a PRHT Miata, and the PRHT mechanism adds about 75 lbs. to the car, all up high), and your car's not fully prepped (a full prep NC would have fancy shocks, lightweight wheels, a lightweight exhaust). I'd expect these factors to result in times very roughly 0.5-1.0 seconds slower than those of a fully prepped CS ND Miata.
Furthermore, no one, not even Ryan and Cam, can jump into a strange car and immediately drive it to its full potential.
*Furthermore*, no one's saying that we don't sometimes have power-intensive courses. We're just disagreeing with your contention that *all* courses are power-intensive courses. If you cherry-pick a power-intensive course, that will defeat the purpose.
You've basically designed a "test" that's impossible for you to fail. I don't know what that would prove.
You have a good point there Stephen about the courses. I think we all agree that course design can affect results. Absolutely.
In fact, I remember looking at Karen Babb's east course in 2010 (I was running in ASP - now SSP - with Jay in his Exige) and there was one section that told me that there was no way we were going to compete with Junior Johnson in his Corvette. In my words from back then, all I could see was "Corvette tailights".
The section was a low speed 180 deg. turn followed by a long (by autox stds) curved straight toward the finish. There is no way I could keep up with a SP Corvette that was fully prepared in that section. Torque would rule the day: We were stuck somewhere between 1st and 2nd gear and his 'vette in 2nd was not a problem ... torque!
As Junior said, his 'vette was about 3.0 sec. 0-60 mph when we were talking about that corner later at the award dinners I think it was. He killed us on that course.
However 2nd and 3rd were a pair of Exiges - David Smart of Texas in his Exige got me by 0.2 sec. over two days (think he beat me one day and I got him the 2nd day but not by enough).
So you could say the one turn and straight determined the outcome of ASP that year.
Note however, that we beat all the other Corvettes in-class including the owner of the car Junior was driving. So driving is a big factor. You can have the prepared car but you still have to drive it. Junior, of course, and kudos to him, drove a good event and walked away with the jacket.
-
I'd like to have one of these test days, but mostly because I think one of the most beneficial things for my driving has been seat time in a wide variety of different cars with very different drive trains, power and suspension design.
-
James I'll co drive the WRX at next event?
-
Your quite correct about my car not being fully prepped. So maybe Murray would be kind enough to lend his (fully prepped car)
My car isn't fully prepped.
Currently, it has shocks that aren't up to snuff, leaving the car with some fairly severe mid/late corner understeer.
And it still has the heavy OEM exhaust. Shocks will probably get replaced this winter, but exhaust will probably stay OEM forever.
-
PAX has an impossible job and cannot create a perfectly level playing field. We should all just ignore it.
Best comment All Day ;D ;D ;D
-
Back in the old days, we never had pax...just classed cars and went at it. So, I still just ignore pax.
-
But all systems are flawed. An AP1 S2000 is in the same class (BS) as an AP2 and a C5 Corvette. Who needs PAX for screwy results when you can get the same thing without PAX?
-
But all systems are flawed. An AP1 S2000 is in the same class (BS) as an AP2 and a C5 Corvette. Who needs PAX for screwy results when you can get the same thing without PAX?
Good point Murray.
HS: There are sure a lot of very uncompetitive cars in there - all kinds of econo-boxes etc. However, only 2 or 3 of them are truly competitive such as Minis and FiSTs. FS too! Why buy an old police car with 500,000 on it and race against Mustang GT's, Camaro SS's etc.?
So if you want to be competitive on any scale, you do need a competitive car in-class ... never mind RTP. This is especially so if you get a ringer driver in a good, class-winning car that is prepared (of course, this is what RTP is based on).
So, basically the RTP (I think I'm going to start using this euphemism from now on! :) ) system is meant to compared fully-prepared, competitive cars with good national-level drivers against each other on a national-level course. For anyone else RTP is not really applicable.
So in the end, what use is it?
Well, OK, I guess it could also compare cars that equally unprepared, uncompetitive and driven equally poorly from other classes! :)
But I digress!
Therefore, some of you are entirely correct as per the reasoning above that RTP isn't really applicable except among a very narrow and very defined band! :)
Therefore, the same as you, I tend to ignore it more or less except to glance at the results every now and then to see "relative" times. Instead of a winner per se, I look at who are in the top ten or so (maybe even 15) locally to see who drove well. And then among those I look to see if someone was above their usual ranking and then in-class to see who was ahead of whom. Even further down the ranks I look at relative times among those people in that "band" range of times.
So, generally, I do not treat the RTP system as necessarily being the be-all end result, or truly indicative of anything per se etc.
Some others choose certain people to compare themselves to among the classes to see if they drove well: "Sam" in his SSP Corvette might say that he is usually about 1 second off "Fred's" XP time. Today, say, he is off Fred's time by 0.5 seconds and he figures he had a good day or maybe it suited his car more.
Sometimes I have driven other people's cars and it is interesting to see where in the RTP ladder of results I end up in that car. From there I can estimate where the car could end up with any mods that are still allowable in-class etc. Or maybe I can use the results to estimate how close/competitive that car might be in the bigger picture.
In fact, on a personal level, we have been comparing our FP car's results (which is not fully prepared by any stretch of the imagination and is on 5 year old hockey puck tires but it is coming along and has some of the major items in place with others to come shortly - look for us to get much, much faster ... :) ) with others through RTP and raw times to figure out how competitive it is likely to be before and after modifications. We can then estimate what, say, new wheels/slicks would do (also after discussing with others outside of our area etc. etc. etc.).
Therefore, we are using it as a tool to estimate where we might be on the international level by comparing our times to some of our local, internationally-competitive drivers such as Cam, Stephen and Ryan and others at the top of our local RTP ladder. This can be useful information to have ... or maybe it is just a sick form of curiousity? I dunno! hahaha
As another example, the Andersons were kind enough to let me drive their FS BMW 135i a few times last summer (thanks again!) and I was surprised it was at the top of RTP or within, I believe, the top 5 each time I drove it! It did not feel like an overly powerful car or anything but it was quite competent in pretty much everything and was quite a narrow car so it slalomed really well. I remember the Strelnicks (National level drivers from Texas) tried one out when they first came out and even showed up at Packwood with it and I think mainly because of the diff they decided it wasn't really competitive at the pointy end of the results (I could be remembering wrong). I'm not sure if Beth ran it at Nationals or not. Erik had their SSM RX7 that he was dominating in at the time so he drove that. Thinking back on the Anderson's 135, I was surprised how competitive it was (locally anyway). Actually I still ponder those results. It is a surprisingly capable car.
By the way, the Anderson's have a new M2 so the 135 is for sale somewhere on the forum here and I know they are away picking up the new car from the east coast as we speak. Looking for a competitive car locally? This is one.
http://forums.sascsolo.com/index.php?topic=847.msg7013#msg7013
Anyhow, maybe this is a different kind of use for RTP/PAX than what some people are using it for, I don't know. However this is sort of how I use it ... and with a grain (maybe a shovel-full?) of salt? ;)
Hopefully my rambling makes sense ... at 3 in the morning! With a coffee. :)
-
STS seems to be horrendously PAXd this year.....all local STS cars have struggled in the Street Touring Category and I've noticed similar results in the USA events even for the CRX and Civics.
But How do they calculate it and how do they balance it. Once you are out of the street category the car basically has to be modified to the maximum extent that the class allows to make it competitive, and then once those modifications are made they need to be leveraged to the maximum extent. That is the flaw in my opinion, outside of street class your car needs to be setup for only the purpose of Auto X which isn't a "street" class in my opinion.
That said, once I accepted that I was never going to be hugely competitive, I've really enjoyed pushing my car and myself to be better and smoother at every event and with a couple of exceptions I think I've achieved that. Also there's something ridiculously fun about pushing a crap car to the very edge of its limits.
-
That is the flaw in my opinion, outside of street class your car needs to be setup for only the purpose of Auto X which isn't a "street" class in my opinion.
I know trying to explain to anyone who is still missing the concept is likely futile but...
Your comment suggests you are confusing what this index is. This index does not determine how you must setup a car in a class. The index is determined by how people have setup their car in a class. This index does not exist (even in theory) to normalize everyone at the event. It exists in an attempt to normalize classes and as flawed as it is, no one has anything better.
I think one of the biggest hurdles is that this index is (allegedly) developed from the results of major events but is used for the local events. At the major events, no one cares about where they place on index. It's a challenge enough to win your class and the class is all that matters. The index is 'needed' at the local level because class sizes don't offer any competition and the sport is still based on competition.
-
STS seems to be horrendously PAXd this year.....all local STS cars have struggled in the Street Touring Category...
I'd dream of qualifying for an ST class despite the PAX. My wrong car skips the the whole ST class set (regardless of the significantly faster cars qualifying in that class), and goes straight to SP. Boooo!!
Looks like two narrower wheels (front) will be in my future and I'll try out BS for a full season. ;) That change (assuming I could be as fast) would have bumped me 31 places in PAX form 49th to 18th in this last event.
Good discussion here team, and I appreciate that it is all done with a dash of humor and in a jovial nature. Sometimes discussions like these can get ugly on other forums, and I am happy to read here that it hasn't. Great community we have here. :)
-
The issue for me is about course design, HP & PAX not creating a level playing field.
I agree with you.
Furthermore, we should add in car width, car weight, altitude, tires, time of day, temperature, racing surface...PAX has an impossible job and cannot create a perfectly level playing field. We should all just ignore it.
But all systems are flawed. An AP1 S2000 is in the same class (BS) as an AP2 and a C5 Corvette. Who needs PAX for screwy results when you can get the same thing without PAX?
Ryan and Murray hit the nail on the head. Both classing and PAX are inherently flawed in that it can never truly equalize performance and course dependency of different cars. Even in spec racing, differences in car prep and setup will have a noticeable impact on results. People will always try to rationalize how the results were influenced by equipment rather than skill, constantly bench racing. Its the nature of the sport. If you want to race where equipment plays a smaller role, try marathon running...
That said, I enjoy the competition more with PAX. It may be imperfect, but it still provides a system in which you can push yourself when competing against others in different cars. Doesn't solve course dependency, but at least the index is constant throughout the year.
-
Pretty sure Sprocket, that a) you didn't need to be condescending and b) we're saying the same thing.
"I think one of the biggest hurdles is that this index is (allegedly) developed from the results of major events but is used for the local events. At the major events, no one cares about where they place on index. It's a challenge enough to win your class and the class is all that matters. The index is 'needed' at the local level because class sizes don't offer any competition and the sport is still based on competition."
The cars at those major events (the ones you say that PAX is formed from) are extremely well prepped for Auto X, thus you have a PAX for STS (and for all other classes to be fair) developed based on cars specifically prepped for that class where modifications are at the limit that the class allows.
Local cars have one modifcation that throws them into that class, in most cases very few cars at our events are absolutely PAXd out for the class. Thus, you really are only racing yourself in the local events unless you are buying and building a car to maximize its Auto X performance or buying a leading Street class car (FieSt, FRS, Corvette, Camaro).
In the case of my car, I did preventative maintenance on it when I bought it. Where I had two leaking rear struts, I priced out a shock/spring setup and coil over setup and went with coil over ignorant (I never intended to AutoX this car, its a Ice Dice car primarily) that that would switch me from H Street to STS which is a 0.787 vs 0.818 difference. Extremely significant. I could have the car performing the same way in H Street on a spring/shock setup as I do on the current coil-over set up.
That one little change would of moved me from 54th on the weekend to 35th.
Hence PAX is not as relevant for us at Local events, and as per my final statement, I’ve still had a lot of fun racing myself this season and trying to improve my driving and my times relative to the field rather than trying to push a car to the front of the pack on PAX that will never get there.
-
Absolutely no attempt or desire to be condescending.
In the end, there is no system of competition that will work to normalize the guy that shows up with whatever car he happens to have and the serious competitor in an autocross car. I think it's great that you are paying attention enough to the results and having these realizations as it may mean you're hooked and we all want to grow the sport locally.
-
Sometimes discussions like these can get ugly on other forums, and I am happy to read here that it hasn't. Great community we have here. :)
Very true Duane....I also expected things to get a bit pear shaped but I suspect this is the outcome when you have mature forum members.
On the topic of PAX, its a new concept to me.
I raced AutoX for many years back home & all that mattered was raw times within your class & FTD. That's all we aimed for.
That said, I made some decisions with my car this year as my first year into racing with SASC, (or even with this car for that matter) & those decision had me fall into STU. I coulda removed the one swaybar & stayed in a street class but I personally dont care too much for PAX. If anything I wish we'd do away with PAX completely but, that's wishful thinking & Reijo's explanation on this thread helped me understand why we follow PAX in the first place.
That said, I still push myself to be the quickest I can be in RAW.
I set out at the start of the season wanting to land in the top 30% overall Raw & I've achieved that.
Next season I'll just have to come back with more allowable mods for STU & hope to perform better.....Thats if STH doesn't get the approval.
-
The cars at those major events (the ones you say that PAX is formed from) are extremely well prepped for Auto X, thus you have a PAX for STS (and for all other classes to be fair) developed based on cars specifically prepped for that class where modifications are at the limit that the class allows.
Local cars have one modifcation that throws them into that class, in most cases very few cars at our events are absolutely PAXd out for the class. Thus, you really are only racing yourself in the local events unless you are buying and building a car to maximize its Auto X performance or buying a leading Street class car (FieSt, FRS, Corvette, Camaro).
In the case of my car, I did preventative maintenance on it when I bought it. Where I had two leaking rear struts, I priced out a shock/spring setup and coil over setup and went with coil over ignorant (I never intended to AutoX this car, its a Ice Dice car primarily) that that would switch me from H Street to STS which is a 0.787 vs 0.818 difference. Extremely significant. I could have the car performing the same way in H Street on a spring/shock setup as I do on the current coil-over set up.
That one little change would of moved me from 54th on the weekend to 35th.
Hence PAX is not as relevant for us at Local events, and as per my final statement, I’ve still had a lot of fun racing myself this season and trying to improve my driving and my times relative to the field rather than trying to push a car to the front of the pack on PAX that will never get there.
I think it'll help to view PAX slightly differently. PAX is a tool for comparing times across classes; those times are determined by how well the driver performed on that course on that day, *and* by how well the driver prepped their car for their class.
In this case, you unintentionally modified your car in a way that left it grossly underprepared for its class. That's unfortunate, but in my opinion does not reflect a flaw in either PAX or the classing system. Both PAX and the classing rules are well-defined and visible for all to see. If someone doesn't prep to the maximum allowed by the rules, that's not the fault of the rules. If you think a class's index is too hard, choose a car in a different class.
Richard mentioned marathons. If I choose to run a marathon in work boots, then I'm not going to criticize the marathon rules for my poor finish. I used the wrong tool for the job, so the onus is on me to correct that, not the rulemaker's.
-
Very true Duane....I also expected things to get a bit pear shaped but I suspect this is the outcome when you have mature forum members.
Is that an acronym for "really old"? :P
-
I feel like alot of people are saying the same thing in different ways. Stephen I am not criticizing PAX as such, but rather the implications it has on slightly modified cars from individuals entering the sport locally.
Perhaps a good take away from this discussion is education on PAX being a critical part to introducing people to the sport. I really had to go and do quite a bit of legwork to begin to understand how it worked. I'm not sure if this is part of the school program earlier in the year, but I really think it would be valuable to people to hear from some of the well built/setup cars within street and touring classes what adjustments make a competitive car.
Certainly now whenever friends talk to me about AutoX I am directing them to the SCCA rules prior to them even considering a vehicle or modifications to their car to understand implications.
-
All that existing in the novice guide:
http://solo2.com/MiscDocuments/Cal_Club_Autocross_Novice_Guide.pdf
SCCA CLASSIFICATION
Check the Car Classification Rules in the Rule Book on the SCCA website and figure out
what SCCA class your car belongs in.
But as we can see here this could be one of the most significant items in the ability to be competitive in a novice season....I'm sure someone has written a good piece somewhere about PAX and how to best prepare a car for a competitive soul?
-
I feel like alot of people are saying the same thing in different ways. Stephen I am not criticizing PAX as such, but rather the implications it has on slightly modified cars from individuals entering the sport locally.
Like finishing poorly in PAX overall versus winning a class of one or two in a poorly prepared car?
I like Stephen's analogy of running a marathon in workboots.
As I said... PAX is all that I look at. I'm sure there are people below me on the PAX results sheet that drive as well as, or better than me, but I don't know who to tell who they are. Reasonable or not, PAX is the only tool I have for comparing myself to everyone in attendance.
It's also the reason I ditched a much faster and more fun car for an easy to prepare and practical D Street car. In my last car, I had all sorts of excuses as to why I couldn't beat Cam. In the FRS, I was disappointed to discover that all of those excuses were fantasy.
Now I just talk shit about altitude and course design.
-
It's also the reason I ditched a much faster and more fun car for an easy to prepare and practical D Street car.
[/quote]
My point is PAX is not well explained in any way to new drivers and so, as happened to you, and will ultimately happen to me, we have to ditch our cars and switch to something competitive. See my previous post, Pax, a critical part of Autocross in North America is reserved to 3 lines in a 30 page novice guide document.
-
My point is PAX is not well explained in any way to new drivers and so, as happened to you, and will ultimately happen to me, we have to ditch our cars and switch to something competitive. See my previous post, Pax, a critical part of Autocross in North America is reserved to 3 lines in a 30 page novice guide document.
Agreed. Getting a competitive car for any class can be expensive, and/or a lot of work, or mean that you can't drive your favourite car ever (in my case also an old Corolla)... but it sure makes event day a lot more enjoyable.
-
As someone coming to the sport for the first time this season, the draw is that you can bring the car you have. But as everyone seems to find out, after a few events we are hooked and more competitive than expected. I was in the same position as Jeff when I started, slow car with bad pax. It was going to take a lot more money to do something about the slow than the pax, so I spent $300 to get it back to street class. Still not a class leading car by any means, but seems like money well spent to have a 16th place pax last weekend vs what would have been 40th if I'd stayed in Street Touring.
Also to get back to the original theme of this post, I ran a 39.3 4 times in a row following the A line around the final corner, and a 38.6 following the C line on my final lap. No telemetry to back up how much of that time was gained on that corner, but for my car at least C was the fast line.
-
My point is PAX is not well explained in any way to new drivers and so, as happened to you, and will ultimately happen to me, we have to ditch our cars and switch to something competitive. See my previous post, Pax, a critical part of Autocross in North America is reserved to 3 lines in a 30 page novice guide document.
I think that PAX isn't what needs explaining. PAX is nothing more than a side effect, and what needs to be understood is preparing a car within the rules. In other words, don't modify your car until you read the rules and really understand them. Or if that horse has left the barn door, then read the rules to figure out your best (cheapest) path to being competitive within your chosen class. Good PAX results just follow from there.
-
My point is PAX is not well explained in any way to new drivers and so, as happened to you, and will ultimately happen to me, we have to ditch our cars and switch to something competitive. See my previous post, Pax, a critical part of Autocross in North America is reserved to 3 lines in a 30 page novice guide document.
I think that PAX isn't what needs explaining. PAX is nothing more than a side effect, and what needs to be understood is preparing a car within the rules. In other words, don't modify your car until you read the rules and really understand them. Or if that horse has left the barn door, then read the rules to figure out your best (cheapest) path to being competitive within your chosen class. Good PAX results just follow from there.
I'll add SoloPro and any other driving schools to that list of mods. Might as well work on the loose nut behind the wheel too! :)
The driver is a bigger factor than most new people think .... even some veterans I think. :)
R
-
I agree with everything above. The post by Murray is exactly what should be explained to Novices as early as possible. And the idea of having some folks who know the most about setting up cars being part of the novice schools and practice days providing advice around cars setups and classing would be invaluable to both novices and veterans alike I am sure.
-
I think that PAX isn't what needs explaining. PAX is nothing more than a side effect, and what needs to be understood is preparing a car within the rules. In other words, don't modify your car until you read the rules and really understand them. Or if that horse has left the barn door, then read the rules to figure out your best (cheapest) path to being competitive within your chosen class. Good PAX results just follow from there.
I agree with much of what you said with one tweak...
Most folks will get into the sport with the car they already have, or one that has already been modified either by them or the previous owners. For that I see value in explaining the effects of the cars modifications on its PAX time. For me personally, I see it as more than just a side effect (PAX), as the modifications have already been done in many of the cases of new entrants. This becomes their first look at the sport in some cases, and the PAX may or may not weigh heavily on them depending on the person.
Again, just personally, I believe that the majority of the times that a competitor considers the modifications carefully before either choosing or modifying a car, they are already familiar with PAX and are working into a specific class. Unless of course you're me, and just buys the car he likes to drive, and mods it to the best class he can (Just as you suggested). :-\
-
I think that PAX isn't what needs explaining. PAX is nothing more than a side effect, and what needs to be understood is preparing a car within the rules. In other words, don't modify your car until you read the rules and really understand them. Or if that horse has left the barn door, then read the rules to figure out your best (cheapest) path to being competitive within your chosen class. Good PAX results just follow from there.
Well said Murray
Unless of course you're me, and just buys the car he likes to drive, and mods it to the best class he can (Just as you suggested). :-\
This is me.
I bought my car then had a meeting with Duane in a pub.
The classing rules & pax discussions lasted 1hr.
The beers then went on for a few more hours ;D
-
I think that PAX isn't what needs explaining. PAX is nothing more than a side effect, and what needs to be understood is preparing a car within the rules. In other words, don't modify your car until you read the rules and really understand them. Or if that horse has left the barn door, then read the rules to figure out your best (cheapest) path to being competitive within your chosen class. Good PAX results just follow from there.
Just to build on this, I too think its not the PAX that is the problem, but by extension (and especially for us newbies to autocross), its actually figuring out what your real goal is with the sport - I can guarantee that my goals (for this year, lots of seat time and no additional preparation costs while getting to hoon our cars at speed while figuring out their limits) are very different from someone like Murray or Cam or Ryan. Lee and I just had this discussion last week when we were trying to figure out whether it made sense for us to look for a set of 15x5.5 wheels (much harder to find on the cheap) so we could drop from STS (which we're in just because of the wheels on our particular car) in to ES, or do we prep the car the way we want for general highway/backroad touring and general summer driving, while still being able to have fun at autocross. I think we've landed on the second for our short term goal until we both get better, then we'll look at picking the class we want to build towards or even the car/class at that point.
While I have definitely met my goals this year, its hard not to get carried away with the competitive side of the sport and wonder why my times have not gotten better against the rest of the field (I know exactly why, in order of impact - driver experience, tires, alignment, shocks, and lastly PAX/course design - but in terms of this season's resources, the first is the only one I can actually influence right now).
Last thought on this offshoot from the original topic - I bet someone with time and desire could actually crunch all this season's results to come up with a YYC, or even an SASC/CSCC PAX for the various classes to see if there is a bias in course design towards the higher horsepower cars. The problem would be the assumptions you'd have to make on which cars (i.e. level of prep) and drivers (i.e. driver consistency) to use in the analysis. While I definitely have the time, I'd have to admit I lean towards lacking the desire (or experience) to even start crunching something like this through and be able to back up the results with any kind of confidence.
Back to the original discussion - as rookies, both Lee and I were taking the wide exit from the last slalom cone carrying maximum speed for our tires, braked into the last corner, then tried to hug the right side of the timing lights with the idea that neither of us could maximize speed through the last corner with braking (i.e. inadequate brake vs. traction experience on this type of corner), so shortest distance seemed the obvious way around that corner once braking started.
John