The Plan... 1/18/03
First, let me explain that this is not an official PCA venture, rather it's a ad hoc attempt to:
— Establish and maintain a club-wide network of passionate autocrossers and time trialers to better
solve common problems and deal with PCA politics.
— Develop a network database for competitive results data, that will allow accurate and fair indexing
systems, for those that choose to use them.
— Gather some information...facts and data...about how we as PCA Regions conduct solo competitive
events. I expect to identify a wide range of formats.
— Develop definitions for "Autocross" and "Time Trial" that are comprehensive, yet flexible and allow for
creativity and variation. Potentially devise several slightly different formats with new, descriptive names
(such as "Giant Autocross").
— Generate new "guidelines" for both Autocross and Time Trial that, if followed, will control the formats,
within the above definitions...the goal being to increase standardization, thus allow and encourage
more inter-Region and inter-Zone competition.
— Design new Class Rules that include a flexible scheme (or schemes) that allow their application for
all size Regions, yet are reasonably fair for all.
I am not and will not be working behind anyone's back. I sent an e-mail to every Regional President
(as much as possible). I have contacted the Parade Committee Chairman and the new Parade
Competition Rules Chairman and they know of this effort. Yet, I will not be asking for approval, as this
does not (at present) affect anything about the Parade or the Parade Competition Rules. I just want them
to know what we are doing. There is at least one member of the PCR Committee in our group. I have also
been contacted by the new President of PCA, who said, "Thanks for your energy and help."
At some juncture (hopefully, in the not too distant future), I plan to disclose the results of this quest and
petition the EC to adopt new, appropriate measures to address the obvious need for standardization in
AX and TT events. I hope to convince them to sanction a National AX and TT Subsidy, to encourage
Regions and Zones to use the PCA "standard" formats and rules. I have created a web site to allow
everyone, not just the contributors, to study the results of our investigations. Even the EC, National Staff,
and Zonies will be allowed (even invited!) to browse our site and monitor our progress.
However, I don't plan to advertise what we are doing to the PCA membership at large. Somehow, I
suspect the ones that are interested will find out...I'm not not hiding anything, but if the group gets too big,
it will be difficult to manage!
One stimulus for this is the recent creation of a DE Czar. Now both Club Racing and Driver Education
have advocates on the National Staff. I don't object to this at all...I just am envious and want equal
treatment for the other events we conduct. I envision an Autocross Czar in the future of PCA. I'm not
available for that post. If contacted, I will suggest that they select somebody within this ad hoc group.
Surely there are plenty of candidates here!
[aside] There is a current proposal to appoint a Concours Czar. I support this move. I know who wants
this post and he's a good choice. We also need a Rally Czar. Long overdue! [end aside]
There are several obvious stages to this process (as I see it):
1. Gather lots of information about the various AX and TT formats in use today within PCA. I plan initially
to ignore what SCCA does at their Solo I and Solo II events. Similarly, I will initially ignore other car
clubs and professional groups, but plan to bring it into the discussion later. I'll probably develop
(or ask us to develop) a set of questions to guide this effort? This structured approach will be
necessary to facilitate step #2.
2. Somewhere, about this juncture, we need to create a private on-line forum for the group to use. I have
some ideas. Suggestions?
3. Compile the above data and create a web site where the data can be disseminated to everyone.
I'll make it open to anyone w/o password, but only tell selected people about the URL.
4. Reduce the group (I expect to have about a hundred contributors to step #1) to about 20-30 members
and make an attempt or two at defining what an AX and a TT are. It will be important to have
geographical parity. I want to describe the "essence" of each of these events...ie, those characteristics
which if deleted, render it some other kind of event (or worse, a non-event). A few example questions:
— If we increase the number of timed runs from 2-3 to 8-10, is it still an AX?
— If we allow several hours of practice before timed runs, is it still an AX?
— If an AX design has been used before, can it be called an AX?
— If we don't allow any practice, just a few timed runs, can it be called a TT?
— If we install some pyloned features on our race track, in the interest of safety, then run an event,
is it a TT or an AX? Don't say "Yes"!
We'll try for consensus, but fall back to majority rule...unless the difference is a major one, in which
case we'll use the "last man standing" rule. ;-).
5. Publish this list of essential AX and TT characteristics and ask the entire group for comments.
6. Rework the list as necessary.
7. Commission a small group (perhaps the same one?) to develop a set of rules that obey the
"essential characteristics" of both AXes and TTs, yet allow as much freedom and local variability as
possible. Don't at this stage address any car classes, just the rules that the organizers must follow
to ensure that their product will be a "real" PCA AX or TT or one of the "real" PCA hybrids we may
define.
8. Publish this set of rules on the web site and ask the entire group to comment again.
9. Convene a different group (bigger, with model-specific advocates, in addition to the geographical
advocates of the previous small group) to address the subject of car classes. A goal will be the
inclusion of a process(es) for reducing the number of classes for Regions that have small turnouts.
This may lead into the subject of a PAX-like index for PCA, thus require a bunch of results data
collection. We also have to decide how to process this data to get results we will believe and can
work with?
10. If we succeed, publish the class rules for comment by the big group.
11. Rework...
12. Draft a formal proposal to the EC and other interested staff members and present it. Might run it by
the Zone Reps for their comments and hopefully their blessings before going to the top? You
know...politics.
By that time, I'll probably be exhausted or better yet, dead...and many of you will have deserted us?
I hope this doesn't take too long or sacrifice too many virgins! ;-) Charlie Davis
———
About which you replied...
———1 1/10/2003
"Ron Lewis forwarded to me your work on the Autocross/TimeTrial Ad Hoc Committee...great stuff!
About time, I'd say...Keep it up!" Kim Crumb
———2 1/10/2003
"I also support your attempt at national classes and would be happy to offer input and support...
What are you, nuts? I ask the question with a large smile and admiration for your efforts."
Rick Newman
———3 1/8/2003
"I agree that many of us have programs that ill prepare us for Parade autocrosses. In San Diego we
have increased the efficiency of our autocross events over the years, to the point that 120+ drivers get
at least 6-8 practice laps and three timed runs. And we try to have 8-10 events each year. It is our feeling
that the Parade needs to come up to our level of delivering laps to participants, NOT that the Regions
need to dilute our events to approach a parade level of laps." Vince Knauf
———4 1/10/2003
"Some regions use very few cones to roughly outline a course, while other use a sea of cones. This area
probably needs more uniformity because learning to read cones is a major part of the skill of AX and if
you learn one way the other way will be totally confusing. The SCCA is much better in this area."
James Bricken
———5 1/8/2003
"I have run in many region events and often have found myself at odds or not understanding some of the
guidlines and rules definitions. This has sometimes put me at a disadvantage. There should be a similar
structure to that of the club race format. A loose set of procedures, specifications, classing, rules and
guidliness would be the first step to developing a national theme." John Mingst
———6 1/8/2003
"Excellent idea. Maybe with Mike Lommatzsch as PCR head, we can get the Parade Rules into the 21st
century." Steve Ross
———7 1/7/2003
"Your effort sounds reasonable and appropriate." Larry Moore
———8 1/7/2003
"Our Zone Reps, who are concours people, are trying to stop continuous laps. They can only enforce this
rule for Zone events, so we prefer Region events for that reason. We call these driver's eds. Maybe we
should go and dictate what kinds of q-tips they can use." name withheld
———9 1/7/2003
"We have had an autox series called IRAC here since 1975 that is still going. I was involved in this back
in the beginning and am still involved. We have developed and refined a set of rules and guidelines over
the years that should be of great help in your effort. In addition, we have a factoring system that I
developed using Parade Results from over 15 years. This allows us to do Novice awards and a driver of
the year award based on an Index of Performance, i.e., factor." Bruce Pickering
———10 1/7/2003
"That sounds like an excellent idea. I'm willing to help out anyway possible." Chris Darminio
———11 1/7/2003
"People really love the continuous lap format and I believe they have more opportunity to learn to balance
the car as well as run up and down through the gears. BUT, the autocrosses are the foundation of the
PCA driving experience, no? I don't want the students going fast before they know the results of their
inputs to the car." Tim Comeau
———12 1/6/2003
"I support your efforts and here's why. I attended a rules tech session last year and was disappointed
and surprised to see how many good ideas and procedures fell through the cracks when changing the
autocross chairpeople. I was chair in 94-95. These guys were trying to solve problems that we had
already solved! Write it down and pass it on!" Tim Comeau
———13 1/6/2003
"I don't know what I can do. I've heard folks have gone to DE because of insurance. We've actually
become more ambitious with TTs here." Jack Miller
———14 1/6/2003
"I agree. I believe PCA should at least have a specified index and points systems in place. I do not know
if we use the same Index as other regions, but I'm quite sure that our points system is different from the
rest. These are just a few examples." Tony Lechner
———15 1/6/2003
"Good for you! Format issues and lack of standardization have gotten to be hot issues here in Zone 8,
in just the last few months." Bruce Herrington
———16 1/10/2003
"Great work on this ambitious project so far. I know what a job it can be just to change a few class rules
on a local level. In fact, we are in the second year of trying to make classes and rules more fair in our
region. As the regions autocross chair, I am very interested in seeing a more unified rule system for all
PCA events, and will try to lend my advice and comments to the cause." Paul Larsen
———17 1/10/2003
"...one key to having it work is that progressing out of the stock classes can't be onerous. Hey, I haven't
asked if you even wanted this insight! All the best in any case. Keep it up!" Kim Crumb
———18 1/10/2003
"Insurance is a big issue with many people in our region. This includes autocrossers, time trialers that go
out of state, and DE participants (many insurance companies will not cover any damage that occurs on
the property of any "Motorsports Facility"). Why can't the PCA get reasonable rates on "track insurance"
from a respected insurance company, that members could buy at each event to cover them? The NHRA
and other groups can offer this, why can't the PCA?" Paul Larsen
———19 1/11/2003
"As a Zone Autocross Chair, I know of vast differences in both AX venues and organizational skills
among Regions. It is incredibly difficult to try to develop a set of rules that do serve as a starting point for
all of these variances. While I personally favor the thrill and learning curves of continuous laps, there also
arise safety issues for novices and learners. I'll look forward to this forum to share potential solutions,
ideas and best practices." Michael Dolphin
———20 1/11/2003
"I like the continuous lapping for Autocrossing, we have a large enough track area to allow for it. However,
this year we will be moving towards a Experience Level based Autocross. We used to have continuous
lapping for all Run Groups(Heats) however we ran into some New drivers being intimidated by having
faster drivers run closely behind them. To remedy this, we will be allowing continuous lapping for only
those that are Instructors, or have been given permission by our Autocross Instructors. We will group all
of the continuous lapping drivers into the same Run Group to keep it organized." Mike Graf
———21 1/11/2003
"The training of the driver is what is important. Getting the know how and training, to get the most out of
your Porsche, in a safe supervised environment is why these were started (I believe)." Tony Lechner
———
I asked Tony for permission to post his above comments and to comment on them, as I think this is an
important issue for us. I replied...
———22 1/10/2003
"It's sorta revisionist history to state what you did. That's a description of an AX School, not an AX.
Your emphasis is on training. But I think AX and TT are about competition. AX Schools, Driving
Schools, and Driving Education Events are about training. It's not that we don't learn during an AX, just as
we learn how to play baseball by trying to play it. But baseball is not about 'training'...it's a competitive
sport. Education is simply an unavoidable consequence of making clumsy attempts to hit a baseball with
a round stick. In the same way, sporting competitions are enjoyable, but 'fun' is not a direct goal. It's
simply fun to excel at difficult tasks...fun to win...fun to almost win...we're 'wired' that way."
Here's the history of AX as I know it...
I became aware of AX in about 1966. I'm not sure when it started, but I'd guess 1955 (there was an AX at
the first Parade in 1956)? I watched for a few years, before I did my first one, in 1969. At this time,
nobody, including the AX-specific clubs in the DFW area did any kind of AX training. They were just little
2-run competitive outings. Lot's of fun, but I attended them because I liked to win. Most courses were on
shopping center parking lots on Sundays. In TX at the time, we had 'blue laws' that sorta mandated that
stores had to close on Sunday, so these lots were unused. BTW, the 'blue laws' went away many years
ago. ;-(
About 1971, I attended my first AX School. It was put on by the AX club in Dallas. It was not very good,
but it was a first start. By that time, I had already learned how to AX, using the old OJT method. I tried to
help others improve their skills. That's also fun! Plus, doing that helped me understand AXing better!
The local PCA Region (Maverick) had its first AX School about 1972. At this time we didn't have ANY
instruction at our AX events. The first instruction at a MR Region AX occurred in 1995, I believe, but it
was limited...only a couple of instructors. When I was Region Pres in 2000, I formalized the instruction.
Thus, from my perspective, AX instruction at AX events is a recent invention. I'll bet that other Region's
time lines on this are different, but probably not much.
I did a little surfing to see if I could find out where AX was invented and by whom. The earliest reference
was to several car clubs in England, who started having 'Autocross' trials around 1945. These were not
quite the same as we know them today. They were also called 'Grass Races' and were very similar to
Motocross, but with cars instead of motorcycles and I believe that they were not wheel-to-wheel. All the
pictures I could find showed only one car-at-a-time on their courses. Today, SCCA holds 'RallyCross'
events which are similar to those first 'Autocrosses'.
'Autocrosses' came over to the US when European sports cars arrived, in the early 1950's. I'm not sure
if they were first run on pavement or not? If anybody has knowledge of more historical facts, I'm
interested." Charlie Davis
———
Tony further contributed a definition of an AX...I'll paraphrase his list of essential elements:
———
1. A timed event
2. A slow speed event
3. Marked with cones
4. Located in a parking lot or small track
5. Normally not getting above 2nd gear
6. Involves training (to help the drivers learn car control)
———
"My list is similar. I believe that the essential elements of an AX are:
1. A timed, competitive event
2. A low risk event with benign consequences
3. Marked with temporary, movable objects or painted lines or some combination of these
4. Located on a paved surface
5. With an opportunity to inspect (walk) a transient course (but not practice it) prior to timed runs
Instruction is not an essential component of an AX, but it's popular now. I support it because I believe it
helps the Regional AX programs. But it must be done in ways that are harmonious with a 'real' AX.
Let me take these differences one at a time...
1. An AX must be a competitive event. Just to time the runs is not enough. We often time students at
our AX Schools, but they are not really competing, so it's not an AX. But timing is required. An event
that determined the winners on 'style points' would not be an AX.
2. Low speed is not enough. I've been to several so-called AXes (years ago) which were low speed
(2nd gear) but approached a building or light pole VERY closely. There was substantial danger
involved. An AX must be low risk. And the consequences to both driver and car must be benign.
If an accident happens, the result should not involve death or injury to the driver or substantial damage
to the vehicle (rock chips are OK). Might also mention that the safety of spectators and workers must
be considered! But high speeds do not inherently preclude an event being safe or called an AX. As
long as it is very safe (and satisfies the other 4 essential characteristics), it can be an AX, IMO.
3. Pylons are not the only thing used to delineate the course, but are pervasive. Anything that is
temporary and won't hurt the cars (much) is OK. Some courses are just white lines on black
pavement...that's OK too. Many courses involve a combination of pylons and painted lines...like at
most Parades.
4. Almost any paved surface can be used for an AX. But public roads and city streets are difficult to
make adequately safe. If the safety aspect is satisfied, then an AX could be run there. This excludes
what SCCA calls 'RallyCross'...an AX on dirt. I don't object to 'RallyCross' since they gave it a new
name. But if they had tried to pass it off as an Autocross...
5. An AX requires that the entrants solve the puzzle of how to best drive the course. It is customary that
this solution be done primarily prior to running the event, although there are obvious clues available
from watching other drivers attempts and from actually driving the course. But entrants must not be
allowed to practice the course prior to official timing. The whole point of an AX is the challenge of
learning to anticipate what is likely to happen and prepare yourself for coping with problems as they
occur. An AX is not an exercise in rote learning! That's a different form of solo competition, called a
Time Trial.
I understand that this last point is controversial. I am an advocate for both AXes and TTs. I just want
them to be different. They are for different type people and we need to resist attempts to force changes
in the other guy's event. Just as a member of the group said (I'll again paraphrase), "If those Concours
guys that think they run the Zone don't quit trying to screw around with my driving events, I'm going to
legislate what brand of Q-Tips they have to use!", we all need to be sensitive that there are many ways
to enjoy Porsches and be tolerant of the way other members want to have fun.
A friend and I discussed this issue recently. He had a wonderful analogy: An Autocross is like sight-
reading music, where the real challenge is to play the music beautifully, w/o any practice! If you are
allowed to practice, you can learn to play the music even if you can't read music. An AX is a test to see
if the entrants have learned to 'read' the course...to anticipate what their cars will do, upon actually driving
it...and to pick out the most efficient 'line' to use."
I often hear people contend that "An AX is an entry-level" event for PCA. I have been guilty of that. But if
it involves "sight reading" the course and excludes practice, then that's not true. It takes a lot of
experience to be able to do that well! We need to have another "entry level" driving event?
Often the impetus to call a Time Trial an Autocross or a Time Trial a Drivers Education event, is
insurance. There is a perception that the underwriters of our personal auto insurance policies will be
more sympathetic if we damage our cars at an Autocross, instead of at a Time Trial? Or that we rolled our
car while trying to learn how not to, at a 'Drivers Education' event. This is not necessarily true and varies
depending on where you live. But it's a self defeating strategy. A much better approach is to address the
problem head on, by insisting that PCA find and offer relief via legislative changes or the availability of
suitable insurance policies to cover specific events.
There is one other thing I'd like to inject. There are two vastly different 'flavors' of AX. Both satisfy my
above essential characteristics, so both are AXes. But they are quite different. The first (and oldest)
I call a 'Classic AX'. It involves what I call 'features'...slaloms, gates, single pylons (pivot cones) that
must be driven around, boxes, etc. These are things that are not commonly encountered on public roads
or race tracks. These 'Classic AXes' are game-like and often whimsical. They allow the course designer
more creative license and there are often puzzles the drivers have to solve during the course walk. There
can be optional features, such as a slalom that can be taken in either direction. Normally, one choice is
significantly better, but I've seen optional features where even the designer didn't know the best route.
These are great fun for the entrants, as they play games with each other (trying to hide their real
preferences)!
The other (newer) AX I call a "West Coast AX", because I first saw them out there. It probably should be
called a 'Lotta-Cones AX', since they require lots of cones. They typically look like a road course,
involving mostly just corners, of varying size, shape, and angle. They have the entire course lined with
pylons. They never have 'features'. They often have very wide sections of the 'track', requiring the
drivers to pick the best line (drivers who follow the pylons are slow). Often, SCCA courses are like this.
There are many hybrids of these two extreme 'flavors'. The recent Milwaukee and Sacramento Parade
AX courses were hybrids. I liked them. They satisfied proponents of both 'flavors'. But as others have
noted (above), it takes some experience with each way of using pylons to be comfortable with these
different 'flavors'. With one, it's difficult to find the path to the next 'feature'. With the other, it's difficult to
find the important pylons (the 'corners'). Ether way is OK, but not if entrants at a major event, like at a
Parade, have never seen or driven a course that has pylons placed one of these ways. If the Regions
near them all choose one of these formats, to the exclusion of the other and the hybrids, then all the
members will only learn how to 'read' pylons set up one way...and be at a disadvantage when first
confronted with another format. One of my goals is to educate everyone about this issue and perhaps
devise a solution, leading to more homogenous and fairer AX events." Charlie Davis
———
Please excuse this long diatribe. And if you disagree, don't go away. Tell us about your beliefs and why
you believe they are correct. I'll put your comments up here...
——— 23 1/13/2003
"I follow your process. I was shocked to read through some of the comments of feedback to see just how
different by region we really are. I was surprised to read of multiple laps (at one time). I just never looked
at an autox that way. All the more reason to see if we can standardize." John Mingst
———24 1/13/2003
"I expected that reaction. It shocked me, too when I first realized how variable our solo competition events
were. But I believe that 'multiple laps (at one time)' is an acceptable variation of AX." Charlie Davis
———25 1/13/2003
"I do understand that Autocross is a competition, and a pretty serious one for some of us. You've broken
your definition down to a finer point than I had. I mistakenly assumed that it was understood that it is a
competition (once it's timed, it happens), and also that Cones, and or lines, or even hay bales are OK,
but don't want to put the "It must be temporary" stipulation, as who knows what's out there that could be
used.
Being a co-chair for our events, it was obvious to me that you will have 1st time "competitors" among the
veterans. Thus my training comments. Maybe I over simplified, and overstated the training portion, but
feel it's important. In our region we have been actively trying to bring in new participants just to cover the
costs of running the events. We found that bringing new people to the events, training and advising them,
not only raises the level of competition. It has also made us profitable. Simply enabling us to keep the
AutoX program going.
If you're not part of a 'large' club, the rules of engagement need to be loose enough to keep it going. The
definitions of Autocross vs Time trail should be one to two sentences. I don't feel we should define one or
the other into a set of parameters that will be so specific, clubs will not or cannot use it.
However, that being said, I DO agree with your definition. It fits the "keep it simple stupid" way of thinking
I feel the clubs will best be able to follow, and put into practice. I hope all others will agree, we can move
onto indexing, where I'm sure the fur will fly." Tony Lechner
———26 1/14/2003
"I am the past AX chair for the Riesentoter region. Charlie, I complement you for your interest and effort.
I have competed at different regions between New York and Washington over the past 8 or so years, and
my biggest anxiety traveling to these events was not knowing:
1. What class I will be in?
2. Who my competition would be (person as well as other type of cars)?
3. Will the modifications I made to my car keep me in the class I think that I will be in or will I be
moved up?
I am a competitor, and the more competition, the more I like it. I plan to go to the Parade in Tampa, but
the PCR rules discourage me. If I could be of any help, let me know. If we could change the PCRs, I'll
be eager to help." Nick Betegh
———27 1/15/2003
Oh, Nick...the PCRs are not that bad, are they? Many Regions loosely base their rules on the PCRs. But
they are not intended to be used by Regions, so they don't address many Regional issues.
I agree that your concerns are some of the ones that this Group will address. One of the other concerns
is the total lack of a definition of what an AX is supposed to be. Lacking guidance, many Regions have
aborted the traditional AX in favor of other type events...but still called "Autocross". I don't object to other
competitive driving formats, but believe that they need to have unique, descriptive names. I like Time
Trials, for example, but a TT labeled as an AX is wrong. Plus, there are many creative new formats for
AXes. We should devise appropriate new names for them. Locally, we have a "Giant Autocross" format
that is lots of fun and still very safe, like an AX.
This ad hoc AX Group is not focused on changing the PCRs. The PCRs change all the time. There is a
group that focuses on that task. I want to focus on solving the problem that you described, above.
But I do want the PCRs to change. Perhaps if this Group is successful, we will show the PCR
Committee a better way to structure the Parade Autocross? Mike Lommatzsch, the new PCR Chairman
is a member of this Group. Tom McKenny, the Parade Committee Chairman, and Stuart Zeh, the Parade
Competition Director, are also members. All of them are good friends of mine. I do not know if they will
take an active part, or just monitor our progress. Either way, they are welcome.
Long-term, I hope that this Group survives in some form. We need an AX Czar at the National level. As
I've said before, I am not a candidate. I'm not political enough. We also need a National monetary AX
subsidy for Regions that organize AX events and series that conform to the rules this group will develop.
Charlie Davis
———28 1/17/2003
You wanted to know more about NASA. Their registration is limited to 80 cars at every event. In a day's
time, they will allow walk thru, 2 drive thru at 1/2 speed, and 8 timed runs. YES, 8 TIMED RUNS. The
courses are laid out to allow as many as 3 cars on course at one time, and unless there is a timing
equipment malfunction, the cars run the course like a Swiss watch. I am willing to drive 2 hours to these
events because they are rewarding and worth while. Points are given for the fastest time as well as
cumulative totals for the 8 runs, so consistency also counts. The base classes are divided basically by
lbs./H.P. and points are given for modifications and thus cars moved up a class or two depending on the
number of modification points (similar to The Riesentoter system)." Nick Betegh
———29 1/20/2003
Back in the early 90's, our IRAC group wanted to encourage newcomers and decided to create a novice
class. They recognized that it was very discouraging for the newcomer to attend an event and get totally
"blown away" by all the experienced autocrossers that made up the bulk of our entrants. With a novice
class and award, the newcomer could more realistically compare himself to other newcomers at the
event. In order to take the "car factor" out of the equation, we decided to come up with an indexing
system. The systems being used by other local clubs, such as SCCA, were looked at and none of them
were felt to do a very good job. Thus, we decided to create our own system.
The original factors I developed and first implemented in 1994, have been improved and refined over the
years. We now use them for an additional award called the "Index of Performance" (IOP) award, whereby
all driver's times are adjusted and compared to each other. At the end of the year, this allows us to
present a "Driver of the Year" award based on the results scored for the designated minimum number of
events. This also allowed the hot shoes to compare their times better. This was also nice for others
because there are some one or two car classes where there isn't much competition. Thus, the factors
allow someone to see how they did even when no one else was in their class at that event.
The IRAC factoring system isn't perfect but it is better than anything else that we know of. I am interested
in seeing what other factoring systems have been developed and to see how we might improve our
current system.
Our system uses the results from Parade Autoxs from twelve events. Some events are not used
because the course did not reflect our typical course close enough and Traverse City was not used
because there was rain for only part of the event. The FTD time is the benchmark to which all of the
results are compared. The factor is calculated by simply dividing the class winner's time by the FTD
time. This produces a factor for each class in which there was an entrant. The factors for each class, for
each Parade used are then compared. The best factor, which is the highest numerical factor, for each
class is then used as the final factor. In other words, we take the best factor from the twelve Parade
results used as the IRAC factor. We originally were going to use an average of the various factors,
however, we found flaws inherent in such a calculation. The main flaw being that some classes
consistently have very good drivers in them while others don't.
Enclosed is a spreadsheet which shows the fifteen years of data, even though only twelve of the events
were used. The best factor for each class is enclosed in a box. Where no one competed in a class the
results and factor cells are blank. Since classes have been added over the years, there are many blanks
in the early years since obviously there were no cars for those classes at that time. I have been careful
to adjust class numbering so that today's classes represent the same cars that competed in the same
class over the entire period of time. For a new class, for which there is no prior data, the factor used is
1.000 for the first year. Also, in the Excel file is a graph of the factors so you can visually see the
relationships among the classes.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on our factoring system and am more than happy to answer any
questions you may have. Bruce Pickering
———30 1/20/2003
Thanks for the above description. I hope that it interests other Group members as much as it does me.
I did have a few questions:
1. If the factors are intended to normalize the cars, not the drivers, why did you select different factors
for the men's and women's classes? They drive the same cars.
2. If I understand your system, it's only used for the novice class and the TROD selection...not used
within the "regular" classes at all. Is that right?
3. I consider Parades a rather small sample. If we succeed in standardizing Regional AXes, would this
type factor system work better with lots of data?
4. The Parade AX classes group several cars together. I'm unaware of any data that supports those
groupings. If we collect data on each car model, rather than the Parade groupings, would this not
justify new groupings?
Charlie Davis
———31 1/21/2003
The following is an excerpt from the May 2002 Sportswear (the SCCA magazine). I thought it was poignant:
From time to time, there have been suggestions that the same course should be used every year at the
Nationals, like at the Club Racing Valvoline Runoffs, for example, to create a more consistent basis for
car classification. When asked about the merits of a "standard" Nationals course, both Babb and
Johnson are quick to reject the concept.
"Bad idea," says Babb. "Part of the challenge is figuring out how to drive a course you haven't seen
before, and it should be the same for all competitors. Johnson is even more emphatic. "Boo! Hiss!...
With a standard course, the fast line will sooner or later be known to everyone. What fun would that be?"
———32 1/21/2003
One of the things I'd like to see is a national set of PAX numbers which we could use for our events.
Applying them at the local club level may be difficult since some clubs have their own classes, but
nonetheless, a set of national numbers, updated yearly, would be great. I've been playing with trying to do
this for our club (and NER who have the same classes), using the 2002 SCCA PAX numbers. We may
try it "for fun" this year, see if people like it, how well it works out, etc.
Colin Blake
———33 1/21/2003
Take note of Bruce's letter above. Zone 4 has a LOT of experience with indices. They only use it (I think)
to determine the TTOD winner.
If we were to apply it to all the car models, it could supplant classes all together. IE, if we have accurate
indices on each individual car model, then what are the class groupings for? Charlie Davis
———34 1/21/2003
Charlie, great discussion on your web. I noticed you have my email but not my name in your
membership list. There is lots to digest here. I'll keep reading in my "spare" time.
Keep up the good work. I think you are on a good track here. Don Clinkinbeard
———35 1/22/2003
I agree with most of the definitions with the exception of the idea that an autocross must be a virgin
course that has not been previously practiced upon. I really see no distinction between practice and just
getting 5 or six timed runs since the later laps are almost always faster which means the earlier ones
were, in fact, practice. To carry the logic of this definition to completion, each driver should only be
allowed one lap per event which would eliminate most of the fun. I think there should be room for all kinds
of events. We hold both autocrosses and autocross schools, with instruction by experienced
autocrossers always available to anyone who asks (novice or experienced).
Our regions in Arizona (both AZ region and Southern AZ region) prefer multi-lap runs, each lap timed with
never more than one car being timed on the track at a time( we let the next car out for a warm-up 3/4 lap
when the first is well beyond the point where the second could catch up). I believe these multi-lap runs
improve the opportunity for learning (you can immediately correct a mistake from a previous lap) and
give more seat time per event. In addition, it is less wear on our clutches as there are no standing starts.
Steve Sapareto
———36 1/22/2003
I think it is important to realize that while "autocross" may have been invented over 50 years ago, it has
developed in many directions in different areas. And many of the residents of each area believe that their
version is the one true holy grail. All others are infidels to be mocked or worse.
In San Diego, we have been having a course walk, then driving at least six practice laps before three
timed runs for more than 20 years. Maybe for many more. When I started in 1986, it was common to get
ten practice laps and three timed runs. We only had 35 drivers and a big parking lot. In-car instruction
has been a feature of our autocrosses long before I was involved. As the oldest region in zone 8, we have
developed this format and shared it with the rest of the zone. It is in our Zone 8 ATX rules.
Having "grown up" this way, it is what feels normal to me. I understand that some folks enjoy the
intellectual challenge of driving only 3 timed laps after a very cerebral track walk. Yet some of our best
and fastest drivers don't "get" the track walk. It is not how they can learn the track. That doesn't make
them bad or stupid. Just different. And they are my friends.
We have "hot lap" lights at our events, and encourage folks to time themselves for the first three laps if
they want to train for the "peculiar" variety of autocross practiced at the Parade. BUT we don't do official
times for this, and will severely penalize anyone who knocks over too many cones on any lap. They get
to sit out for a lap or two. Second offense results in loss of their fastest time.
If fact we tell our drivers NOT to drive fast on the first few laps as the "overdriving" gets in the way of
ultimate learning, and ultimate speed. They are told to just find the course, and then start trying to drive
better.
While we don't learn the "cerebral skill" of getting to relatively high levels of performance in only a few
laps, we have close competition and feel we get faster overall. And WE LOVE THE MORE TRACK TIME.
Perhaps we went the way that we did because we had facilities that allowed us to do this. We were able to
give our drivers more laps and couldn't figure out why not to do it.
And perhaps other groups with other venues also made the best use of them, but with more drivers
could only give each driver three laps. They then made a "virtue of necessity" by stating that "it is
BETTER to only have three laps," and "celebrate the cerebral challenge. "
Neither group is right or wrong. They just had different resources that they exploited over time. And this
is what they each learned was normal.
If some of the group that you shepherd insists that practice laps are not a part of autocross as they
know it, REMEMBER that it is just the way THEY KNOW IT. To quote Heinlein, "Forgive them for they
are barbarians who think that the customs of their tribe are natural laws."
Perhaps since there are lots of things called "autocross," and most folks will think that their particular
flavor is correct, your group shouldn't use the word "autocross" for ANY of them, but instead each flavor
gets a new name. I think they are all valid, and I would object to not being eligible for a national subsidy if
we insisted on having practice laps, just as you might object to not being eligible if you forbid practice laps.
We are in a big tent and there is room for all of us. I would hate to see a fight over who gets to use the
name autocross, when we all think that that is what we do.
(I think that it may be easier to move toward creating more uniform handicap/classification rules. But
then how do you handle the folks who have spent $$ to optimize their car for the STABLE RULES in their
local area? I suspect that Club Racing had it easier, because they started from scratch.)
Vince Knauf
———37 1/22/2003
Both Steve and Vince have similar concerns, so I'll respond to them together...
Thanks for doing this. The more ideas we publish, the better we can understand the scope of the task.
You and others have "hit the nail on the head." You have focused in on one of the major differences.
Before I go further, let me make it clear that my goal is NOT to force or coerce anyone to abandon fun
events. My goal is to educate you and others that there are people who do not want an AX to become
what you describe. I want BOTH kinds of events...I'm one guy who appreciates many "flavors". I want
PCA to be INCLUSIVE...which it increasingly isn't. I also understand that I'm "preaching to the choir."
But from where I stand, the choir members are all singing a different tune! But excellently...
What you describe above IS the problem...that we all like what we invented and we REALLY think that our
way is the best/only way. As you noted, this madness has been going on for a long time. I contend that it
was caused, at least in part, by PCA's unwillingness to define what an AX is. Even the PCRs don't try to
define an Autocross...they just say that the Official Parade Driving Event "shall be an Autocross" and
leave it up to the peanut gallery to figure out what that is. I'm partly guilty for this. I spent 11 years on the
PCR committee!
I LOVE Parades...been to 25 of them. But they are in decline. The competitive events are not in alignment
with what the Regions are doing. So we need to make changes. One might be to eliminate the Parade?
I don't like that solution, but it is a possibility.
I want Parade to change, instead ofdisappearingg. But in order to get some measure of standardization,
the Regions must change too. As it is now, the Parade can not possibly do the AX all the ways that
Regions do. If we don't organize and standardize, soon there will be no "National" AX unity...just a bunch
of Regions and Zones doing what ever they want to. Hmmm...perhaps we are there already?
My solution is to devise appropriate names for these events. We simply have too many kinds of things
called AXes across PCA! Not all are AXes in my opinion...they are something else and we need a good
name to describe them. Again, I don't want them to go away! I like what you described and agree that it
is fun.
I want to define a FEW flavors of events...not all the hundreds that we have. I hope that we will find that
while we are divided, that we have some common ground and that we can write broad descriptions of the
"essential elements" of these and agree on them. I know instinctively that the Zone 8 "flavor" will be
popular. But we all must be open to new ideas...
One of my analogies is the Olympic Downhill Ski events. They have defined 4 "flavors":
Slalom
Giant Slalom
Super G
Downhill
Each of them is quite different. To a casual observer, they may look similar, differing only in size. But
the rules are quite different...things like how the course is marked...whether practice is allowed...how the
final time is computed...etc. You can go to ski races all over the world and these 4 "flavors" are always
the same. This, I think is a good model for what we can do.
I think what you are describing is a "classic" Time Trial. I love them. But they are QUITE different
events than an Autocross. They appeal to different people than the hard-core AX guy. I want to satisfy
BOTH these members. And those that like everything between an AX and a TT. We have lots of "flavors".
One unusual format that I have considered is to have a "classic" 3 run AX. Virgin course...course walk...
3 banzai runs. THEN start a multi-lap TT. Continue to time runs. Have instructors ride with students and
show them how and where to go faster. Still have the fun, but also have the essence of a true AX, where
you are required to "sight read" the course and then play it, w/o practice. Might not be quite the same as
your formats, but might be a good enough compromise? Or suggest another compromise?
One of my primary goals is to educate everyone that there is a LARGE range of events that we, as a
Club, call Autocrosses! And that, as you noted, we all tend to have a NIH complex. Vince, your use of
"intellectual" and "cerebral" is the very mocking that you mentioned at the start...or it was a joke? But
making "jokes" about other Club members choices is insensitive.
I can make the same statement about some of my friends...SOME of them don't learn the way you guys
do...they don't understand how anybody can take 10 runs to figure out a course! Many of them refuse to
take more than 4 runs. It's a protest! All the additional runs do for them is to wear tires. They never
improve their times!
Our Region assigns 1-2 students to each instructor. The instructors go on the course walk with their
students, instructing them on the subtle nuances of "reading" a course. That's the part that I think is
missing in your format? Perhaps you never had anyone "teach" you how to "read" a course?
Bring able to "sight read" a course (or music) makes you a better driver (or musician). I understand that
Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder don't read music and they are wonderful musicians, but I wouldn't want
them driving MY car! An analogy breaks down if it's pushed TOO far. ;-)
Being able to "read" a course is a wonderful talent to have. When driving on public roads, you don't often
get to "practice"...it's very good to know how to "read" where a road is going, before you get over a crest.
Safer too!
Vince, you shocked me when you said that SDR didn't allow entrants to hit many pylons! Hitting pylons
is allowed in a true Autocross...they just get a time penalty. No wonder SDR has no serious AXers! You
humiliate them! Drive them away! Learn a lesson from the few remaining Rallyists...don't award
anything like a "Dead Last But Finished" trophy! Some people are more sensitive than you and I...
And I agree with your characterization that neither camp is right or wrong. There is a reason why the
animals in New Zealand are "queer" (and why all the OTHER animals are only "different"). Isolation will
cause this. None of us had an "AX Rule Book" so we rolled our own formats. The isolation was the
problem. If other sports had the same isolation and lack of common rules, how could teams in one part
of the country compete equally with teams in other parts? The football fields need to be the same size.
And the shape of the balls need to be the same. And the number of attempts to hit that pesky ball needs
to be a single number. Otherwise we have anarchy and chaos! And we start wars to PROVE who is
right!!!
Your comment about the Club Race advocates having the opportunity to start with a "clean sheet of
paper" is right. Did you know that some Regions use the CR classes for their AX events?
This is a real problem. Our AX formats and rules should not have been allowed to get this fractured!
I put blame squarely on the shoulders of our National leadership. They are kinda mad at me for pointing
the finger at them (heck, I used my "friendly" finger...). But you and they should remember that I have
spent 21 years on the National Staff, in several positions. Most of them I was on the PCR Committee
and didn't have a clue that our Regional AX rules were as different as they are. Every time we went to a
different Region for a Parade, the AXes seemed quite similar. So it's not hard to understand that the
National Officers and Staff would ignore a problem that didn't exist in their minds. Also, I understand that I
am a part of the problem. I helped get us where we are!
I've noted for years (and others have also commented on this) that an experienced AXer makes a MUCH
better TT or racer than the reverse. AXers, who learn to peak early, learn to read the track and find the
optimum lines MUCH faster than racers ...they are trained to GRADUALLY find the limit.
Thanks a bunch for your excellent comments. This is one of the discussions I wanted to have.
Charlie Davis
———38 1/22/2003
In the Milwaukee region we simply have a walk thru, (You can walk thru 20 times if you show up early
enough, heck, you can help set up the course) 3 warm up laps, and 6 timed laps. Right or wrong, it
seems to work quite well for us.
Vince, speaks the truth. Club Racing had strict - set parameters, on how races would be held, and cars
would be classified from the very beginning. Our cold hard fact is that we are all so far down one road or
another, that there will need to be some compromise if there are to be any conclusions, other than
proceeding as we always have for the sake of our own individual clubs. By agreeing to anything other
than what is current, you will have naysayers.
However, is this a long term benefit to the club? I believe so. I don't necessarily agree with not hitting
cones, but I do agree that we cannot withhold club subsidies based upon walk thru, practice laps, or # of
timed runs.
Also, I was looking over the index's that Bruce Pickering attached. A question for Bruce? Are Parade
times raw time, or with the PCA index's applied? If not does anyone have the raw times for the parades
before indexes applied? If these scoring factors are for novices, how do you score the experienced?
thanks much, Tony Lechner
———39 1/22/2003
Let me answer some of your questions and comment on a couple of points...
Your Milwaukee format is neither wrong or right. Just different...
I also don't want to withhold any subsidy based on trivial differences. I want to, as a group, minimize the
differences, assign mutually agreeable names to each variation, and ask National to provide subsidies to
Regions who hold solo events that satisfy ONE of the "standard" formats. As an example, we might find
that your Milwaukee format is very similar to ones used in Dayton, Albany, and Houston...and suggest it
be called a "Red Autocross". We might have to tweak each of the details a bit. Would you object to
changing it to 2 practice runs and 6 timed runs? Remember you get a small subsidy if you do...
Bruce's times are the Official Times, which include pylons penalties, but no index...because there is no
indexing system used at Parades. At Parades, there is no novice designation...everybody runs together.
Usually there are BIG spreads in times...bigger than you will typically see at your Regional events.
This is explained by the fact that many people enter their first AX at Parades. Charlie Davis
———40 1/22/2003
I am thoroughly enthusiastic about the process. Please find the attached file. I hope that the attachment
does not complicate things for you.
RESPONSES TO VARIOUS COMENTS SINCE MY LAST CORRESPONDENCE:
1. PAX numbers for leveling the playing fields would be fine for a special CHARITY event or end of year
award (TTOD). FTD and class winners should still stick.
2. Virgin AX courses, 3 runs and out may be OK for hard core, matured drivers, but if you want to
promote the sport, newcomers will prefer spending a few more dollars and go to a driver's ed.
where they will have at least four 20min. sessions. These green drivers do not realize that there is a
much better learning curve when one masters AX first.
3. Would it be a good idea to send questionnaires to all the regions or to the members you have on file,
asking questions specific to the topics that are discussed. This way, answers can be compiled and
an AX definition, rules and classes are started in a draft form that can be polished as we go through
this process. Some of these questions may be:
A. What is the ratio of AX participant vs. region membership per event?
B. What are the 3 best ways to raise participation and competition in region and zone AX events
(hot dog and sodas don't count)?
C. You can add some additional questions, I'm sure!
4. I see in January Panorama that PCR has added showroom stock classes (SS). Pretty soon, we will
have more classes than cars competing. This way everyone will win his or her class! Isn't this
great? I am willing to bet that most regions would be happy to get 35 Porches for an event.
5. I am beginning to like the rules you have charted. How is a car progressed to a higher class based on
XYZ modifications? The cars in the highest class (9), where do they go if they are modified? We have
to make provisions for the guy that has a '72 911 and shoehorned a 3.6 Ltr. Motor, so engine size
should play a role in classification.
Nick Betegh
———41 1/22/2003
Some good issues...
#2...I would not expect green DE entrants to know the benefits of a year of AXing to teach them car
control...safely. We have to tell them that. My problem locally is to get the DE czars to admit that we
should have a firm policy that green drivers should Ax first. BTW, some Regions already require
that!
#3...Yes, that is in the Plan. Look on the "Survey" page. That's a proposed Survey I intend to send to
everyone in the Group. Suggest changes and additions?
#4...Oh, Nick. Don't be so cynical... I rather like these. Several Regions have "SS" classes and report
that they have been very successful in attracting new entrants. What we REALLY need are
some classes that map over to the Stock classes in Club Racing.
#5...Don't get attached to these...yet. They are just designed to show that it's easy to make
classifications that arescaleablee, so that small Regions can end up with a few classes and the
big Regions can end up with lots of classes. Yet all size of classes are in fact using the same
classification formula. This will improve cross pollination between disparate size Regions.
Charlie Davis
———42 1/23/2003
Here are my responses to the questions you raised on your web page relative to the letter of mine that
you published.
1. The factors are intended to normalize the cars. However, we didn't want to disadvantage the women for
the awards and, thus, we used a second set of factors for the women based on their past performance.
We IRAC drivers like to have the ladies compete as much as possible. We also travel 1 to 3 ½ hours
to events and like to make an overnight outing of it. Frequently there is a dinner the night before with
spouses, etc., in attendance. We do everything we can to encourage the ladies and, thus, we use a
second set of factors for them.
2. The factors are used only for the "Novice" and the "Index Of Performance" awards. We do not use the
factor for determining class winners, which by the way are determined by the best 2 runs not the best
single run. We also have FTD awards for ladies and men which are not factored.
3. The more data the better.
4. If we had sufficient data for each car model, that would allow us to evaluate the performance of
individual cars. From that we could possibly group cars into classes a little differently. However, I am not
aware of a source of such data that isn't impacted by variables such as drivers, course types, tires,
rules, etc.
In response to TonyLecher'ss questions:
· Raw times from the Parade results are in my spreadsheets.
· The same factor is used for all drivers and determines the Novice winner and the Index Of Performance
winner. There is also a year end "Driver Of The Year" award based on the IOP event results.
Bruce Pickering
———43 1/23/2003
Again, the Parade AX Results are not the "raw" times...they are the "official" times and include
pylon penalties. Charlie Davis
———44 1/24/2003
I agree with you totally that there are many different variations on how regions run their "autocrosses" and
they are all OK ... Just different. Better descriptions of the variety of events might be useful except that I
think you would have a hard time defining specific types as there will be variations on these too, as you
have alluded. Requiring classification (i.e., making rules) would again stifle creativity and cause
dissention as we have now.
None of these events is inherently better than any other - each have their pluses and minuses. I suspect
many who think theirs is the only way have not been to an event run differently. I think one of the best
things we can do is to find ways to encourage more interaction and opportunities for members from all
regions to see how others run their events. I've seen many good ideas from many of the comments. For
example, being able to "sight-read" a course just by looking at it is a great skill to strive for, and clearly
more practice has to make you a better driver otherwise we would all be great from the start. I think it's
important to remember that one of the most important parts of PCA is education: learning how to enjoy
our cars more. I don't think you encourage more participation by excluding members from the "official"
way to do things by creating more rules but by finding ways to include them in the "official" ways by
making rules as flexible as possible.
Your comment that said Parade cannot possibly do what the regions do caused me an immediate
reaction: WHY NOT? You said "If we don't organize and standardize, soon there will be no "National" AX
unity...just a bunch of Regions and Zones doing what ever they want to. Hmmm...perhaps we are there
already?" There is clearly a reason for this and I don't think it is because there was no initial
organizational leadership - it is because we are all different with common but different likes and dislikes
and with different opportunities available to us that we creatively exploited. THEREFORE, WHY DO WE
NEED UNITY? We are all members of PCA and national should try to find ways to embrace and support
all of us.
What if Parade allowed some variety in their autocrosses by allowing the event to be run by the local
region with national support in a different way each year, depending on how the region wanted to do it.
The specific rules for the event could be published well before Parade so that competitors would know
what to expect. This would have many pluses: first, it would reduce the favoritism and advantage that
members of regions that run strictly Solo II type events currently have - instead the locals might have a
little advantage but this group would be different from year to year; second, it would allow some creativity
and "newnesss" to the events; third, it would allow PCA members from across the country to see "how
others do it" so that they could pick up new ideas for their own events. Granted some of us might not like
the way the event was run, but that is already the case now only it is always the same people. If it were
allowed to vary, at least National would stop showing favoritism to only one group.
Comments on other issues:
I don't think Vince meant anything derogatory by referring to "cerebral processes". I think he only meant
that some enjoy intellectually thinking through an action before they try it and others prefer to approach
an action by doing it and developing the skills more instinctively or by physically training their motor
funtions. In other words, some people can learn a subject from a book and others learn by doing it. Again,
there should be room for everyone and I think we should try to avoid favoritism for any particular
approach.
The comments on autocross being a requisite for time-trials, I believe, is too restrictive. While we have
no PCA event in AZ that fit the time trial category, from my experience, there are many good track
drivers that are lousy at autocross and vice versa. I came up from the autocross route, through DE and
now to wheel to wheel racing and think that autocross can be helpful in track driving. However, while some
skills are similar, some are clearly different, and even more important, some skills learned for one have
to be "unlearned" for the other. I think if autocross is approached both as an education experience
as well as competition, it is natural for new members to try this first and will benefit. The approach that
autocross events must be run as a "virgin" course with no practice will not teach new members how to
drive. I have participated in one of our local Corvette club Solo II autocrosses and while it was a Corvette
favored course and many drivers had been participating in autocrosses much longer than I, I beat the
pants of all of them except one (and I was closely followed by other Porsche drivers). I attribute this to the
fact that our regions devote much more time to teaching each other the necessary driving skills. While we
have some autocross schools, this would not be sufficient if we did not provide teaching at all of our
events.
Many regions do not have the resources to run both kinds of events. You are correct in saying that there
clearly is a blurring between some autocrosses and time trials. I think the only reason we need to clarify
this distinction is for insurance and liability. The current requirements for time trials make it impossible for
many smaller regions to hold any competitive events other than parking lot, coned autocrosses. We
have a unique venue in SAZ that is clearly in between the two. It is a small road course with nothing to hit
but a few cacti and we keep it safe by judiciously placing slaloms and offset gates to keep speeds down.
We define it as an autocross by this speed limit and never allowing cars anywhere near each other during
timed competition. I'm sure others have unique situations that require their own creativity. The important
thing is to have fun events. I would suggest we might even consider eliminating time trials (as they are
now) or relegate them to the entry level of true racing (i.e., Club racing) and expand the definition of
autocross to anything competitive that can be safely run with minimal risk of injury and without highly
specialized safety equipment. I think PCA could do its members a great service by creating these kinds
of distinctions and working with insurance agencies to accept them to avoid the "grey" area so common
now. Perhaps the best way to accomplish this would be simply to set speed limits and restrictions
preventing any possibility for car to car collisions to occur to define the difference between autocrosses
and other events. Drivers education can and should fill the gap between these two types of activities.
That said, I hope we continue this discussion but the one thing I think we can do is improve the
classifications for these lower speed events. We use PCA club race classes for our autocross divisions,
lacking anything better. Creating local classes would seem to me to encourage problems with favoritism
and fairness. Your hp/weight based divisions seem a great start (if you included 944s!) but the issue of
modifications needs to be addressed, as was mentioned by Nick. Maybe a combination of basic points
based on hp/weight plus extra points like the club racing does for modifications would work.
Steve Sapareto
———45 1/23/2003
I really appreciate the time that it takes members like Steve to write these excellent rebuttals. He makes
some excellent points. I encourage more of you to send me your comments. Steve also in a separate
e-mail, suggested that I establish an e-mail forum for these communications...one that could be broken
into subjects (threads) in order to keep things more organized. I have already started that quest.
I'll make some (hopefully brief) comments on Steve's letter.
P. 1 I don't want to stifle creativity. Quite the opposite! By communicating with each other via groups
like this, I hope to raise the curtain and let Regions and AX experts around the country see the amazing
variation we have in our solo competitive events. Should give us all some ideas to try in our home
Regions! I do want to sort through the various "flavors" and group them together. When we do this, it will
be obvious whether we can describe each "flavor" with a simple set of their essential elements...things
that make them different from other "flavors". This may be impossible?
P. 2 I too believe in flexible rules.
P. 3 What I was trying to say is that "Parade can't do the Official Driving Event in all the ways Regions
do them, at the same time. The Parade AX event is quite variable...that's not a problem. Go to a few and
you will see. National is supportive of all "flavors"...they just favor some more than others...usually for
good reasons (like safety and fairness). I am campaigning to have the competitive events (AX, TT, and
Rally) to be treated more equally than they are now. My initial conversations with EC members opened
my eyes to the fact that they already had plans for this. They are peeved with me for rushing headlong
into the fray, without a clue of their strategic plans. I told them I knew that ignorance was not a good
defense, but it was all I had. In spite of my arrogance and youthful exuberance, they are supportive.
P. 4 I like it. I'm not sure it will "float", though. I'd like to hear some other guys comment, including some
experienced Parade goers. I have opposed the trend to publish the Parade AX course well in advance.
This encourages Regions to set up that course and let their Parade attendees "practice" on it before the
Parade. Unfortunately, not all Regions have facilities to set up all type and size courses. Thus, it's unfair
to do this. But publishing the "local" format and rules would not be unfair.
P. 5 I agree. Vince didn't intend to insult anyone. That doesn't mean that he didn't, unintentionally insult
someone. I may have unintentionally insulted Vince when I called him down for being insensitive? I may
have to apologize? I'm also in agreement with you on the various learning styles. I have a non-
mainstream style of learning, thus I have a different approach to driving education. I try to adapt my style
of teaching to the student's style of learning. I am aware of some instructors that can't do that. They are
rigid and not open to different styles (of learning or education). I'm not saying that Vince is like that.
P. 6 Let me expand on my "personal" opinion about prerequisites. I, like you, started out Autocrossing.
That was all that we did in the '70's. I learned to sense and correct for an impending slide in a 911. When
we started doing Time Trials, I noted that the old AXers were much safer drivers than the new guys who
didn't have any AX experience. Years of observation have reinforced that opinion. AXing is simply an
excellent way to prepare students for driving on a track. Without that experience, I found that first-time
Time Trialers were prone to hit guard rails, trees, and buildings...and end up off the pavement in ditches
or upside down. Even after years of TT experience, drivers without AX experience rarely excelled. Lately,
I note that really green DE students need a few AXes behind them to really enjoy the DE game. They
are too often embarrassed at their initial outing to come back. They drive erratically, then slowly; make
simple mistakes; get yelled at; and are moving pylons for the more experienced drivers. They know
that the other students and their instructors are talking about them! They don't return easily. They don't
try AXing either, because in our Region, most of the good DE drivers don't AX. They set an example...
I hope to be able as a group to agree on some minimum recommendations on prerequisites. There is
one PCA Region that (at least in the past) has required their students at their yearly track driving school
to finally go off course and to successfully keep the car under control. While I agree that that skill is an
important one, I would prefer to teach those skills in a less dangerous way. This Region does not have
any AXes. I do not know if that is because they have no venue or that they haven't looked? Either way,
IMO, it's wrong to instruct students that way. I want to recommend a correct progression of events.
Just as Club Racers have to satisfy some requirements (usually documented DE participation) to get
into their first CR, then have to demonstrate safety skills to get a CR license, and have to continue to
drive safely to be allowed to continue racing, there needed to be some minimum standards for Time
Trials. I would like to connect all 4 types of our driving events (excluding Rallying?) in the future. As it
is now, the AX/TT group and the DE/CR group are in separate camps in many Regions. That needs
to stop. We need to be one Club, not two (or more). Sorry...passionate about that one.
P. 7 I think the speed limit is too simplistic. Go back and look at a previous discussion. I believe that
Regions can set up safe Autocrosses where speeds will exceed any arbitrary limit. It's also quite possible
to set up a slow AX that is dangerous. SCCA sets 60 MPH for the Solo II limit. I prefer to set a risk limit.
This is harder to do, but I think it's worth the effort.
I continue to refuse to accept ownership for those silly "rules". I left out several models (other than Steve's
beloved 944) so that nobody would try to use the rules before they were done! Yes, there are lots of
things missing. Be patient!
Steve, go look at the PCRs. There are hundreds of listed modifications and a point system to use with
the PCR AX classes. Too bad there is little basis for the points assigned to them. We can do better?
Charlie Davis
———46 1/24/2003
The questions and observations that you emailed me are good ones and reflect many of the same
thoughts I had in the early stages of my analysis. Here are my current thoughts and observations.
The reference point for determining the factors is the FTD time. It is very important that the reference
point be the time that is the most consistent and reliable of all those times that are available. It was my
belief, based on participating in autoxs at all levels for almost 40 years (wow has it been that long -
maybe I made a math error), that the drivers that are in the running for FTD are typically the better
drivers who typically also have serious competition. The FTD may be produced by someone that's not
driving a modified car. However, I don't think that has happened at a Parade event. The point is this: the
FTD time, of all the times produced at the event, is the one that is the most reliable reference point, not
only for that event but for event after event.
It's not critical that the reference point be the best possible time the best possible driver could produce.
It would be nice to have that but it's not a major factor. What is important is that it be a consistently
competitive time, event after event for the events being used for the factors, i.e., Parade events.
The largest or highest factor was selected because it represents the driver which did the best job in the
class over the years analyzed. In other words, his time was the closest to the FTD time. We can't just
take the factor for one event because the driver that won that class for that event may have been an
average driver that didn't have much competition. If, however, we use several events, we increase the
likelihood that a very good driver will show up and create a factor that is a good representation of the cars
potential in that class. I originally thought an average would be the appropriate technique for determining
a factor. However, after analyzing the results of averaging factors vs. the "best factor," it became
apparent to me that the "average factor" didn't work as well as the "best factor." It appeared that the
averages resulted from a varying mixture of good drivers and not so good drivers. With a group weighted
heavily with good drivers, the factor would be high relative to the not so good weighted group. In other
words, it is less likely to have a group of drivers that performed at a level consistent with another group,
than to find one good driver over several years to show up and create a competitive factor. Some
classes just don't have a lot of competitive drivers that consistently show up. However, there is likely to
be at least one or two events over the years where a competitive driver shows up and creates a
competitive factor that can be compared to other competitive factors.
Why do some events create several "best factors" where some events don't have any? Three issues
are responsible for this. The biggest issue is how strong of a performance did the FTD driver turn in.
Another is how tight the course layout was. Another is the number of competitive drivers that showed up
for the event. However, if you look down the various events for the next highest factor, you will find that
the next highest factor is only a little different from the best factor and, thus, the single event bias is not
that big.
This bias could possibly be reduced by artificially adjusting the FTD times for the various events until
there is a wider array of "best factors" throughout the various events. I have not done this. If you look at
the event results in relation to the courses that were set up, you find lower factors where the courses were
higher speed courses. In such events, the modified cars enjoy more of an advantage over the production
cars. The autox course at Steamboat Springs was a relatively tight course. Thus, it generated more "best
factors" since the modified cars had less of an advantage.
As to sample size, it appears to me that averaging multiple driver times actually reduces your sample
size. For example if you have 10 events with say 50 drivers per event, you have 500 samples. If you
average five drivers, you reduce your sample size to 100. i.e., 500 ÷ 5 drivers per sample = 100. I think
this may get back to my findings where using the "best driver factors" worked better than the "average
factor." Bruce Pickering
———47 1/23/2003
Good reply! Answered most of my questions...
In your last paragraph, I'm confused by your answer. I was asking about including more events to get a
bigger sample. If we had consistent classes, modification points, and rules, we could also use big
Regional and Zone events in the index computation? Charlie Davis
———48 1/24/2003
To address your specific question...why do we punish people for hitting too many cones?
We had two significant incidents last year with big car damage, and lots of spins etc. The ATX
management team met with other senior region leaders, and identified one potential problem. The
"sophomore" driver. This is a driver who has completed the student program, and no longer has an in car
instructor, but is not yet experienced enough to be considered a mature ATX driver. A group of these
drivers were disrupting our events by sweeping down rows of cones, spinning frequently, and crashing
their cars. All of these caused big delays with loss of laps for all, and the crashes were threatening our
relationship with our insurance and with our venue.
We recognized that the "unbridled enthusiasm" of the sophomore drivers was the cause. They had
learned some car control skills and were confident. But they didn't have enough experience to not get
over their heads. Hence missing a corner and sweeping down the outside edge, frequent spins, and the
occasional car damaging contact with a hard object.
We created our "black flag" program to help them gain some self control. There had to be some personal
responsibility and cost for the damage that they were doing to the event. It's kind of like dealing with
teenagers. You want to get their attention so that they can learn, but you don't want to break their spirit.
We see this as a local region finding a problem and solving it, which results in evolution of ATX. I suspect
that simultaneous evolution (Darwinian?) both solving problems and optimizing opportunities explains
some of the wide diversity in "ATX" around the country.
And it has worked without complaints. Cones get knocked down, and spins happen. But not as many, and
not as disruptive. Vince Knauf
———49 1/23/2003
I'm glad you were not too offended by my rather strong reaction to the "punishment" for pylons.
After communicating with you, I understand that SDR had two good reasons for doing this:
1. Your ATX courses are dangerous, the speeds are high, and allowing out-of-control driving could not
be tolerated.
2. With heavily pyloned courses, often LOTS of pylons were knocked down. With several cars on your
large courses, this affected all the drivers behind the incident and required reruns. Consequently,
this affected the schedule negatively. The wrecked cars didn't help either...
Although SDR has a formal TT series, I contend that your ATX series shares many of the characteristics
of a TT. It's moderately dangerous (much more dangerous than a "real" AX) and you have to control the
drivers a lot. At a "real" AX, it's OK for the drivers to try for a while to invent their own style...makes them
appreciate the instruction more when they want it. BTW, we don't force instruction on anybody at an
AX...only at our TTs.
A different solution to problem #2 might be to use fewer pylons? On a course that has only "gates" and
not "walls", the problem of "sweeping down rows of cones" does not exist. Yes, I know...HERESY!!! ;-)
Charlie Davis
———50 1/26/2003
Let's not write a BOOK on modifications with formulas and whatever. After the basic classes,
modification rules should be kept simple where it would be easy for AX entrants to see and verify without
car disassembly. (See NASA northeast and M Club web sites) One could see from these 2
organizations that in spite of having all makes of cars in these events, the times within the classes are
quite competitive and not always the "A" or top class has FTD. We don't have to re-invent the wheel;
this was done for us already.
We can do the same (and easier) with "only Porsche" events. It is easy, we know what are the typical
modifications people do to their Porsches and their effect on performance, also we can take rules from
different regions and pick out what works. By keeping these rules relatively simple, entrants to an event
can police each other with the event chair to make the final decision.
Also reading through all the comments, I started to get Xeyed, so please try not to be too verbose and
get to the point, thanks. Nick Betegh
———51 1/26/2003
What is the "M CLub"? Send me a link.
Ouch. I have sore fingers and you are X-eyed. What a pair! I try to keep these short, but often fail.
I like the simplicity of the NASA modification points, except their "Weight" section seems silly and doesn't
eveactuallyly weigh anything! They seem very similar to many PCA Regions and the PCRs. We should
have no difficulty agreeing on a similar list, but the exact number of points assigned to each modification
might be an issue? Does anybody have objective evidence that supports any modification points
scheme?
As my question above implies, I don't think anybody really knows the effect of every possible modification,
much less proof that the weights assigned are correct. I also believe that every Region believes that their
rules work. The problem starts when we start comparing one solution with another solution...soon it is
obvious that both of them can't be right! The first step is realizing that we don't have a clue...then we can
make progress. As along as we each think "our" rules are the ones "we" should adopt, we won't make
progress. I have provided links to several different sets of rules. Go look. They are different. How do we
pick one of these? Charlie Davis
———52 1/26/2003
I agree that if you have "consistent classes, modification points, and rules, we could also use big
Regional and Zone events in the index computation." The more data we have the more accurate the
result. Bruce Pickering
———53 1/26/2003
Vince Knauf sent in a Survey and included an excellent comment that I thought should be shared.
They use 3 different size pylons. Little 12" pylons are used for most of the course. 24" pylons are used to
mark apexes. Braking markers are big 36" pylons. Also, the apex pylons are green, instead of orange.
This makes the apexes easy to see. This is an excellent way to do it! BTW, they use about 1200 pylons
to mark one of their AX courses! Charlie Davis
———54 1/29/2003
re. Rules page...
Your dimensionon scheme has 5 classes and each with 5 tiers. That will make a total 25 classes overall.
What will happen when we have the same for women? 50? The result is too many classes, no
competition. I find the singldimensionon by far a better scheme. The car owner should be able to do
whatever modification he or she wants and this way they can determine the class they want to be in. To
be able to have this work, we have to list all possible (performance enhancing) modifications and assign
each points based on their possible effect, then we should determine the number of points needed to be
bumped up one class or two classes, etc. Bumping up a class is a great way to see more cars in a class
and not have subclasses (improved, modified and race)Wouldn't't it be great to see how an '84 911 with
lighteneflywheelel, Camber trussDEME chip, and custom sway bars do against a factory stock RS
America if they wind up in the same class? If I was a competitor, I prefer fewer classes with lots of cars
per class, so I can say that I won XYZ AX in a class with 18 cars. On the other hand, if you want nearly
every entrant to an AX win, then set up a class for every car. " I won my class!! But there was only 1 car
in the class." There is no pride iaccomplishmentnt with this scheme.
Charlie, you mention that "normal" cars do not bump into "modified" classes. WHY NOT? If you have a
"normal" car and do enough modifications (X number of points) in essence it would become a purpose
built and moved up to the "A" class together with the modified cars. Look well at the Riesentoter Rules.
They may not be comprehensive since it has not been updated, but you will see that this is what we tried
to do. The main objective was to pair up cars with similar net performance (after modifications). Point for
modifications as well as bump up limits can be fine tuned by us for AX as well as TT events, and these
things can change year to year as we see fit to make the events more fun and bringing in more
participants. Nick Betegh
———55 1/29/2003
Note that I was not the one that "invented" either of these schemes. I'm just reporting on the current
situation! I agree with your concerns about the 2-dimensional scheme, but there are problems with it that
you ignore. Without really good data about the effect of the various modifications, it's difficult to achieve
parity. You immediately get complaints by entrants who contend that some competitor, with XYZ
modifications, should not be bumped into his class. The 2-dimensional scheme is perceived to be fairer
than the 1-dimensional scheme by many people.
There are at least two different opinions on this subject. That is what I was trying to expose. One of the
best examples of this 2-dimensional scheme is Golden Gate Region. Go look at their rules. They have
several hundred classes. Everybody tends to win. They don't see it as a problem. Their AX events are
popular. Their members have fun. They can't see what the fuss is about! I think if there are enough
entrants, a large number of classes makes sense. At small events, you need fewer classes. Go back
and re-read the first section on the "Rules" page. It was about having a common set of rules, but using
them to divide the field into a variable number of classes.
One issue we haven't talked about is how to retain novice AXers. My contention is that if they come to
their first event and have the perception that they were unfairly classed, they tend to not want to return.
I'm aadvocatete for novice classes and true stock classes for the beginners. After they have been
around for a while, then they can cope with the serious competition better. I have even proposed that we
might not need any classes at all? I've noticed that people find their own competitors, regardless of their
assigned class. Sometimes it's another driver who has similar times, event after event. Sometimes it's a
driver of a particular car (I don't like Cayenne drivers for some reason...). So what are classes for?
Your second point, about "normal" cars not bumping into the Race Car Classes...when a car
accumulates 60 modification points, it isn't "normal" any more. That's all I meant. I totally agree that we
can fine tune the rules to get reasonably fair groupings. Charlie Davis
———56 2/1/2003
Before trying to get to a standard set of rules, try to establish an agreed-upon set of principles. Then you
can evaluate the rules against the principles. Otherwise, everyone will be evaluating the rules against
their own personal set of principles, which, of course, are different than everyone else's! Ron Lewis
———57 2/2/2003
I am glad that this process is slowly but surely progressing. Here are my comments on the Autocross
Modifications list:
Unless the competitor is totally honest, or the entrant has bought a car with a number of changes that
he/she does not know about, Certain Invisible modifications should be left free or out of the list (as
internal engine lightening of parts, balancing moving parts and lightening the car/ pound.), otherwise it
will make the AX organizers more crazy than they already are.
I believe that we do not have to have a crystal ball to engrave rules and modifications. We can start with
a combination of rules that have worked in the past, and require the regions to return questionnaire
feedback following the first season and every season after that to make adjustments to the NATIONAL
guideline set of rules. SCCA as well as NASA do this year to year with altering PAX indexes and
changing base class locations of cars.
As per the member's list, we have over 100 participants. How come we do not hear from MOST of them?
I know a few of the list that could have great input in this process. Nick Betegh
———58 1/29/2003
Don't think that we have to handicap everything in the list. But we should consider every one of them.
I too wonder why we don't have more members of the Group assuming an active roll? Charlie Davis
———59 2/2/2003
Charlie, first I'd like to say Bravo! for for instigating and driving this endeavor.
Some thoughts on classing and modification structures and maybe forming some principles that are
valuable to the PCA club situation.
I think you distinguished well the two major different ways to approach car classing schemes. I think both
are valuable and appropriate in serving the needs of the organizing body that is developing the classing
system. I want to try and make the case that the one dimensional scheme is the best direction to take for
the needs of the PCA -AX, which is trying to bring some standardized guidelines to a semi-independent
regional club structure where the events are actually organized and run.
To begin, I'd like to point out what your envisioned PCA - AX is not. It is not a single sanctioning
organization that is conducting a centralized series run with onrubellaok (like PCA Club Racing).
Typically a two dimensional classing system is better suited to such an organization, and is why many
regions are using this approach. They are devising their system in a vacuum with no regard to
compatiibility with anyone else's system. This classing system is devised to fit the single series it was
designed for, including expected field size. It is a poor choice to use as a guide or skeleton in which to try
and shoe-horn independent organizations into running more standardized, compatible, yet still different
types of events. For such a system, flexibility is key.
I would like to see PCA -AX develop a system that is valuable for regional organizers and Parade, by
either being able to be used as is "turn-key", or as the basis for an organizer's own version of the system
with just a little fine (flavor) tuning.
In theory, a great system I believe would use a single scale, for example a scale from 1 to 1000, where
the unmodified car with the lowest performance potential begins the scale at 1 and the car (with the best
possible performance modifications) with the best performance potential is at the other end of the scale at
1000. Then modifications are awarded points based on the impact of their performance potential. Thus all
cars, unmodified and modified alike have their place somewhere on the scale.
With such a system, all the region or series organizer has to do is determine what is the best way (for
their series) to slice up the scale. Obviously the more slices the less the performance capabilities differ
between the cars within a slice, but the fewer the participants per slice as well. Large series may divide
the scale into more slices while small series may divide it into fewer slices. Organizers who want to
reward more of their participants can divide into more slices, while others that want to foster more
intense competition can divide into fewer slices. The slicing can be adapted to the type of participant
their series attracts. They can slice the scale such that their fields are more or less equally divided
among the resulting slices. The slices are obviously the classes.
From year to year, the organizer can easily change the slicing to satisfy in turn different constituencies
within their club, from those who want large class fields for more sense of competition, to those who want
more classes to be able to reward more winners. The beauty is that the scale stays the same or needs
only be tweaked for addition of new models and as the data for devising the scale builds. One
organization (PCA-AX) working on and maintaining the scale, then benefits all organizers and regions who
devise their classes (slicing) based on their local needs and desires. In this way an umbrella national
organization can do the work to/for the benefit of the region or local organizations that use the work for
their own purposes. Also, competitors will know what points their cars have and so can easily class
themselves in other organizers events without having to recompute or study the organizations classing
system other than that of knowing that organization's division structure of the scale.
A refinement of the system could then be a scale for each flavor of AX, be it (alpine skiing analogy)
special slalom, giant slalom, super G or downhill (time trial). Clearly a car model may be better or worse
suited to one flavor over another and thus fit slightly differently on the scale depending on the flavor.
While this is nice in theory, is it practical? Can it be devised to actually work in the real world?
There are many aspects that PCA -AX would have going for it to achieve such a system.
A) This system need only take into account Porsche models.
B) PCA, through its many regions, potentially has a good body and source of data with which to work to
devise the scale, if the data could only be collected and centralized.
C) This system need only take into account AX performance. If distinct flavors of AX can be defined
and somewhat standardized, then the performanccharacteristicscs against which to make the
evaluations between cars can be defined. The performance characteristics for AX are narrow
enough to be very workable. Its not likstraight-linenaccelerationon has to be evaluated and weighed
vs top speed vs cornering capability vs braking vs coefficient of drag, etc. Not all these
characteristics are significantly important in AX performance.
D) Because the number of car models is relatively contained, also the kinds and types of performance
modifications arrelativelyly contained and known (tried and tested).
E) Such a system would require too much work for the resources and brains of a single organizer or
region, but with the resources and brains of all regions (through PCA) it is realistically achievable.
I hope I have been able to adequately explain the benefits of a standard or universal one dimension scale
upon which any organizer or region's classes can then be devised/based. Chet Bottone
———60 1/29/2003
I think you understand what we are doing. I'd like to stress one point: We are not trying to subvert any
Region. I'm a "Federalist" to the core. But, as you noted, there are things better done by the whole Club. It
takes a lot of work to develop good AX rules. Small Regions simply don't have the talent, data, or time to
roll their own. I consider one of our deliverables to be a formula for developing Regional AX rules that are
universally applicable to Regions. But only if they choose to use them. I want only to have PCA offer a
"bribe" to Regions (in the form of a subsidy) to use the standard AX rules...much as the US Federal
governament "bribes" the States to build highways to a single standard. Charlie Davis
———61 2/3/2003
Thanks. I will get back to you with some AX thoughts since I was the IRAC chairman in Ohio for 2 years
and have been running parade, SCCA and other AX since 1973, I have a POV to share.
Then later...
You have incredible energy to try and get a set of national rules for a grassroots sport that most people
have no appreciation for. The only org I have run with that is successful with national rules pushed down
to local is SCCA (talk about politics-don't go there) because they have a true national championship and
dictate the rules. Is that what you are driving for? Because without a national championship I don't know
how you can marshal support for national rules. But maybe I'm really wrong.
I was pushing for an overhaul of the parade rules because I think the approach to parade is all wrong. Too
many production classes. Too many opportunities in a stock class to max the rules and blow everyone
away. Too few modified and improved classes. I proposed taking the current club racing stock classes
with the rules and making them the parade improved class. Take the same grouping and restrict the
modifications (ie none. really stock with non r tires) and let the regular participant have some fun.
But use the same A-H power to weight classing. Last take the Club racing GT classes and use them for
modified but don't split between race and R tires. Doesn't mean squat in an AX. So GT 4R and 4S are in
one modified class of GT4. Then you don't need what is it 28 production classes, men and women? Good
grief. This would take some work to take the last 5 parade AX times to validate the class groupings. But
the street stock guys have a place to race, the guys with maxed out production cars race with the club
racing stock guys and the modified guys get more classes. But I got no takers on the idea so I bagged it.
Your idea and approach is I think even tougher because I would think a national set of rules should be
what are run at parade. But at parade you have probably a 50/50 split between the person there for fun
and those trying to bring home another trophy. So keep me posted on how you do. Alan Kendall
———62 2/3/2003
Nope, I'm tired already. I know it's a tough job, but am convinced that a bottom-up approach has a better
chance than a top-down approach. If we can "fix" PCA autocrossing at the grassroots level, then it will be
relatively easy to bring the PCRs into agreement. Charlie Davis
———63 2/5/2003
I did give it a quick read and like what I saw. My main beef with the PCA format has always been using all
those national classes. I was I-2 champion in 2000...mostly running by myself! That just doesn't seem
right, but I'm no longer an officer so I don't have quite the say I once did. Hoping to get more involved this
year. I will take a closer look. Mark Litherland
———64 2/5/2003
I like the comments by Chet Bottone on a single system. Having raced sailboats for many years, this
seems similar to the PHRF rating system that has been used for many years to allow different designed
boats to compete successfully. This system is a handicap system, like golf, which sets a particular
seconds per mile of handicap against the "perfect boat". Each boat is assigned a basic handicap (e.g.,
analogous to your stock hp/wt ratios) and this is adjusted by both modifications to the car and
performance in a particular region (e.g., analogous to the "flavors" of autox and local competition).
Handicaps are also adjusted regionally by evaluating performance and allowing an adjustment (with a
maximum change per season limitation). Classes could then be easily set by dividing the number of
entrants organized by handicap into the number of classes desired. Since certain models would have
similar handicaps, this would usually result in similar models being classified together. Also, regions that
like lots of classes or only a few could decide how many divisions they want.
I think this system could be quite workable but would require a fair amount of work from a national group
(like this one essentially is) and input of lots of data from the regions. A standard national registration
form which queries necessary handicapping info would be necessary. It would also likely require a
national database of handicaps based most likely on VIN number. I really think this might be a better
system since I disagree with the proposal that "hidden" improvements should be ignored. Just because a
modification is hard to verify shouldn't mean that the car gets an advantage over others. With this
handicap system, a "hidden" mod may get away with an advantage for a season, however, adjustments
to the individual car's handicap in future seasons would eventually eliminate this advantage.
Also, in your list of mods that might affect performance, clearly some are not significant and others are
redundant. For example, replacing or removing body parts, glass and interior with lower weight parts all
fall under the general classification of weight reduction. With the exception of aerodynamic changes of
body panels that are still unlikely to affect autocross performance, I cannot think of any other advantage
of these mods besides the weight reduction. Steve Sapareto
———65 2/5/2003
Some people like handicap systems. Others don't. I'm one of those. Handicap schemes can be
manipulated easily by the competitors. They work best in sports without a competitive ladder (ie, where
you have to qualify for the next rung). That's where I want to go, long term. I can visualize Regional, then
Zone, then National AX competitions.
The list of mods is not really mine. plagiarizeded from everybody. I agree that many are redundant. I left
some of the more generic descriptions in for fear that their deletion would be a red flag.
The issue is that some organizing groups assign points to specific classes of things, like removing
bumpers. Others weigh the car to see how much it weighs. You don't need both of these. The problem
with the first one is that all bumpers don't weigh the same. Back when there were only 356's, that was not
an issue! On the flip side, most Regions don't have scales to weigh cars with. Charlie Davis
———66 2/5/2003
I do not know Chet Bettone who hacommenteded in your communications page, and he is not listed as a
member. The more I think about it, the more I like the 1000 point system hdescribeded. I believe that all
regions could benefit from this and tailor the "pie" any which way that they like. The system is simple, no
complicated formulas, and it is easy to set up. Any competitor does not have to be a rocket scientist to
figure out where he belongs in this scale. He merely has to add up his/her points to see where he fits, then
look up the regions dividing points in the scale, and WALAAA!....I like it.
Definitions, rules, classes and points for modifications can be easily written in 6 pages or less. WOW, I
don't have to be confused any more! Nick Betegh
———67 2/5/2003
I'm confused. I think Chet Bottone is a member of Golden Gate Region. I think you, Nick, are a member of
Riesentoter Region. If this is correct, it's not tsurprisinging that you two don't know each other! ;-)
But perhaps my records are wrong?
One Region has their 4-page rules condensed down to 1-page, but I can't understand them (because I
can't read them). Charlie Davis
———68 2/3/2003
By the way, I represent the Western Michigan Region. If this is not an official PCA effort what will you do
with the results? For example, you did not ask about classing. WMI has the longest running inter-regional
autocross series we know of in the country and have grouped ladies into classes different than the PCRs.
I am sure other regions have gotten used to what they do and would not want to be forced to change
either. It is interesting to observe the differences in how an AX is run from region to region.
Doug Tepper
———69 2/5/2003
While not official, we have the ear of the "officials"...they are interested in what we are doing. So in
general, we are hopefully leading PCA into adopting a new set of PCR classes and rules for AXing...ones
that will be more useful to Regions and Zones.
Yes, the inertia of well established rules is not easily overcome. I have no delusions that we will get all
Regions to adopt new, standardized rules. If we get a majority, that will be awesome! Time will bring a
few more into the camp. Some will never change. I'm a federalist to the core and will not attempt to
force them. But a small bribe might be OK... Charlie Davis
———70 2/4/2003
I like the comments by Chet Bottone on a single system. Having raced sailboats for many years, this
seems similar to the PHRF rating system that has been used for many years to allow different designed
boats to compete successfully. This system is a handicap system, like golf, which sets a particular
seconds per mile of handicap against the "perfect boat". Each boat is assigned a basic handicap (e.g.,
analogous to your stock hp/wt ratios) and this is adjusted by both modifications to the car and
performance in a particular region (e.g., analogous to the "flavors" of autox and local competition).
Handicaps are also adjusted regionally by evaluating performance and allowing an adjustment (with a
maximum change per season limitation). Classes could then be easily set by dividing the number of
entrants organized by handicap into the number of classes desired. Since certain models would have
similar handicaps, this would usually result in similar models being classified together. Also, regions that
like lots of classes or only a few could decide how many divisions they want.
I think this system could be quite workable but would require a fair amount of work from a national group
(like this one essentially is) and input of lots of data from the regions. A standard national registration
form which queries necessary handicapping info would be necessary. It would also likely require a
national database of handicaps based most likely on VIN number. I really think this might be a better
system since I disagree with the proposal that "hidden" improvements should be ignored. Just because a
modification is hard to verify shouldn't mean that the car gets an advantage over others. With this
handicap system, a "hidden" mod may get away with an advantage for a season, however, adjustments
to the individual car's handicap in future seasons would eventually eliminate this advantage.
Also, in your list of mods that might affect performance, clearly some are not significant and others are
redundant. For example, replacing or removing body parts, glass and interior with lower weight parts all
fall under the general classification of weight reduction. With the exception of aerodynamic changes of
body panels that are still unlikely to affect autocross performance, I cannot think of any other advantage
of these mods besides the weight reduction. Steve Sapareto
———71 2/7/2003
I too like Steve's ideas. I also agree with much you said. Especially the part about, "Just because a
modification is hard to verify shouldn't mean that the car gets an advantage over others."
Yes, some of the listed mods are redundant. I did that on purpose, since Regions differ in their
terminology. we must select one of the redundant items for the final list. Concerning the items that
don't offer an advantage (in your opinion); Yes, but we must agree on those and list them as being "free"
mods! Charlie Davis
———72 2/4/2003
I do not know Chet Bottone who hcommentedted in your communications page, and he is not listed as a
member. The more I think about it, the more I like the 1000 point system describedbed. I believe that all
regions could benefit from this and tailor the "pie" any which way that they like. the system is simple, no
complicated formulas, and it is easy to set up. Any competitor does not have to be a rocket scientist to
figure out where he belongs in this scale. He merely has to add up his/her points to see where he fits, then
look up the regions dividing points in the scale, and WALAAA!....I like it.
Definitions, rules, classes and points for modifications can be easily written in 6 pages or less. WOW I
don't have to be confused any more! Nick Betegh
———73 2/7/2003
You dissin' my simple formulas? Even Chet's simple system probably won't solve your confusion... ;-)
Charlie Davis
———74 2/5/2003
I think handicapping (a point system) will not give any worse manipulation than the current hodgepodge of
rules being used. One possible advantage of a point handicap is that you can create the point system
and lobby national to use it. Then regions can run their own events anyway they like but if participating in
national, they will be classed by the national point system. All this means is that they might be running
with different cars than they do in their regions but this is probably happening now anyways. Eventually, I
suspect most regions will use national's recommendation for classification, like they do now. My
suggestion is that a point system be set up to assign points roughly on the scale of seconds per mile.
This would make it possible to do some evaluation of the base points and size of the modification
corrections in a realistic manner. They would still only be used to divide the classes, not to correct actual
lap times.
You suggested a ladder scheme for competition. I'm not sure I would support this idea as it pretty much
requires that all regions run their autox similarly for fairness. I think this would just become a Porsche
SCCA. Those that now participate in the national event are the ones that can make it which I don't think is
likely to change much with a ladder. All it might mean is that some people who are able to go to a national
event would not be able to run, not having qualified locally. Steve Sapareto
———75 2/7/2003
As long as your "handicapping" system is only used to create a point scheme to allow division of the cars
into classes, I approve. But I don't like the other kind of handicapping, where individual times are
"adjusted" according to past performance. That makes it impossible to differentiate between car and
driver induced performance.
A ladder is more important for TT. Without some form of qualification, the EC will never allow TT to return
to Parades and will slowly strangle it even at the Regional level. All we need is a way to prohibit green
Time Trialers from competing at big national events. I don't think an AX ladder is as important, but it's
something we should consider. It will have the effect of encouraging members to get involved at the
Regional level. Seems like a win-win? Do we really want Club members who have never entered at least
one AX to be able to participate in a Parade AX? Why? Charlie Davis
———76 2/5/2003
It may be that a constant point value for a modification (across all model range) is not accurate enough,
i.e. that 1" wider rims cannot simply be 2 pts for a 914 1.7 and a 993 turbo alike, but rather a percentage
of their base point value, such that the modification results in an increase proportional to the cars base
point value. This is TBD.
The 1 to 1000 point scale was just a place holder to use to illustrate the concept. We would have to figure
out the proper units for the scale. Conceptually the scale need only start at the base point value for the
Porsche car with the lowperformanceance potential. The top of the scale would be open ended for future
cars but basically ends with the current car + full mods that results in the best performance potential.
Since this scale is not designed to be compared to anything else (other marque cars for example), it
need not have any usable scale below the minimum. Above the current maximum will presumably be
used as future models are released. The granularity of the scale (how many ticks between minimum and
maximum) would be an appropriate number to assign values to all cars and mods. So I'm thinking 50
would be too course (not enough ticks) and 10,000 too fine (too many needless ticks), if you get my
meaning. Maybe 150 is good, I don't know at this point.
Imagine we could get Michael Schumacher (or insert your idea of excellent Axer here) to run every
Porsche model (in stock form) on a representative AX course. And say we can remove weather, track
conditions, and driver effort differences from the results. The results we would get would be a range of
times. One car would be the slowest and one would be the fastest and all other models would fall
somewhere in between. The relationship or where all these cars fall on this scale is the true perfect
performance potential each Porsche model has against all other Porsche models. Actually its true only
for this AX course but we'll assume this AX course is a true average course etc etc.
Also imagine the same for every modification and iteration thereof for each Porsche model and you
would get the true value of each mod (we won't get into the fact that certain combinations of mods can be
greater than their individual sums and vice versa).
Now of course we can't do this in the real world. But this shows the absolute truthful values that we want to
try and get close to. My premise is that you don't have to achieve anywhere near true accuracy for this
system to work well. Only a level or "pretty good" accuracy is necessary to see meaningful results in a t
ypical PCA AX.
The way to find these values is the same way PCA-Club Racing found the relationship between models
for their "stock" classing. Actually they started with a formula, wt/hp, and then fine tuned it by analyzing
race results. We would examine AX results. With enough AX data, statistically the driver influence and
car condition and differences among street tires or differences among r-compound tires would even out
leaving only car performance potential as the constant factor determining differences in times between
models. This requires a lot of data, but nationally enough data probably exists, if it could only be rounded
up and analyzed.
Trying to predict what the performance potential is based on a set of criteria like you have worked on also
has promise. Its probably less accurate than an anlysis of a huge mountain of results data, but it could
well be accurate enough. That is the key. Not true accuracy, just sufficient accuracy. Maybe a formula is
the only practical way to map the performance potential relationships between the cars anyhow, seeing
as we don't have the data in our hands today.
I looked at your formula which also winds up classing cars into n number of classes, but it seems to me
that the class divisions symmetricalical or linear or whatever the word is. That is a valid division criteria, but
not always appropriate for every organizer. Take for example our Golden Gate Region. We have
relatively large events and the type of crowd we attract results in many cars in the middle of the
performance range and fewer cars at the extremes (sort of imagine a bell curve with numbers of cars as
the x-axis and performance potential as the y axis). organizerizer would also like to form class fields
such that every class had a good number of participants. With a simple linear division into classes that
would result in the classes that contained cars at the performance extremes (low and high) have few
participants and some classes in the middle have more than their fair share of participants. Great fun for
those in classes with huge fields, but less fun for those in classes with sparse fields.
Therefore the solution here would be to make the class divisions such that at the extremes the classes
were broader (to collect more of the participants) even though that means performance differences of
cars within class are greater. At the middle, the class divisions would be narrower such that performance
differences of cars within class are reduced but there are still a good amount of participants in each class.
Therefore tradeoffsoffs between how similar carsclassclas are with each other, and how many participants
you can expect per class are crafted the way the organizer wants rather than a fixed solution.
Finally, you write: "There is one issue we haven't discussed. A one-dimensional scheme seems to
require that cars with substantial mods progress up the scale into classes with quite different cars in
it...cars w/o mods. For example, a 914 with some mods might end up in the class originally populated by
a 928. Those two cars have vastly different performance envelopes. They don't belong together...cats
and dogs. PCA addressed this problem years ago, by decreeing that bumping (or progressing) would not
involve mixing incompatible models. Thus the Improved and Modified classes were created."
I strongly disagree here. If two cars can go through a course and be very evenly matched in terms of
final course time, it doesn't matter that they are very different cars (a 914 and a 928) and that they each
achieve their times in different ways (cornering speed vs acceleration). The drivers of these two cars
have each found an opponent they can consistently race against. Of course it would be optimal for each
driver to have 10 or so of the same cars as his to compete against at each event but this just isn't reality.
The reality is that evenly matched opponents are rare and precious and we can't be choosy like "they
don't have the engine in the same place" or "their different models". As an organizer of a series, you want
to give your participants an even playing field and opponents with which to compete against. Too many
series just offer an even playing field of classes, but at the cost of having no opponents to run against.
The other thing to consider here is that AX is not wheel to wheel racing. So course times are the only
criteria you need to look at. Not how the time was achieved. In racing its not so simple. A 914 and a 928
may have equal lap times, but the 928 kills the 914 on starts and on torque needed for passing
maneuvers so while lap times look equal, in a real race the 928 is advantaged. This is not the case with
AX and TT where cars are only on course by themselves against the clock.
Finally, also consider that such a points system makes it very easy for participants to class themselves.
It's like filling a shopping basket. Every item has its cost. They fill up their basket with all the items that
make up their car and resulting total is their car value which they just apply to the scale to find where they
fit (which class). Chet Bottone
———77 2/7/2003
My concern about what you strongly disagreed about, is tdrasticallyicly different cars (such as a 914 and a
928) may be closely matched on one course, but not likely on a range of different courses. Thus,
fairness becomes a course design issue. These two drivers and cars can still "compete" informally, but
the official competition should be restricted to similar configurations.
Otherwise, I generally agree with your comments. Charlie Davis
———78 2/5/2003
They (CR) started with wt/hp, then (they may have made some manual adjustments at the beginning too,
I don't know) over the years cars were moved up or down a class or two based on how they performed on
track. For example, this year the 90-94 Carerra (964) C2 was moved up a class from F to E because
they had enough data from race results to determine that it was better classed in E.
Thatinherentrant in the base points ranking. A ranking of models for a tight AX is not the same ranking for
a TT on a track. Either the ranking is an average of different types of courses (less accurate) or the
ranking pertains to one style of AX, ie. One set of points for special slalom, one set for giant slalom, one
for GS and one for downhill (to use the alpine skiing analogy).
What happens when a series wants to include various style courses (tight to open) in their year-long
championship? Series needs to use one base scale and set of divisions (their rulebook) for the year.
Hmm... Looks like an AX base points system needs to be an average of tight, medium and open
courses.
I read you're not a fan of handicapping systems. However another forte of this kind of system is that you
have laid the foundation on which a good car handicapping system (not car+driver like PAX, I don't like
that) canoverlaidayed.
Whether you're a fan or not, you have to recognize that a lot of people like them and it's a way for an
organizer to add attraction to his/her series. Chet Bottone
———79 2/7/2003
As long as thandicappingping" system doesn't change the individual times during an event, I can accept
that. It's OK to adjust the scale and the divisions of that scale in order to create equal classes. This is
probably a semantic issue? "Handicap" vs "index"... Charlie Davis
———80 2/27/2003
CD: I had a face-to-face conversation with Ed Mayo. I got the impression that he was frustrated, probably
with me, so I wrote him a LONG letter and included all the comments to this point (Ed is not on E-mail).
The following is his reply. I then insert my reply and his reply to me in an unconventional format.
I've read your letter and no, I'm not frustrated with you as much as I am with the current state of affairs
that is now upon us. I applaud your efforts to do something although I still believe it should ultimately go
through channels (slow as they may be).
All of that aside, I believe that you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't think that attendance is down
because of Regional differences or autocross definition as much as it is due to slicing the pie in smaller
pieces. It used to be that autocross and time trial were the only PCA venues for driving fun (I realize
there was also rally and SCCA events, but don't get me confused here!). Then along came PCA Club
Racing. That immediately cost us participation in our local autoX and time trial events. Next came DE
events. Now it seems Parade scheduling can't get the Autocross stuff done soon enough (witness the
one & two day Autocross schedules) so they can get on to the mpopularular (and moneymaking) DE
events. AutoX and TT by their very nature will not be able to compete with the Club Race/DE format in
terms of track time, entertainment, or what I call the "Michael Schumacher" role playing. It's hard to
compete with race track formats with pylons on a parking lot.
My opinion is that DE events should require some minimum number of AutoX events to learn driving and
car control at 50-60 MPH, rather than learning at 100 MPH in traffic. This would increase AutoX numbers
and then pass on better drivers to handle faster speeds at DE events. I've ridden with people at DE
events that didn't have a clue as to what their car was doing or how to shift properly. Why couldn't this
be learned at a less dangerous level? All professional drivers started at some lower level and worked
up to their current level.
One more draw to DE is that you don't have to help work the event. Frankly, I think they're missing a
wonderful learning experience. I believe I've learned a lot working corners and watching various drivers.
Hope this gives you something to chew on! Ed Mayo
———81 2/27/2003
Ed, I agree with everything you said, with the exception of "I believe you're barking up the wrong tree."
I rather think I may be jousting with the wrong windmill though...
Analogies aside, I like your perspective and would like to post it on the ad hoc AX Group site and list you
as a contributor/member. Is this OK with you? [Ed said it was OK...]
In case it isn't obvious, I AM working with Tom Bobbitt and Mike Lommatzsch, but there is no plan at
that level to address wider issues than Parade (at least there wasn't the last time we spoke). I believe that
we can SHOW them how to solve the problem...and that the solution will be a better one than if the
reverse happens. And it will happen quicker...
To which Ed queried, "Do they even agree there is a problem?"
Yes, they understand and agree with much of what we are doing, at least initially.
Ed continued, "Are they wanting to improve the auto-x Regionally, which will automatically improve it at
the Parade level?"
I think so. I keep stressing that it can't be fixed "top down"...that it must be a "bottom up" fix. Or at least
work it from BOTH ends! My fantasy is to have a groundswell from the Regions, insisting that the
problem be "fixed". If the Zonies and the EC see that the Regions are behind this... Just a fantasy.
BTW, I tried for 4 years to get Denny to assume a wider scope and to address the Regional and Zone AX
problems. It was too much to ask, I guess. In hind site, I should have gone around him, directly to the EC.
Being non-political, I have an aversion to the EC. I shudder to think of trying to deal with them. I like and
respect the EC members, but somehow, they collectively don't act like they do individually? I struggle
to understand the system... NOTE: I'm not a PCA basher. I'm a loyal critic!
Ed replied, "In Dennis' defense I don't believe it to be a PCR problem. I believe the zone reps will have to
push the EC to action, if all the zone reps agree they want to improve the auto-x attendance."
I agree and I am not mad at Denny. He did what he could. It was my problem for asking him to bootstrap a
solution w/o EC direction. I agree that the Zonies should have anticipated the problem long ago. Do they
lack the authority and incentives to take strategic action? It's seldom politically correct to over step the
historical scope of an office. Since I have ZERO political ambitions, I decided I was the right guy to take
action. NOTE: I'm not a PCA basher. I'm a distinguished senior observer!
I'm also convinced that all these people we are mentioning...Tom, Bob, Mike, Denny, the Zonies, etc, are
good, honest, diligent people who are (and have been) working for the benefit of PCA.
One of my major goals with this Group is to let everybody see that we have a shared set of problems,
concerns, and issues. For example, your belief that there needs to be some safer prerequisite for a DE is
shared by others. There is one big Region that appears to do that already and I tried in vain back in 2000
to get our DE czars to do that. I even approached Bob Miller with that idea and got a positive response. I
think that "we" as a Group can be more successful than "us" individually.
Ed said, "This is the biggest problem as I see it, to convince the DE organizers that this will benefit both
groups."
Yep. They are being territorial and very short sighted. I have a lot of emotional baggage about the whole
DE subject, so I'm not a good person to discuss this problem. But I do agree with your assessment.
I like much of the DE concept and enjoyed instructing. But I didn't like some of the people and their
constant, petty, personal attacks. But they are well organized and I want us to emulate that. Without an
organization and a group of advocates, AXing will not survive in this club.
I'll have to let somebody else try to convince the DE crowd of the wisdom of your idea; that requiring
some minimum level of demonstrable skill at car control will help DE (a bunch) and that AX is one
obvious candidate to do that. I tried on several occasions to convince our Zone DE czar of the wisdom of
linking all the driving events, especially coordination of the training curriculum and failed. He's paranoid
and thought it was a scheme to minimize DE...to take away their Green students...thought that if they
learned to AX first that it would be difficult to undo the damage...as if AX is a communicable disease...
and I was a "carrier". I'm not going there again. Life is too short...
If someone else convinces our DE donkey apertures to cooperate or even just listen, I'd reciprocate, but
I won't make any more overtures. Since I'm not on the board (and thus not highly paid) anymore, I can't
afford the psychiatrist and the anti-depressants... ;-)
———82 3/10/2003
I continue to monitor your website for content, comments from the various contributors to the discussion
and any direction you may be heading. The PCR Committee is meeting the weekend of March 21/22/23.
If you would like us to consider any sort of new rules structure or classing, I would need to receive that
input before March 18th. This would give me sufficient time to distribute to all committee members for
review before the meeting.
I had a very busy yet productive weekend meeting with the Zone Reps, The Executive Council and
various others that are interested in the PCR's. The PCR Committee has some good topics for
discussion at this upcoming meeting from more timely PCR changes to a complete revamping of the
autocross rules.
After this meeting, I will submit an article for Panorama describing directions we have decided to take
and the reasons for such directions. We may have one direction or many depending on the topics we
decide to tackle at this time. We will also be asking for additional input from all members as to the
pluses and minuses of such direction(s). I hope to bring about a more open process and a more
receptive PCR committee.
I look forward to working with you and your ad hoc committee where possible. But you know you and your
group are treading on areas that I have no control or authority.
At this time, our priorities will be 1) more timely PCR changes and how to accomplish this and 2) the
autocross structure/classes. With a revamped set of autocross rules, I would hope to see more
regions/zones begin to use the rules and thus start down the road to a common set of rules used
throughout PCA for autocrossing. Other topics may or will be discussed as needed. Mike Lommatzsch
———83 3/11/2003
Good. I was wondering if you had found the time (I know you have been busy). Our direction is still
emerging. There is a sub-group that has been "discussing" classification issues. There were 7-8 people
who seemed opinionated and inclined to get involved, so I asked them to discuss it privately. It has been
quite interesting and productive, but we have stalled. We are waiting to get some information from a
contact in the factory. One of the sub-group members said he had a contact in the factory that could get
us good, factual data about the performance envelopes of the cars...all of them! So we are waiting...
Prior to this delay, we seemed to be in reasonable agreement that our direction should be to class the
cars based on some TBD "formula", regardless of the car model. In our vision, we no longer need to
segregate car models at the Regional level. We think that the members are mature enough to cope with
competing with other models, even the ones that are cooled with water and which are produced in
conjunction with lesser firms, such as VW and Audi.
We seem to agree that the "formula" should produce a performance factor that ranges from about 85%
to 100% for the stock cars. We have adequate evidence that a 15% range will cover the stock Porsche
models in an AX competition. Incorporating the modifications allowed by the PCRs will widen the range
to about 20%.
We came to this juncture by agreeing that it's difficult or impossible to subtract the driver, course design,
and weather from the performance data at competitive events. Thus, we can't simply compute a PAX-like
index and expect it to produce fair groupings. We tried REALLY hard to make that work!
I think we will propose a 1000 point performance factor range. We may make the fastest stock car the
benchmark (ie, assign it 1000 points) or we may make the fastest modified car the benchmark (ie, M3 or
M4). In the latter case, the performance factors for the I and M guys may be greater than 1000. Thus,
you probably will see factors ranging from 800 to 1000 or 850 to 1050?
We plan to allow and provide means for the Regions to divide the range into any number of sub-groups
(classes). This will allow the small Regions with 10 cars to have a small number of classes and the
giant Regions with 150 cars to have lots of classes. This scheme may blur the distinction between
"stock" and "modified". Some "stock" cars are faster than some "modified" cars. I think our direction will
be to recommend that cars with reasonably similar performance potential be classed together,
regardless of their age, origin, or configuration.
Please don't hold me to this, though. I'm not the architect. It's the group that will make the final decisions.
I can query the sub-group about this and see if the above simdescriptioniuon of our direction re classes is
reasonably close. Sub-group, consider this a query and please respond...
I very much like the extra meeting idea and hope that it works. As you know, I want PCA to take a "global"
view and stop refusing to address AX rules at the Regional and Zone levels. We do this with CR and DE.
The other disciplines (AX and TT) need some direction too. The direction should be gentle guidance,
not a dictum. Couple this with a small monetary encouragement plus some time and I think we can
reduce the range of AX formats in use substantially.
I don't want to prohibit anybody from pursuing a novel and creative AX design, but we should have a
range of descriptive names for the major types of events. Some Regions have heard a rumor that they
can't call their events Time Trials (for various reasons...personal insurance, group insurance, PCA
requirements, etc), so they often have an AX that looks EXACTLY like a TT! I want to encourage them
to use the proper names as a start. Even beyond that AX-TT distinction, there are several other formats
that seem to have reasonable acceptance. These need proper names, because they ALL are not simple
AXes!
My favorite analogy is the 4 flavors of downhill ski events. Each is quite different from the others, yet
they share many similarities. They each have a different name (Downhill, Super G, Giant Slalom, and
Slalom). We should be able to come up with 4 flavors and 4 names of solo competitive events for PCA.
These flavors may involve DIFFERENT formulas for classes. A big, fast TT course puts emphasis on HP
and aerodynamics. A small, tight AX course puts emphasis on weight and handling. The formulas seem
destined to be a variable, depending on the flavor of event.
Once again, the Olympic downhill ski events are ahead of us on this. In the Paralympics, the
handicapped skiers get factors for each downhill event. They are DIFFERENT factors, depending on the
flavor of event. But, they are also handicaps, as the skiers each have quite different abilities. But I don't
want us to have handicaps, based on past performance. I want our factors to be objective measures of
potential.
I encourage you to expand the feedback to the lay member...when a member takes the time to propose
a change, let them "see" the PCR process in action.
I remind the Group at regular intervals that we are CLEARLY trying to standardize the Regional AX format
somewhat. You and the PCR Committee are charged with "fixing" the Parade Rules and the change
process. There may be similarities and overlaps? Ultimately, I would like to see ONE group handle both
these! This may take years...
I approve of your priorities. We share similar goals. My job is to stir the pot. So far it seems to be
smelling like stew... :-) Charlie Davis
———84 3/30/2003
I received the following Certified letter from Mike Lommatzsch as a follow up to the PCR Committee's
Spring meeting in Phoenix:
It was noted that you have listed the names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of the
entire PCA PCR Committee on your website. Additionally, the PCA logo is currently being used on your
Ad Hoc Committee's home page.
As neither the PCR Committee nor its members asked for or authorized their inclusion on your site, I
would ask that certain items of the Committees identification be removed. The Committee members
respectifully ask that neither their addresses or phone numbers be listed on your website. It is not in our
best interest to have these items available to the whole world. The members of PCA can obtain these if
necessary through access to a copy of the current PCR's, by contacting the PCA office or in the back of
Panorama in the future. You may leave the names and email addresses only for the PCR Committee
members and its Chairman.
Additionally, and in order to avoid confusion over whether this is an authorized PCA website, I
respectifully ask that you remove the PCA Logo.
Sincerely, Mike Lommatzsch, PCA Parade Competition Rules Committee Chairman
———85 4/4/2003
Mike, the Certified letter was a bit excessive. I'm not prone to ignoring you or anyone.
I'll comply with your request to delete the phone numbers and street addresses of the PCR Committee
members. I did not think that these were secret, so I just copied the entire list from the inside of the
PCRs.
When I first created the ad hoc AX Group website, I was asked by Tom Bobbitt to clarify that it was not
an official PCA endeavor. I did this by adding the following text as the first thing on the home page:
"The ad hoc Autocross Group is not an official Porsche Club of America venture. It is a grass-roots
attempt within PCA..."
In addition, the "ad hoc" name seems to clearly imply that it's not "official" (note that I even chose to use
lower case in "ad hoc"). I think I have made it very clear that the website has no official sanction.
Thus, I am refusing to remove the PCA Logo. It's there for an important reason: This Group is of and for
PCA members and Regions. It's not a general AX Group...it's a PCA AX Group. Including the PCA logo is
thus appropriate and important. If I were not a PCA member or if the Group was for all AXers, regardless
of club affiliation, then your concern would be appropriate and using the logo would be wrong.
I very much want to work with you and the PCR Committee in the future. I hope that the "tone" of your
letter doesn't portend an adversarial relationship. Charlie Davis
———86 4/6/2003
Mike, after sleeping on this for a couple of days, I decided that since our use of the PCA Logo disturbed
you and others within PCA, I would comply with your request. I have removed it and replaced it with
something more benign, yet appropriate. Although the issue of whether an individual PCA member has
the right to use the PCA Logo is interesting (and perhaps important), it is not central to what the ad hoc
Autocross Group is about. I'll save that battle for another time and place. Charlie Davis
———87 4/21/2003
I have looked at ydefinitionsions for "hit" and "DNF" and agree with them. I take it that if someone
proceeds past the drawn or imaginary lines of the course, then backing up to re-enter the course in order
to avoid the DNF is not possible because crossing the "line" is the first determining factor...right?
If they drive off course, but do not cross the "line" then backing up will prevent the DNF...right?
Fran Ussery
———88 4/21/2003
Yes, that's what I am proposing. I suspect that not everyone will agree with this? CharlieDavis
———89 4/21/2003
FYI, there has been a question posted regarding pylon counts and reruns. Just a brief synopsis is:
If a driver hits two pylons on run #1, but run #1 was fouled because of a worker on course. Driver takes
the given rerun, then hits one more pylon. The question is: Does driver get 2 or 3 pypenaltiesties? In
PCR he gets 2 (greater number) in MAV he gets 3! Just something more to gnaw on. Fran Ussery
———90 4/21/2003
It depends on where/when the pylons were hit. If they all were hit before the impede, then they carry
forward. If any pylons were hit AFTER the impede, it's not so clear. One side says that any driver that hits
pylons while driving slowly back to Grid deserves to have them count. The other side says that since the
run from the point of impede is not timed, any pylon hit then should NOT be counted.
I know that this is more than you asked, but it is still an issue.
To answer your question simply, yes, pylons hit during a run that was aborted at no fault of the driver, do
count. D-6.3 is pretty clear about that: "The final pylon penalty assigned to a 'run/rerun(s)' will be the
larger of the pylon penalties accrued during the run and the final rerun." I don't like that, but it's the rule.
I would prefer to have the pylon penalties of a run/rerun(s) accumulate, since the current rule encourages
driver to intentionally hit pylons on their rerun(s). Charlie Davis
———91 4/21/2003
Yep, I agree with you on the rerun cumulative pylon count. I don't think that the larger number but not "all"
should be the rule. However, it's pretty clear in the PCRs that way. The PCR committee is just restating
the existing rule to the questions, so there isinterpretationtion here. However, that is something for your
AdHoc committee to address, and maybe we can get a more universal acceptance. Seems more
regions take the greater number vs the cumulative number. Fran Ussery
———92 4/21/2003
I'll post this thread on the site and see what kind of response we get.
OK, guys and gals, what do your Regions do with pylons hit during runs that are aborted and generate
reruns? Charlie Davis
———93 4/21/2003
Your rule for a "hit" is the "down and/or out" rule used by WMR and all SCCA events. It is a good rule.
The DNF rule has the necessary "go off course" element, but the imaginary line part would be hard to
enforce. Doug Tepper
———94 4/23/2003
DNF crossing an imaginary line is rather weak and debatable. One can take a very wide race line into a
turn, be out of imaginarynery line and still make all the gates. I think it is better to leave it as: "Gate
missed, it is a DNF".
Part of autocrossing is that it is fun, competitive and (relatively) simple to follow.
Up here in our area, all clubs disregard any downed pylons in a run that is aborted. The aborted run,
whether it is the fault of the timing equipment, worker on course or whatever other than the driver, is
awarded a re-run with no pylon penalty carry over. Maybe the organizers strive to do a better job next
time. You can not fault a driver for some one else's fault.
Everything else is OK to me. Nick Betegh
———95 4/23/2003
Being "devil's advocate", are the PCR's wrong to address this? See D-6.3. The PCR's are, in my opinion
just trying to be fair to other drivers by not allowing a driver, due to factors outside his control, to have a
"practice" run with no consequences. Are they wrong to do this?
It might be also noted, that the PCR's mandate that in the case of an aborted run, that the car be stopped
immediately and be required to return to Grid some way other than the course. The rationale is the
same, I think. Charlie Davis
———96 5/10/2003
[The following was received as comments about the first draft "Rules"]
Great start. I'd like to see a minimum course width. Too many people think that the way to "slow down" a
course is to narrow it. It might, but it greatly contributes to unfairness when approached that way. By the
time it gets narrow enough to "slow down" a 914, it's nearly impassable in a 928. The way to fairly "slow
down" a part of a course is by usintightergher radius corner...not narrowness of corner. A minimum course
width should be 15-20 ft. This does make the corners a little "longer" when you're trying to slow them
down. Uses a few more cones. And the wider car will still always be penalized at an autocross, but utilizing
this design principle minimizes the problem. Probably should have a minimum slalom spacing, for the
same reason.
I still like using the factory acceleration data as a starting basis for classification, whether it be quarter
mile, or standing kilometer for high speed time-trials, or 0-60 for low speed autocrosses. It's the least
politically loaded data we're gonna get. That's another way of saying a higher potential for fairness. Which
gives a higher potential for participation...which is one effective view of what the sum total of any car club
"is." (Since they are not profit-making enterprises.) And the data certainly available for all the Porsche's
of the last 25 years, which is a majority of today's potential participants.
Thanks for listening. Kim Crumb
———97 4/23/2003
I think the minimum course width is a debatable issue. I suspect that many would say that things like
course width is a variable best not "regulated". I'm quite willing to listen to the group and will post your
suggestion and let them comment.
I have used the technique of narrowing the course at times. Since I'm a 914 driver and you are a 928
driver, we are good candidates for this debate. My personal minimum width "spec" is about 8 feet. I've
seen 1 ton Cheby trux navigate 8 foot course features! But I think your point is that anything that narrow is
biased for narrow cars and against wider cars. I agree. But there are MANY course design variables, in
addition to width. What would you say if I wanted a maximum length of straight sections in the rules...
something like 100 feet? I'd contend that any longer straight is unfair to low HP cars, like 914's and is
obviously designed to give high HP cars like 928's and Corvettes an advantage. ;-)
But all this is a bit academic, since at an AX, the competition is WITHIN CLASS. Unless you are in a
class where both 928's and 914's are competing together, neither course width or length of straight
sections should be a factor.
On the subject of tight corners, course radii can be a factor for discriminating for and against car models.
I contend that short wheelbase cars rotate better than long wheelbase cars, like 914's and 928's. ;-)
I think a "typical" course width of 20 feet is about right, but there are legitimate reasons to allow a few
tighter sections. Often, narrow section are the only tool available to course designers to slow down cars
safely...tight corners really can't do the same thing!
I personally like BIG slaloms, even in my 914. A 3rd gear slalom is good for me and my car. We had a
curved, 4th gear (in a stock 914) slalom at an event this year. It was awesome. The only negative was that
a WRX rolled at the end of that section! So I tend to want to agree with you, but think that again this is
something that should not be "regulated". Perhaps a "suggested" dimension?
The sub-committee working on the classification issues tends to agree with your ideas about
classification. But we have found that this data IS NOT available for ALL configurations...even from the
factory. They really don't have a clue what happened 30 years ago. We believe that we are more likely to
find HP data than 1/4 mile acceleration data for the old cars.
Our current approach for AX classification involves several parameters. We believe that HP-to-weight is a
factor, but that weight is a bigger factor for an AX. We intend to come up with a "formula" that involves
both HP and weight in some arrangement. We find that the range of performance for ALL the Porsche
models is about 80% to 100%...that is, the slowest AX performance is about 80% of the fastest. Or using
time, instead of the ambiguous "performance" term, the slowest time will be about 125% of the fastest
time. Often we see tighter groupings, but that is because the range of cars is restricted (ie, at most
events, we have neither the fastest or slowest Porsche AX cars competing). Charlie Davis
———98 5/10/2003
Interesting reading, Charlie, Nice job. I certainly learned some stuff!
The only thing we do differently is that we don't have any other colored cones, so for the start and finish
gates we put three cones either side of the course, arranged so that they are all in a line. This gives the
visual clue you need to know exactly where the lights are. Colin Blake
———99 5/10/2003
The color contrast is a rather new idea. I saw it used for the first time at the Milwaukee Parade. In addition
to the WRX incident (above), the only other bad thing that has happened locally, is that several years ago,
we had a Corvette kid fail to lift at the finish line (in spite of multiple pylons marking it) and climbed a pole,
ripping off the passenger door and making that side generally ugly). We concluded that he failed to see
the finish line at speed. SCCA does this green pylon color shift after the finish line at their Pro Solo
events. Charlie Davis
———100 5/12/2003
OK, my only reply is to the - pylons laid down and used as pointer cones do not count against the
competitor if hit or moved. These I would count! Or at least I would leave that to the event master with the
note that "cones that count against the competitor must be named or described to all competitors before
the event begins". That way [the] event master has the choice to count or not count [pointer cones].
Fran Ussery
———101 5/12/2003
My rationale is that the rules for what constitutes a "hit" pylon don't apply very well to a cone that is
already down. It also confuses the new workers (who are already confused about what a "hit" pylon is
anyway). If the course designer sets the correct pylon penalty, there is nothing to be gained by making
hitting a pointer cone count, whose function is NOT to define the course, but rather to be a directional
"hint". Ever see anyone hit a pointer and NOT hit the regular pylon that is in "front" of it?
There are also "pointer walls" where people put a bunch of pointers in a line to not only suggest the
correct direction, but also to block off access to an adjacent part of the course. In this case, there are no
standing pylons in the vicinity. I would recommend that this NOT be done. If it's a safety issue, STAND
THE PYLONS UP, where they are most visible (laid down codisappearpear when driving fast). Then add
a few pointer directionals to suggest the correct direction. Pointer cones are over-used, IMO.
I guess I'm throwing it back in your court to justify counting these pointer cones. What is the benefit?
I really don't see any... Charlie Davis
———102 5/12/2003
Well, my opinion is that if you hit any cone denoting the course, it should count. I can see your
"confused corner workargumentment, but if ALL cones are marked on the ground, then an entrant
moving the pointer cone would be obvious and therefore it would count.
I suppose that IF the pointer cone is back far enough that the entrant could not hit the pointer without first
hitting the upright cone, then OK, but again that leaves open just where the pointer is put. If the pointer is
positioned in such a way that the entrant could hit it and NOT the upright cone - then both should count, if
the pointer cone is positioned in such a way that the entrant could not hit the pointer without hitting the
upright cone, then don't count the pointer. See my point??? Man that is way too much pointed explanation.
Fran Ussery
———103 5/12/2003
Normally, a pointer does NOT denote the course...it's off the course! But YES, the pointer should be
marked on the pavement, but NOT so that we can use the mark to decide if an entrant hit the pointer. The
mark is there so that we can reposition the pointer back to it's original position, if hit. It's unfair to allow
even pointer cones to vary their placement from driver to driver!
If you and others prevail, then I'll have to devise a much more complicated "hit pylon" rule. As it stands,
it can't be applied to a pylon that is intentionally turned over on it's side... ;-)
Don't you mean "If the pointer cone is up close enough that the entrant could not hit the pointer w/o first
hitting the upright cone"?
I think that the "normal" location of a pointer cone is aimed at the base of a standing cone. They OFTEN
get hit together and it seems unfair to dock the driver twice. The pointer pylon was NOT put there to
double the penalty at that location. To do that, you put two pylons standing base-to-base, but both on the
course outline. In this way if the first cone is hit, almost 100% of the time the second cone is also hit...
like pins in a bowling alley.
I believe that if a car hits a pointer, but not the main, upright cone, then the car was probably off course
and it's a DNF. The main, upright cone is ON the line that marks the course boundary (by definition). To
miss the main, upright cone, the car has to go off and hit the pointer with a tire on the OTHER side of
the car...right?
For clarity, see this diagram. Note that this is NOT a slalom. It's
the right side of the course (the left side is left as an exercise for
the reader). The thick black line is the course outline. I think
there are 3 types of hits.
The "normal" application of a pointer cone is to position it just
outside a standing pylon. It is there to clarify on which side of the
standing pylon the car is to travel. In this case, the cars is to
be on the left side of the standing pylon.
Type I is the most common. In a Type I hit, the car just can't quite
make a turn and runs over the standing cone, usually with it's
right-rear tire. At most, one wheel goes over the line and off
course. In a Type I hit, only if the standing pylon ricochets and
slams into the pointer, is it moved...the car itself is nowhere
near the pointer cone.
Type II is also common. It happens when a driver is surprised
and badly misjudges a turn. In a Type II hit, the CAR runs over
the pylon(s), which often get caught under the car. In a Type II hit,
at least 2 wheels go off course.
Type III is the least common. When a driver totally blows it and
slides off course, a pylon my be hit, even a pointer. In this type
hit, a pointer can be hit (usually by one of the left-side tires), but
the standing pylon can be unscathed. In a Type II hit, all 4 wheels
go past the line and off course, so the run is a DNF. The pylons
hit don't really matter much.
If a course designer wants to increase the pypenaltyalty at a
particular location (for example, if a key pylon could be hit
intentionally by a driver, because the advantage in time is
greater than the penalty for hitting the cone), s/he can add
another pylon (or more) to increase the penalty. By positioning
them all on the course outline and located in a line, if the
first is hit, then all will be hit and all will count.
There are different applications of pointer cones. One is at the first pylon of a slalom, to indicate which
side to take first. Another is a wall of pointer cones designed to keep a driver off of an adjacent part of
the course, where other cars may be present. Often, these "pointer walls" are located off course, so
anybody getting to them is a DNF in process. Personally, I'd red flag and disqualify anybody that hits a
protective "pointer wall"...should never happen!!! Charlie Davis
———104 5/12/2003
I've been back looking thru the site, and I've seen good work so far...A couple of comments I had on the
last few threads...
I agree with Kim Crumb's comments about minimum course width. Although I don't know if it needs to be
written in as a rule, but more as a suggestion.
The Milwaukee region does not run in "classes" (not enough cars). You're given a car index (based
upon overall national parade results average + modifications), and we run all cars for an overall event
finishing placement. It's different, but works quite well. Due to the this, we try to have courses that are not
built to favor a particular car. (928 vs 914) Or at least if you've favored Horsepower at one event, the next
should be tight and twisty to favor handling.
For safety reasons, we don't have cars finishing thru the cones "at speed". We tighten the course
significantly, at the end to pull the cars down from speed.
We also use green cones to designate start and finish. The green cones still count if hit, and do a very
good job of keeping things controlled start and finish. Event safety is job #1.
In our region, cones are not counted if flagged for a rerun. The runs and penalties are not cumulative.
((the good portion is not cumulative, thus, the penalties are not))
However, You are told at the drivers meeting that if [red] flagged, to finish the course in a controlled
manner. If the driver once flagged for rerun, decides to go crazy thru the remainder of the run, knocking
cones down, it is understood that you will get a talking to by the Auto X chair. You may be asked to sit
out the rest of the event, or not invited back. Tony Lechner
———105 5/12/2003
I like the idea of making things like minimum course width a suggestion. I don't want to make too many
hard rules about these kinds of issues.
I avoided making the comment to Kim about how wide IS his 928??? Why does he need 20 feet? ;-)
I have a friend locally that contends that anything less than 30 feet is too tight. I think he's wrong. One of
the differences between an AX and other driving events is that an AX requires more precision, because
the features are smaller and tighter. Some drivers can't do it very precisely and that's OK. But to prohibit
narrow features because some small set of drivers have trouble with them would not be right. There
needs to be a lot of variety allowed in AX course design. BTW, Kim is NOT one of those drivers who
can't drive precisely...
[Analogy] Two golfers are arguing about the diameter of the hole. One contends that it's too small...that it
penalizes his choice of a larger golf ball. The other hacker explains that the larger golf ball is easier to hit,
so he has an advantage, not a disadvantage. [end Analogy]
The point is that an occasional tight section is appropriate, as is an occasional long straight, and an
occasional tight turn. We all pick our weapons but should not allow anyone to control the course design
to allow their weapons to prevail. Autocrossing is not about choice of weapons, but about weapon control.
There is a proponent of indexing on the sub-committee that is working on the classes. I like them for
some things, but not for what you guys are using them for. But again, that's YOUR choice and should not
be dictated by the group. I want to provide as good an index as possible to the Regions and let them
decide whether to and how to use it. I want to include other events in the index, in addition to the Parade
AXes...the more data we have, the better the index. This will necessitate having standards to allow
Regional results to be used. If we continue with the chaotic "rules" the Regions now use, this will not be
possible.
Locally, we try to mix our designs. First, we ask drivers of a wide variety of cars to design our courses.
Next, we have 3 venues, that vary from 4 acres, to 10 acres, to 35 acres. That creates a wide range of
speeds. Variety is the key to fairness. And a variety of courses is more fun too.
Some venues do not need to slow cars at the finish. At our 35 acre site, we could safely finish at 100
wMPH...if we ere to want to do that. At other venues, we sometimes narrow up the course at the finish for
safety. I like to see the restriction just ahead of the finish line, not after it.
I agree about the green cones. There is a revised Rules page up that includes a "suggestion" to use
green cones for start and finish areas. I think it's a wonderful and intuitive way to signal that it's time to get
off the gas!
I don't understand "the good portion is not cumulative, thus, the penalties are not"? Charlie Davis
———106 5/12/2003
It was my understanding that if I have a run where I hit a cone, [and] then it is flagged as a rerun because
the guy in front of me hit a cone that couldn't be replaced in time, [that] on my "rerun", I would be
assessed that cone from the previous run. I don't agree with that...
My reasoning is as follows:
You may be having a great run and finally perfected the corners to a certain section of track when you
[are red] flagged. Thus ruining a potentially great run. OR...
You may be having an atrocious time at it, and hit 2 cones, when you are flagged (due to the car
ahead) and will be issued a rerun. [Locally] we would not issue the 2 cones hit, to the driver on the rerun.
I know some think that the flagged run is an extra practice run, and in reality it is...but that's simply the
luck of the draw. You could lose a good run, or you could lose a bad run. Tony Lechner
———107 5/12/2003
Others also disagree about carrying pylons over to a rerun, but most seem to agree with the fairness
doctrine as applied in the PCRs. I was just trying to NOT throw out the PCR approach, because if
possible we need to stay close to them. Plus, in this case, I agree with their approach. One of the goals
is to seek some homogeneity in events, so that members who enter the Parade AX will understand the
rules and not be surprised. If your Region runs AX events differently, then your members may be at a
disadvantage at National events, like the Parade.
In your first case, if you are stopped while making a great run, that's bad luck. In your second case, if
you are stopped while making a terrible run (hitting pylons is BAD, that's why they count, big time), that's
good luck...especially if the pylons don't count! The fairness doctrine doesn't allow organizers to let LUCK
affect the results...IF they can control it. The scoring of reruns is within the control of the event organizers
and they are not allowed to do anything that gives you or anybody an unfair advantage. In the first case, it
was bad luck, but there was no control over it, so it was just bad luck. Now, if the organizers would NOT
give you a rerun, then that would be unfair and not allowed, because they can control whether they give
reruns or not. It would STILL be bad luck, but there would be something that the organizers chose to do
that was unfair. How pylons are counted for reruns is controllable and the stated process is the best
process we have been able to devise:
• Stop the aborted run as quickly as possible (to minimize the "practice" aspect).
• Require the car to return off the course (ditto).
• Don't ignore pylons hit and don't give a pylon allowance, based on the # hit during the aborted run.
• If several reruns are given, accumulate only the pylons during the aborted run and the last rerun.
This is the result that many "smart" people have come up with. Yes, it's complicated at first. But it's fair.
Whether a good or bad run is aborted is not controllable. But HOW the event organizers control the rerun
that happens as a result of the aborted run IS controllable and can add to or subtract from the fairness.
Consider everybody, not just the car getting the rerun. What if we devised a rule that said that if any car
in a class gets a rerun, EVERY car in the class also gets an additional run? Would that be more fair?
Hmmm... Charlie Davis
The following discussion was a result of an e-mail I sent to the Group on 5-14-03...
"Bringing to your attention recent additions and modifications to the draft AX Rules...
I've gone out on a "limb" and tried to define an AX. It's in there a couple of places, but the most
comprehensive is the first definition in the Glossary.
To help bring that into focus, the definition of Autocross is:
• A solo (one-car-at-a-time) automotive competition, located on a paved surface, where the course is
composed entirely of features defined by temporary pylons.
• An Autocross course is ephemeral (one event use).
• An Autocross is an all forward motion event with a rolling start and rolling finish.
• Driving practice is not allowed at an Autocross.
• Instead, there shall be an opportunity to walk the course prior to competing.
• There shall be a limited number of runs at an Autocross (3 to 10 is the suggested maximum).
• At an Autocross, the results shall be based on the best (smallest) single run time.
• The competitors at an Autocross are grouped into Classes of similar performance potential, based on
theory and experience.
Do I have it right? Did I leave anything important out? Did I overstep and include something not
supported by everyone?
Thanks in advance for commenting on this..."
———108 5/14/2003
I don't know about the word "temporary" with the pylons. That seems too confining. It would be possible to
have a "permanent" autocross course. How about "usually defined by pylons." ??? Kim Crumb
———109 5/14/2003
Other clubs have had that issue come up. SCCA has some well-meaning folks that want to have a
standard, fixed course at the runoffs. Others know that this is not an AX and reject it. They have
prevailed, so far.
An AX is a sight-reading competition for drivers. Drivers don't get to practice playing the music (course).
An AX must be different for every event and unknown to all drivers. Go read section A-7(h) of the PCRs.
This comes up every year when a new bunch of people design the Parade AX course and pretty much
HAVE to drive it to get it approved by the National Safety Inspection Committee. In doing so, they
abandon all hope of competing at the Parade AX. This often causes heartburn, but it's unfair to allow
someone to drive an AX course many times, then to sleep on it for several months, only to come back
and whip up on the others who didn't have that opportunity.
Plus, if a course is defined by permanent objects, they tend to be hard...things like curbs, light poles, the
edge of the pavement, dirt berms, Armco barriers, etc. An AX is by "definition" the safest of the solo
events and allowing it to become unsafe is not in the club's best interest.
I don't object to the events you are describing. I like them a lot and have participated in them in the past
(and probably will in the future). But I don't like smearing the "definition" of an AX to include EVERY type
of solo competitive event. In the near future, we will start on the TT rule book and it will be what you are
thinking AX should be...a permanent course defined by "real" objects, with practice before competing.
Hopefully, there will also be some hybrid events defined. In the past 10 or so years, Regions have
created some really nice hybrids that are VERY popular. They are NOT AXes, however, in spite of that
name often being used to describe all of them. We'll propose some better names... Charlie Davis
———110 5/14/2003
I don't know how you do it in your area, but we allow practice sessions all morning, and then do 3 or 4
timed laps in the afternoon. I would hate to only get 3 or 4 laps all day. Ran that way in the 70s and
our way gets you a lot more seat time. Peter Lech
———111 5/14/2003
I agree about the 3 laps! We used to have lots of events like the ones you describe. They are great
events, but they are NOT AXes. Properly called Time Trials...
Note that I'm NOT trying to get TT's to go away. Quite the opposite. I want them to return. There are
others who are anti-TT and have almost removed them from the right-half of the country. But calling
Time Trials AXes is not the way to keep these events around and healthy.
If you have read most of the ad hoc site and have been following all the discussions, it should be clear
that I'm trying to concentrate on AXes first, but will get to TT's later. There is only one of me and I can't
do both of them simultaneously. So the definition of AX is specific to REAL AX events, not all the things
that are commonly called AXes. I really want more than 2 definitions for these "solo" events ("AX" and
"TT")...probably 4-5 different flavors of hybrids exist. We need to define all them and let every Region
know of the differences and encourage them to try all these different flavors. Charlie Davis
———112 5/14/2003
An opportunity to wordsmith - who can resist? If these are too picky, just ignore them. I do not have
strong feelings.
On your first bullet, it might better fit all circumstances if it were to say "...the course boundaries are
normally defined by pylons." A number of sites are composed of road and parking lot sections that may
be defined by the edge of the pavement or other features along with pylons. Also, courses in our area are
often lined to help define the path, but this is so minor it may not be worth mentioning.
You may want to consider a statement that AX is intended to be a test of driving skill, not a memory, and
that the course design should be obvious.
On the seventh bullet, we normally refer to our best run as "fastest" versus "smallest", but we're from
Texas where nothingreferredered to as small.
Finally, I would put a period after the word "potential" on your last bullet. Defining the basis may come
back to bite you. Jim Hedderick
———113 5/14/2003
I like strong feelings. Go ahead...tell me what you REALLY think...
I like your last point about white lines...an obvious omission. I'll add that. But I didn't screw up on the first
one. I don't think that AX courses should be defined by ANY permanent objects. They tend to be hard
and damage things and people when hit. An AX is intended to be a REALLY safe event and we want to
keep it that way. An event that is like an AX, but that includes permanent objects, like curbs, light poles,
Armco barriers, dirt berms, edges of the pavement, etc. can be used for events, but they should not be
called an AX. We will find another name for them (and your "AX" events in Houston) in the future.
Good point, about the driving skill and memory...I'll work on that too. BTW, an AX is also not intended to
be a test of a driver's proclivity to take risks. :-)
Since I'm from TX too, I agree that we tend to call it the "fastest time" but don't you agree that it's a bit
oxymoronic? Now hold on there, pardner...I'm not calling Texicans "oxymoronic". Others also use this
terminology. Like those crusty critters out on the left coast. But a time is a number and numbers are not
referred to as "fast" and "slow", but "big" and "small". Right?
Perhaps disclosing the basis will come back to bite me in the future. The small sub-committee that has
been working on "classification" issues, has sorta agreed that we need to start with a structured,
theoretical approach to performance potential, then see how that works and modify it after we get some
data (experience). I included those words to disclose to the larger group what our approach was.
They can be removed later. The version posted at the moment is a preliminary draft, ripe for
wordsmithing.
How do YOU think performance potential should be determined? Do you have a good way to do it?
Charlie Davis
———114 5/15/2003
It looks pretty good, however, I question the two points about there shall be no practice and a course walk
should be offered. First, you are basically saying that there shall be no unofficial runs. If there are more
than one run, in effect all the others except the best were "practice" so I don't see the need for this
distinction. Second, some courses may be too long to allow "walks" and a slow drive might be more
practical. Perhaps you should say an opportunity to see the course by either a "walk or slow drive" is
recommended prior to runs. Steve Sapareto
———115 5/15/2003
In San Diego, we try to give each driver 3 sessions of 4 runs each. Only the last 3 runs count towards the
competition -- the first 9 runs are practice. We believe that more runs = more fun. So, is this not an
autocross?
I ran with SCCA for several years and was accustomed to 3 runs per day (no practice allowed, but much
standing around was expected!). The SCCA autocross and the PCA-SDR autocross are definitely
different games, and maybe we should have two different names. The SCCA event is pretty much what
you would describe as an autocross with the number of runs limited to 3. But under your definition an
autocross could have up to 10 timed runs. That's really not very different from our events (presuming that
most people will have their fastest runs near the end of the day). Carl Scragg
———116 5/15/2003
Charlie! Shouldn't the number of runs read: "minimum of 3 and a maximum of 10"?
Since you are talking about "THE DEFINITION", the results of the single smallest time, is really defining
SCORING and not autocross. So the next to last line that you have mentioned should be under a
SCORING heading.
Under SCORING, one should also include points for consistency as the lowest average time which may
be used for a season or series championship, but this is another issue that we should discuss later. I find
all the other parts of your definitions fine and dandy. Nick Betegh
———117 5/15/2003
Maybe I haven't been keeping up but...Who's "Autocross Rules" are these?
Who gets to decide which of the many various run formats that are called "autocross" across the country
gets to keep this name and which has to have a new one? We all think we are doing genuine
autocrosses. If a significant number of people can't keep calling their brand of event an "autocross" then
perhaps the fairest thing is for EVERYONE to give up the name and all formats get new names.
Do we have names and draft rules for the many other formats, such as the Zone 8 practice of
12-15 practice laps before timed runs in Zone 8 autocrosses? Vince Knauf
———118 5/15/2003
I don't think that there is any such thing as a course that is too long to walk. I know guys that have walked
Nurburgring which is 23 miles. If we have an AX course that exceeds 23 miles I will buy your arguments.
Although I think other modes of course inspection should be considered, none should be of the motorized
variety, definitelyatly not in a car. That would be like getting an extra lap, and there is a safety issue with
pedestrians.
Keep in mind, part of what needs to be done is to train people for higher level events like Parade or SCCA
Nationals. Both these events only offer three laps and a walk. If you can't learn to learn the course like
that you will never be nationally competitive.
If anything, I think the first three runs should be counted, then any additional should be practice. Or, count
the first two, have a few practice, then count the second two: score it as two separate events. That way
people can see their improvement, but still be under a high pressure situation in the beginning.
I sort of have a problem with tboundaryndry issue as well. Sometiboundariesries are not easy to define or
are not important. I think the issue should be a matter of safety. If there needs to be a boundary it should
be clearly marked/established and pointed out during the driver's meeting.
I agree that AX is intended to be a test of driving skill, not a memory, and that the course design should
be obvious. Memory is sononimious with all forms of motor racing. Since the object of each turn is to
set-upfor the next turn, if you don't remember where the next turn is, you will be eternally lost.
The grammar is a little weak, but otherwise it looks basically OK to me. James Bricken
———119 5/15/2003
Good, I've got everyone's attention I guess. Some of you seem to not have read the Rules...just my
e-mail where I snipped out the definition of "Autocross". ;-)
I answered everyone's e-mails personally. They were long and detailed. I won't bother the group with all
this. But let me first thank you for taking the time to comment. These are appreciated and useful. Let me
explain that, at least in my vision, there should be a set of Rules for ALL the major AX formats. But
understand that I'm starting at the "bottom" of the list of AX Types with a "classic parking lot" AX.
As I think we all understand now, we need some better names for our AX events. There are 3 possibilities
that I can think of:
• Drop "Autocross" completely and come up with a different name. SCCA did this and calls them
"Solo I" events. But they still call them "AX" events too...so, perhaps not?
• Add a descriptive adjective to become "_____ Autocross". Try "Giant", "High Speed",
"West Coast", "Southern", "Yankee", "Blue", etc
• Grade Autocrosses on a 1 to 5 scale, much as tornadoes are called "F1" thru "F5".
At the moment, I'm inclined to try the last of these, as it's simpler. Plus, words often carry baggage. Many
people don't like the sound of "High Speed Autocross" and I will boycott any "Yankee Autocrosses". ;-)
We need some naming conventions just to discuss these issues!
So I propose that we call our events "T1 AX" through "T5 AX", for the moment. We don't have to know
what "T" stands for any more than we need to know what the "F" stands for. But perhaps "T" stands for
"Type"? We could also use "G" for "Grade".
I propose to have "T1 AX" through "T3 AX" be parking lot type Autocrosses and "T4 AX" and "T5 AX" be
track type Autocrosses. The smaller T numbers would be smaller, slower, safer events. We can
describe them in detail later, but for the moment, a working description would be:
• T1 parking lot, < 1/2 mile, < 50 MPH
• T2 parking lot, < 1 mile, < 70 MPH
• T3 parking lot, > 1 mile, > 70 MPH
• T4 track, with pyloned "safety" features
• T5 track, w/o pyloned "safety" features
These are intentionally terse and incomplete. The details can come later...besides, I don't know what the
details are yet! You haven't told me...
I am writing the Rules for a T1 Autocross. They don't work well for the T3's that SDR puts on...and they
are not intended to apply to them. But if we started on the T3 Rules first, they would not work well for
MANY Region's T1 and T2 events...
Go back and read the Rules again. I have made many changes, per your input. And read them with the
understanding that they are describing a "T1" Autocross, the smallest, slowest, safest driving event we
have...little 1st and 2nd gear affairs. Charlie Davis
———120 5/15/2003
From some of the comments it looks like we have moved back to square one. I had forgotten that most
of the group have not been seeing our "core" discussions. If we are going to continue our "core"
discussions, perhaps we should provide regular synopses to the whole group to keep them up to speed.
I hope your message [above] gets us back on track. Steve Sapareto
———121 5/15/2003
Hi Charlie, I figured I would jump into this windstorm.
First of all, nice job on trying to gather all the kittens...we appreciate it.
I back up the two attached notes [from Steve Sapareto and Mike Graff], I think they both said it best.
You've received sevesimilarliar comments so that means we're closer to being on the same page.
Our goal in our region is to build the drivers confidence, we do this through lots of practice and lots of
instruction...and mosencouragementment. We've put up our display for the practice runs so the drivers can
get a better feel for what works better as they learn the course and their cars...this take multiple practice
runs. We then have a Timed Session at the end of the day which will be for 3 or 4 laps, and these times
are recorded. Without our practice laps we would probably loose 50% of the participants, after all...who
wants to pay $50-$60 for 3 laps...I be better off risking a ticket by racing around a vacant parking lot.
In regards to your T1-T5 rating. I like the idea because it still allows us to call the event an Autocross...
The track length and speed is probably the best idea only because it would be so hard to consider other
methods...such as number of corners, lengthstraight-awaysways etc.
I assume you'll go with a 80/20 rule on all of this...if you try to please all of us you'll be found under a pile
of cones...shaking!!! Mike Graf
———122 5/15/2003
AX Definition: Suggest including statement that normal road driving speeds are not expected to be
exceeded in the design of the course. This is to assist in insuring and arranging a venue.
[I've never known anybody to do this! I always design mine sitting at home...very low speed. The only
technique I can think of where legal speeds might be an issue, is the "Carl Amond Technique". Carl is a
local AXer who first drinks a 6-pack, then gets in the back of a pickumup truk and throws out the pylons.
Where they land, is where the ground crew plants 'em. Faster courses are done at faster speeds. It's
scary to watch, but amazingly, his courses are fun! Kinda like it's best to not see sausages or software
being built... CD]
Workers are drawn from the driver contingent and drivers are expected to work corners (I come from
a very small region)
I do like the departure from SCCA practicede-escalatingting the memory part of the course by allowing
practice instead of walking only.That helps us old guys, and helps ease the frustration of new guys when
they get lost in the sea of cones.
Would like to see a means by which non Porsche folks can participate since our region is too small and
geographically isolated to make it on Porsche attendance only.
[Mike is from Hawaii Region... CD]
On sunroofs, targa tops etc, us tall guys with helmets stick up and opening the top is the solution. If
convertibles with no roll protection are allowed, that is a more serious safety consideration, but still may
not be a significant risk. Seems like this is an insurer question.
GOOD WORK! Mike Cripps
———123 5/15/2003
Wow! It's nice to see the high interest level in autocross definitions, but good luck on consensus. I think
Chis from Zone 8 said it quite well. His concepts mirror those in the Midwest. In addition:
1. An autocross is a competition. A great deal of effort goes into winning a small wooden or plastic
trophy.
2. You do not do multiple continuous laps, that is what a DE is for. Maybe the guys out west have huge
lots and wide open courses that allow such a thing, but we do not.
3. Once the event starts, all laps are timed and count. You can consider the first one or two as
"practice", but they all count. We generally give participants 5 or 6 runs.
4. Course walks are not only essential, but part and parcel of the autocross experience. You learn the
line by walking the course and run it through your head. Those that can use mental discipline in
combination with good driving skills (and a well prepared car) will prevail.
5. A parade lap (only one) helps reinforce what the walk has taught you and its a good marketing thing,
since friends and relatives can ride around the course.
6. When course layout (safety) allows we do permit two cars on the course at a time.
7. Not all courses are one use. Autocross sites are hard to come by. One of those that we use is a
3/8ths mile oval with infield roads. It is set up the same each year mainly due to space, safety and
logistical constraints. This kind of course allows participantsgaugeuage improvement over time.
Doug Tepper
———124 5/15/2003
You may consider AX an entertainment, but if you really think about it, it is the only form of
entertainment that one can compete in for less than $1000.00 a season. Porsche clubs have plenty of
shows, picnics and driver eds that are NOT competitive. Club racing is fine for those who have a large life
insurance policy, remortgage their home and/or have deep pockets. AX is the only grass roots
competition that many Porsche people can afford, enjoy and really really compete in 3 runs or 10.
Nick Betegh
———125 5/15/2003
I for one think this is great progress. Recognizing that there are lots of flavors, based in my opinion more
on what facilities are available than what is "right."
Write general ideas and allow customization. T1 autocross rules are easiest to write for the folks who drive
them. So that is where we start. And learn. Vince Knauf
———126 5/15/2003
In our region, going off course does not necessarily mean a DNF, we charge 10 seconds per missed
gate and only asseses a DNF after 5 gates. I think your version is just fine. Jodi Fordahl
[WOW! A 40-second penalty! Some of our events don't last 40 seconds... CD]
———127 5/15/2003
Thanks for your reactive thoughts. In thinking about your idea of preventing the sea of cones
disorientation, I realize that I was in the mindset of our local SCCA events where everything is delineated
by cones. This is a good area to depart from SCCA, and to communicate the course....like you said.
Seems like the idea would be to have the driver read the course just as if it was a road or a track. Funny,
but the crux of it turns out to be the course designers intent to communicate. We can certainly use
something but just cones for everything. The gates should look really different since they are, etc. Maybe
as simple as dropping a small flag into the top of the cone.
I had asked about non-Porsche entry in a PCA event. You basically said what's the big deal? We in
Hawaii haven't done it yet-just SCCA Solo 1, and I had the impression that PCA events were only open to
PCA members. Not so? Would make a local PCA event doable.
Any way to use the very successful drag racing run what ya brung bracket racing formula to AX? That
would eliminate the classes, which are the bain of small turnout events. I mean we need a formula (for us
small regions, not everybody) so a small number of cars of mixed types could sort according to
performance and ability not by car type. That is exactly what the bracketeers do, and why they do it. I see
that the tiering of different AXs is valid as discussed, but another way to lump is by size of the event and
the different logistical hurdles from tier to tier.I am hitting on the logistics because the simpler the
structure, the fewer jobs that need to be filled with scarce volunteers, and the simpler it is for the volunteer
to understand and accomplish the job. Without the volunteers, no event. Thanks. Mike Cripps
———128 5/15/2003
I didn't mean to make that point [about competition or entertainment?), but that is a major question that
perhaps we should answer before getting too wrapped up in other issues. I think that any time score is
being kept, it must be a competition. I think [improving] driving skill is an incidental effect of trying to
better one's score. I happen to be a competition minded person which is why I prefer racing (and AX),
and only do DEs if I am instructing and don't have to pay.
I personally don't see that drive-throughs ["parade laps"] do much good since most people follow so close
all they can see are tail lights anyway.
If I feel I need to, I will throw away my first run, timed or not, and just cruise the course to get a look.
Just to throw salt in the wound, when I set fast lap (up to that point) at Parade '97, I did it on my first lap
and never walked or otherwise inspected the course in any way other than looking at the course map.
I see Ed's point [about "performance potential" not being a traditional way to classify AXes], but the
problem is that in most Regions there are not enough cars to support the 40 some odd Parade classes,
so I think its more logical to combine classes into smaller groups based on performance potential. I think
in Longhorn we reduced it to 5 stock and two modified classes. Since we only average about 15 cars per
event, that may still be too many classes, but I can't see breaking it down any more than we have.
Since most [of] our cars are not fully prepared nationally competitive cars (or drivers), most these drivers
really have no foundation to say they were beat because somebody else had a car with more potential.
Example: a '71 911S and '91 Carrera are similar enough that the level of preparation, driver, and finally
the course will decide the faster car. James Bricken
———129 5/15/2003
Don't get me wrong, we DO like Parades, but for Autocrosses, we like lots of driving time. As someone
else (Chris Duva) said more eloquently than I, Autocrosses are training/practice grounds for car control.
The more time spent in training/practice, the better. That's why we don't like the lack of practice laps at
the Parade.
[Clearly, the Parade AX is NOT a training/practice venue and not intended to be. Learn at home? CD]
However, for the truly competitive types, doing well right out of the box is part of the standard of
excellence.
For others, well three laps is better than zero. And I strongly disagree with the idea that the Parade
Autocross is (just) the world series of the PCA Autocrosses. As I see it, it is part of the Parade, and ALL
Parade participants should run the Autocross, AND the Rally, AND the Concours. So much for my $0.02
worth.
[Just? CD]
Trying to answer all this stuff individually AND trying to make sense of the disparate viewpoints, must
make your head REALLY hurt. Bruce Herrington
———130 5/16/2003
I really like this [discussion]. Well said!
But why do we always have to score by the lowest time? I'm getting kind of board of that. I think it might
be more fun to determine the winner sometimes based on average, spread, or even a draw from a hat.
This would also enter in the element of strategy and give people with lesser resources the chance to beat
the local hot shoe that normally wins every event. How about ET like they do in drag racing? Everybody
gets a couple practice runs, then 3 timed runs to get as close as possible to your ET without "breaking
out". There are probably dozens of other ways to score and it might be a good marketing tool.
James Bricken
———132 5/16/2003
My very first autocross with my local PCA, my best time was 2nd from the slowest best time. However,
everyone at the event declared me the winner because I had the biggest grin. I have not missed an event
in the last 6 years since.
When we post our results on our web site and in our newsletter, the times are listed by fastest lap, but we
also include an average of all runs except the slowest unless there is a DNF, and DNF times are omitted
from the average. It is interesting that most of the time the best times and bavg. avg are pretty much the
same order.
At the end of the year, drivers that participate in at least 4 events are eligible for a trophy. Trophies are
given to every eligible driver. Trophy Classes are by car model; 911, 911 Turbo, 944, 944 Turbo, 914,
914-6, 996, Boxster, Boxster S, etc. Order in class for trophies are determined by comparing the order in
class for each events results. To date, we have not had any competition in class close enough to not
easily be determined the overall order. The most eligible trophies awarded in a class has been 5. In the
past, we awarded points for 1st, 2nd, and on for each class. It has not been necessary to use the point
system in the last 3 years.
While I like all this standardization of rules and descriptions, and the resulting reference material will be
great for clubs to use as a guide, I also think it is great that a local car club can determine the rules that
work best for their group and level of fun versus competition. Now, if there were some sort of national
trophy where your local competition results determined eligibility and placement, I could better
understand strictly quantifying courses, car classes, etc. Richard Davis
[National Trophy? Why would we want to do that? SCCA does stuff like that, so it must be bad... ;-) CD]
———132 5/16/2003
I agree, and also to those who want this to be "entertainment", PCA regions are full of entertainment with
picnics, socials, DE, rallys, club meetings and concours. AX is the only grassroots (moving vehicle)
sport that is very competitive and entertaining, relatively safe, and one does not have to re-morgage his
home to compete one season. Club racing is more for guys/gals with deeper pockets who are willing to
risk more than a few scuffs from cones. Nick Betegh
———133 5/16/2003
"Results shall be based on..." Change the word, "smallest." Small doesn't work well with respect to time.
How about quickest or shortest time? And please delete that dang word, "solo." Man, that rubs me the
wrong way. We are not the SCCA, we're PCA. Tim Comeau
["Shortest" time. You can't be serious? OK, Fran, I'll change it to "fastest". CD]
———134 5/16/2003
I'm not sure you want to go into such detail on defining speeds.
Our Zone sometimes runs events at the Streets of Willow track, a shifter-kart track. Speeds at the end
of the straight are at the top of 3rd gear, almost 100, for the faster drivers. We still classify these events
as autocrosses. BTW, normal highway speeds here in So Cal approach 80-85 on a regular basis (when
you can find a clear spot). Peter Lech
———135 5/16/2003
I think that Ted Ritter expressed some of the issues that have given me concern about this effort:
"If we are talking PCA AutoX rules, is this a PCA sanctioned / endorsed effort? If so, what is it exactly
that is broken [and] that needs fixing? If not, where is it supposed to be going?" Ted Ritter
I'm always concerned when I have trouble understanding the objectives of a group effort. So I went to the
website where I found the following (edited for brevity and emphasis, please see the full text on the
website):
The ad hoc Autocross Group is not an official Porsche Club of America venture. It is a grass-roots
attempt within PCA to:
. . . .
- draft proposed "standard" solo formats that can be widely supported
. . . .
- establish monetary subsidies for Regions that utilize the "standard" rules and formats
There appears to be an objective of "encouraging" (via purse strings) all the regions to do things in a
similar fashion. As an AX co-chair in San Diego, I wouldn't even dare to suggest to our members that we
will begin to conduct our events in a model fashioned after SCCA (I don't like being showered with rotten
fruit and vegetables). We enjoy our venue, our high number of runs, and yes our practice laps. Many of
our members, myself included, have run with SCCA (that choice is always open to everyone) and have
decided that the PCA-SDR event called an autocross is just more fun, more seat time, more challenging
tracks, than the SCCA event called Solo II. In fact, it's been so long since I ran with SCCA that I allowed
my membership to lapse.
Being an advocate of State's Rights, I say let each region conduct their events in a manner that works
for their members, their venues, their resources, etc. I cannot support an agenda that includes an
objective to "establish monetary subsidies for Regions that utilize the 'standard' rules and formats."
I invite you to come to San Diego and run in one of our events -- I think you'll like it even though it may
differ from what you call an AX at home. And I hope that when I run with your club, I can be gracious
enough to enjoy if without judging or comparing it to "the way we do things at home". Carl Scragg
[Carl, ever have one of those weeks when it seems lieverybody'sdy's always pikin on me"? This week
has been a bit like that. I got a craw full of the "full-court-press" from you Zone 8 guys. Then I get a nice
note from somebody and I think, "Well, maybe not every body is pikin on me...". Self pity is not pretty.
So I go away from the messages on my screen for a day or so and now I'm back. Sure enough, they
read a BUNCH better now. I was just misreading them and over reacting. I'm feeling better...
But then I get down to your above note and I can't make your venom and lack of logic go away by
reading it again. Do I detect that you would reject a small bribe to do it "your" way? Hmmm... CD]
———136 5/16/2003
I think we have two different issues here. First, I see no problem in realizing that an autocross can be
BOTH a competition unto itself and a stepping stone for faster driving events. PCA is really not a big
enough organization for most Regions to run different purpose events. It is just logical that by being
slower and safer it is a practical and smart way for someone interested in time-trials and racing to start.
I know there are other ways to get started, but there is no reason that this cannot be one of them. I don't
think you should get upset with this as it is just a fact of life. On the other hand, it may have an influence
on the "rules" as these two purposes have different goals. My comments have reflected my interest in
both purposes where I think you have been focusing on the first. If you think of autocross as an event to
find the driver who can achieve the fastest time off the bat on an intricate course he has never driven
before, all your rules make sense. If it is seen as an opportunity to learn better driving skills where timing
is a means of measuring progress, then some of the rules are not particularly important (such as the
walk vs ride or size of the course). The only way your focus makes sense is if we are developing a
national ladder where regional and zone events are qualifiers to a national event (like SCCA). My
problem with this is that there is SCCA to meet this function. I really think for the PCA we should
consider both purposes for the benefit of the greatest number of members.
Steve Sapareto
[Nicely stated, Steve. BTW, Steve and I have obviously been having a discussion off-line. I included his
comments here because they were poignant. I like the analysis, but as I've told others, to have a
school, you don't need rules, you need a curriculum. But to have fair and consistent competition, rules
are pivotal. That I'm interested in drafting a standard set of Rules for PCA AXes, shouldn't translate to
my NOT being interested in AX education. Or having fun. Neither are true in the slightest. CD]
———137 5/16/2003
I think that there is a higher PCA insurance charge for time trials. I don't know of any other
discouragement.
Vince Knauf
———138 5/16/2003
Time Trial means the main event is still to come. AX is the event...and sometimes your first run is your
best.
If you want high speed, go to DE. AX in parking lots has a safety factor to consider.
Ken Angermeier
———139 5/16/2003
I think what some people aren't realizing is that these rules are designed to add some consistency and
definition. Individual events can be governed any way the chairperson deems proper. In our region, we
open the AX to all car clubs in the city so we get a variety of machinery running the course. It's a sight
to see a highly modified late model Impala SS turning in better times than a 944 Turbo but it happens.
We also do "consistency" events and I can tell you that no one was sandbagging. The closest
consistency came from two of the fastest cars on the course. The most consistent was within 2/100's
of a second! Even with "consistency" events, the drivers were still comparing their fastest times.
We also do a low speed parade lap to familiarize all the drivers with the course as we change it on the
airport runway set up. Our 4000' back straight allows for some interesting runs. We also input a stop box
as we run our events utilizing total car control, going and stopping. We also have the luxury of running on
the local Police/Fire training course which in itself is road course. With 18 turns on a paved course and
no cones, throwing up dirt is penalty enough.
We have no practice runs prior to the event, but we do have fun runs after. It's tough trying to limit
entrants to 4-5 minutes of total driving time. We utilize the full rental period of the track.
I think some people are getting hung up on the fact that there are "Rules" when it's up to the AX chair to
establish their individual rules. We go back to basics when we AX during Oktoberfest, Porsche only,
classed groups. Ken Flott
———140 5/16/2003
I see you have really heated things up. I also noticed that you take all the comments in stride and have
the patience to carry on to your goal of creating discussion and hopefully aconsensusensus format. For
that I want to thank you for the Hawaii Region. You are doing a lot of work as the point man and that is
appreciated. As the driving events coordinator in Hawaii, and after some pretty frustrating attempts, I
pretty much changed my job to liaisoniason. You give hope that we as a small region can get to putting
on some events.Us little guys need a formula as well as help from the experienced to get started. The big
ones probably have success already, so I implore you to search for structure that makes small events
possible. I have the feeling that you already see that, so thanks. Like most, I put off delving into the main
web due to time constraints. Now you have my blood circulating and I am on it. Bravo, and nice going.
Mike Cripps
———141 5/16/2003
Thanks, VERY interesting.
You are presenting a perspective 'alien' to Zone 8's current way of doing business. I'm trying to recall my
days in Potomac Region, but that's too many decades back, and I guess in those days all that Potomac
did was Rally. Early days in SoCal, with shopping center parking lots as venues, seems to me that
YOUR idea of an autocross carried the day, but my perception at the time was that we were only allowed
to use the lot for 3-4 hours. Could be that the regions only asked for a couple hours.
HOWEVER, If your concept of an Autocross is the one that carries the day, how does one get a chance
to develop into "drivers who can read" a course easily and quickly and then translate that "reading" into
a stellar performance, with ZERO practice."? What do you call those 'training for Autocross' events?
Bruce Herrington
[ Generically, "Autocross School" and "Time Trial School". Specifically, we have "Ladies AX School".
"AX 101", "AX 102", "AX 103", and "TT 104" classes defined. We had 4 of these this year. CD]
———142 5/16/2003
Ah HA! So Zone8 has just been running "Autocross Schools", with lazy pronunciation, leaving off the 4th
syllable! Bruce Herrington
———143 5/16/2003
This time trial theory occurred to me in 1988 when I was newsletter editor for Pacific Northwest Region.
As editor I received newsletters from regions around the country with which we established exchanges.
The Nordstern newsletter talked about their "autocrosses" at racetracks, track records for each class
and referred to what you and I consider an autocross as a "California" autocross. Nordstern's events
were clearly time trials. I also received the San Diego region's newsletter and their events are now
familiar to the whole group, time trials not on a purpose built race track.
For years the only PCA hill climb listed as such has been the Bogus Basin Bacchanalia hill climb near
Boise, Idaho (there was a hillclimb for two years at Wolf Creek in Utah about 10 years ago), and they had
to purchase extra insurance for the event. I think Zone 7 has to purchase extra insurance for their time
trial events too. Insurance companies may consider time trials to be fairly risky events considering that
they are competitive and many are on purpose built race track with very high speeds and hillclimbs tend
to be lumped in as they are in SCCA Solo I. The safety equipment requirements for SCCA Solo I may
influence the insurance company view of the risks involved in a time trial. The fact that a time trial is a
competitive event differentiates it in a big way from track Driver Education in terms of risk. Calling events
autocrosses makes things simpler and cheaper. I think this was particularly easy to get away with
because many Parade Driving Events were/are more like time trials than autocross, especially farther in
the past.
Other recent topics are drive-throughs and practice runs. Pacific Northwest used to have drive-throughs
when I joined in 1980, but a number of near misses caused them to be discontinued. The two types of
problems were inattention and fooling around. We also used to consider the first run a practice run as
they did at Parade. I can see this when Parade courses were often on race tracks and more like time
trials with very little or no practice. They called them driving events instead of autocrosses until just
recently. But with autocrosses there is no reason not to count the first run.
We don't allow practice runs, but have "fun runs" after the four competitive runs have been completed.
This is when you can take (or ride with) designated instructors (not allowed during competitive runs by
insurance), swap cars, etc. A lot of organizations charge for fun runs, but we don't. We put fun run cars
in three lines, one multiple driver and two single driver lines. One single driver line and one of the drivers
of each of the multiple driver cars runs while everyone else works. When the drivers finish their three
(usually) runs they pull back in the same grid line and head right out to work (saves lots of time). Times
show up on the big outside display and times are recorded for driver's info on a form for fun runs. We
average just over 90 regular entrants and usually 25 to 40 stay for fun runs.
There is no reason why PCA autocrosses can't have non-Porsches participate. I think the only
requirement is that the event must be under the control of PCA and use PCA insurance if it is an official
PCA event, or it could be that it must be under PCA control to get PCA insurance. At our events we allow
an unlimited number of non-member Porsches to participate figuring that they will have a great time and
eventually join the club. We also allow members to run time only in a non-Porsche and non-members to
participate in non-Porsches if they are invited by a member with a member limited to one car invite per
member per event (not strictly enforced). A good number of these people have ended up purchasing
Porsches and joining the club. It fights the problem of exclusiveness and exposes the club to other car
enthusiasts without letting our events become overwhelmed by non-Porsche autocrossers. Time only
cars are generally less than 15% of participants.
We have officially invited other clubs, such as the BMW or Corvette clubs, to events in the past, but not
recently as those groups are more focused on track events. 20 years ago we also put on an annual (2 or
3 of them) event through the Western Washington Sports Car Council and used PCA insurance. A
conflict arose because our safety rules didn't allow open cars without roll bars (track originated rule) and
we were told by the insurance company that we had to use our safety rules. It was thought by many that
this rule was mandated by the insurance and it took many years and Porsche producing more cabs for
us to allow open cars at autocrosses. Also, we ran a number of events at sites on streets with curbs or
deep sand off the pavement where a roll-over was a real possibility. Leeds Gulick
———144 5/16/2003
Don't know about "time trials" we call 'em DE'ssneaksneek in timed runs at the end of the event. As for
non-Porsches and non-PCA members, we allow them to compete in our autocrosses.
Graeme Weston-Lewis
———145 5/16/2003
There was mention of 2 cars on course as a sort of limit (I may remember this incorrectly) in recent
discussions but we almost always have events with 3 at once for some part of each run. Our courses
are about 60 seconds in length with a car starting every 25 seconds. I easily fit last year's Parade
autocross into two days instead of the typical three days by having a course that stayed away from itself
and allowed starting a car every 25 seconds. Less than 25 seconds does not allow much time to pick up
cones. They were running cars at 15 second intervals at SCCA Solo II Nationals in 2001 when
September 11th (911 is a Porsche) happened on the morning of the first day of the event and they did
seven or eightgroupsgoups instead of five at the end of the week. They had many experienced
turnworkers though.
I thought the disparagement of SCCA Solo II wasn't necessary, but it may be due to the way my SCCA
region runs its events. The day is split into two half days with a registration and three run groups each
half. Instead of spending all day at a PCA event you get done by 1:00 p.m. or register at noon with SCCA.
Of course SCCA events begin earlier and run later than PCA event. Our SCCA events generally have
over 200 entrants. The other two autocross groups in my area also run their events as two half days.
Sometimes they will allow you to double enter if space allows, where you can run with your class in the
morning (if that's when it runs) and running time only in the afternoon.
Also, there is much better competition at SCCA events in my area than even my PCA region. My PCA
region has 5 or 6 SCCA Solo II Champions as members and a number of other SCCA Solo II Nationals
trophy winners, so that's saying something. They got that good by participating in SCCA and any other
available autocrosses. Leeds Gulick
———146 5/17/2003
Gosh, I don't know where to begin. First, this discussion really took off when somebody (I know who),
probably inadvertently, sent an e-mail to the whole Group. In the past, members had sent me their
comments and I posted them on the web site. But, I'd guess that probably less then 5% of the members
were checking the web site on a regular basis to read these posts. They didn't have any idea that
something was actually happening (not in PCA! There...that's my obligatory slam of PCA...), much less
WHAT was going on. SO, when they started getting LOTS of messages (I counted 67 in 2 days), that
woke up guys who had been snoring for the past 6 months. Some came up swingin'.
So first, I'd like to beg you to NOT "Reply All" to my occasional post to the Group. Just "Reply" to me and
I'll post it, unless it's private and you request it stay that way. That gives you an excuse to go look at the
site too. If you "Reply All", the problem is that others do the same thing and soon this e-mail address list
is spread out all over the country. Others then pick it up and use it to initiate new threads. I had 3
members ask to be removed from the Group and its busy list. I removed them, but that did not stop the
e-mail flood to them from you guys, because I could not retract that address list!
Next, you guys mostly failed to snip the relevant text in those old posts that you replied to. The result was
that we soon got e-mails with 3-4 BIG "books" attached to your comment. Not only was everyone aroused
and deluged with scores of messages in their e-mailboxes, but these were not just short notes...NO!
They were big collections of letters...BOOKS! Proper decorum is to snip out only the parts of old
messages that are relevant to your new comments. Also, always remove old headers and footers.
But there were a few who snipped EVERYTHING. We got a few simple ones...things like, "I like that idea!"
where we didn't have a clue which of the hundreds of ideas was referenced. Duh...
John Dunkle is giving us access to a private Lyris list server. It'll be available early next week. It will be
setup so that you HAVE to personally sign up for it. If you don't want to be included in future discussions,
don't join. But you can join and then suspend or delete your membership at any time. Your choice. There
are several Lyris membership options. You can choose to get every post directly, just like a direct e-mail
to you. Or you can choose to get a single e-mail each day, with a subject for each post and a short snip
from each. If the subject is uninteresting, you can ignore them. It will work just like Rennlist. That will
"solve" the e-mail list problem, I hope. Note that I'll continue to use my big address list for an occasional
post to everyone, even those that don't choose to join the e-mail list. But DON'T "Reply All" to those
posts in the future!
It's normal for Groups like this to go through a period of chaos. Even healthy! It's called "Stormin" by the
experts that watch and study Group dynamics. I think it's better than turning this task over to
bureaucrats and waiting years for them to deliver a product...then not liking it. In spite of some
reservations that individuals have, the goal is to include as many AX and TT formats as possible in our
product. We REALLY want everyone (even those pesky Zone 8 guys) to be happy with the results and to
find value in a little standardization. Harmony will come. I insist...
———147 5/17/2003
Ted! I agree with your DE definition vs. Time Trials. I would equate TT to a friday qualifying in NASCAR,
F-1 or alike for pole positioning, and DE in exactly what the 2 words say "DRIVER EDUCATION". What
is it with these MOMO's in SDR that is so dificult to understand? Charlie Davis is an accurate and
articulate writer and advocate. Maybe the people from SDR have not read the info that has been
accumulating on the web site. We must excuse them for that?? :-) Nick Betegh
———148 5/17/2003
Most of our a/x are in parking lots with spectators with no safety barrers. So we tend to go for the
technical part of turning and steering. The speed we keep down. Rarely do we hit 3rd. We have just
4 classes. 6cyl./turbo, 4's, novice, and ladies. Our span of time's on a 45sec. run is within 4 sec.
normally. Ken Angermeier
———149 5/17/2003
Your response to this indicates that Charlie is correct, that there is an impression that there is something
bad or wrong about Time Trials.
If you want a competitive high speed track event, hold a Time Trial. DE's are a non-competitive high
speed track event by definition. Why are you calling something a DE and then sneaking in timed runs
like they are a bastard step child. I don't understand why you need to sneak them in? There is no reason
to hide them, there is no need to hide them. I may be wrong, but I don't think PCA Insurance
distinguishes between DE's and Time Trials, in terms of cost. They are almost identical events.
For whatever reason, the PCA Region Procedures Manual only mentions DE's, not Time Trials -- and
maybe that is the source of this issue. But, PCA's Guidelines for Autocross, Rally & Track describes
both of these events and it is pretty obvious that they are identical, except that Time Trials have a timing
session after all the practice sessions are over. DE's stop short of that and just have practice sessions.
Otherwise they are identical. In fact, the rules outlined in this document state that if you call something a
DE then timing is specifically disallowed. If you then go on to have timed runs at a DE you are in violation
and this probably would invalidate the PCA insurance for the day. I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me, but
I would think about this. As Charlie says, there is nothing wrong with Time Trials. Call a spade a spade
and go out and have fun! This document is available in the library section of the PCA web site, under the
heading "Event Guidelines". Go right to the appendix, that spells it all out in an easy to find format.
Here in Zone 8 we have Time Trials all the time. I guess we are competitive to the core -- hardly ever
have DE's (though we do occasionally -- if we only have a day and decide we don't have time for timed
laps). And we never had the idea that we had to hide the competitive nature of our events and call them
DE's when they really were Time Trials. (Though I have occasionally heard of an event being called a
DE & Time Trial -- covering all the bases, I guess.) Tom Brown
———150 5/17/2003
I have seen the same thing that Graeme has, I think. Our DE guys steadfastly stick to the "party" line, that
"official" timing is not allowed, but they ALL have little timers in their cars, triggered by light emitters
mounted on tripods at track side. Our Region has a group buy of these timers every year...they advertise
for customers on our e-mail list. [BTW, I have serious safety reservations about mounting a timer display
in a car and letting a driver concentrate on it, instead of looking OUT the front to the next corner.] Then
after the event, they huddle around and compare times. It's a sham. A mockery of the rules.
In our area, half the DE entrants go home on Sunday afternoon. I've suggested on multiple occasions
that it would be a GREAT time to switch to TT-mode and set up an "official" timer and let the people that
are comfortable with competition go out and get "official" times. But I've been spurned every time. Like I'm
an outsider...an "Autocrosser"...shudder! I hate rejection...
Thus, I'm a big fan of the DE + TT concept. More Regions should do them.
While I'm on my soapbox, I also think that a school, where the students are NEVER tested objectively to
see what they know, is a sham. Let me state that, IMO, the DE events that I've seen are NOT primarily
schools. They are entertainment for rich kids. The instructors are part of the entertainment. They are
carefully crafted to attract the owners of Porsches overpriced new cars. I've seen a few DE guys, who
have never done anything but several years of DE's come out to an AX or TT and they STILL don't know
how to drive a car. They have miniscule car control ability! They go away whining that they don't like the
lack of "seat" time, that they can't find the course in a sea of cones, etc...but the REAL problem was that
they were embarassed that their times were so poor.
I don't mind entertaining rich kids. It's fun and a real ego boost to show them what a 95 HP "VW" can do
(I drive a 914, in case you missed that). What they don't know and most never figure out is that I didn't
learn how to do it at a DE...
Leeds had a great point. I really hope you guys are reading ALL these posts...there are wonderful gems
in there. But you have to R E A D them. His idea was to set up a timer to do timing WHILE students were
driving. His Region has a big daylight-visible display and he sets it up so that they can get IMMEDIATE
feedback. This technique should be used at DE's and TTs, during "practice". Set the timer up to bracket a
corner or a group of connected corners of the track to give what is called "segment times". In this way,
students can try different approaches, techniques and lines and see immediately what the effect is. It's a
GREAT educational tool that's much under-used.
Charlie Davis
———151 5/17/2003
I'm confused. I don't see anything in the PCA Region Procedures manual or the PCA Guidelines for
Autocross, Rally & Track that says that what we do in Zone 8 is not an autocross.
What is your definition of Autocross? How is it different from mine? Whose definition are you using?
And I guess, this kind of leads to what are you trying to do here? Obviously, you must think those two
documents are lacking in something, something that you want to add. What is missing? What are you
trying to add? Thanks Tom Brown
[The total lack of a definition of the word "Autocross" in ANY PCA document (including the PCRs, which
you didn't mention) has lead to a wide range of totally unique events, all called "AX". Lack of any AX
forum for PCA, has isolated the Autocrossers in PCA. I'm trying to create a "community" of Autocross
enthusiasts.
Community noun: a group of interdependent organisms inhabiting the same region and interacting
with each other
noun: agreement as to goals
(example: "the preachers and pimps found they had a community of interests")
At the moment, we have many isolated AX "communities" in PCA, each believing that they are
performing sacred AX rites on Sundays. CD]
———152 5/17/2003
Well, not exactly Tom. The operative word in DE being "Education." DE as we all know, has a number of
cars (25 +) sharing the track simultaneously and strict rules are in place for safe passing and (except for
solo and instructors run groups) there is somebody in the passenger seat. By no means is DE a timed
solo event and thus is not anywhere close to "identical". There is nary a timer to be found at DE's except
for the casual & unofficial use of stop watchs. PCA promotes DE as :
"Emphasis is placed on improving your safety skills as a driver as well as high performance driving."
Most Region's DE promotional wording emphasizes over and over that DE is NOT racing. As soon as a
timing is introduced to the scene it becomes a speed contest and a competitive event. "Sneaking in"
official/sanctioned timed laps at a DE invites disaster not only from the risk of voiding the insurance
coverage, but by proding student drivers to drive above their skill level; (human nature being what it is)
AND possibly even loosing rental privileges at a track. My .02 for the day Ted Ritter
———153 5/17/2003
Wow, what a surprising response. [I sent him a long, personal note. CD] I'm new to this group and didn't
realize that PCA was divided into Zone 8 and ROW (rest of the world). Anyone who believes that Zone 8
speaks with one voice, obviously knows little of the politics of the San Diego Region (where we can't even
agree upon our own name). I can't speak for Zone 8; I can only express my personal opinions and
observations. I never expected my personal belief, that we should encourage all the different regions to
conduct their events in their own unique way, could lead to a general attack on Zone 8. If there is indeed
a wedge between Zone 8 and ROW, we need to stop driving it in deeper.
I fear that all the verbiage seemingly generated by some history of Zone 8 and ROW conflicts (of which
I am blissfully ignorant) may have obscured the one issue that I attempted raise: Do we really want to
push all the regions into an agreed upon format or do we want to encourage each region to conduct their
entry level events in their own way? What are the benefits and problems associated with standardization?
The benefits are unclear to me, so I'll leave these to the proponents of standardization, and limit my
comments to my own (not Zone 8) concerns.
[Good questions, Carl. You are a member of the Zone 8 community. You sound like a loyal and happy
Zone 8 member. Zone 8 has many unique events and ideas, that have not been exported successfully
to the other communities within PCA. Most other Zones are not as "tight" as Zone 8 is. There is more of
a "national" PCA Community in the ROW, as you call it. You guys have isolated yourselves to some
degree. You are living in a ghetto.
I find this unacceptable, personally. I have lots of friends in Zone 8. They have wonderful ideas. They are
talented and fun. Some of your ideas SHOULD be adopted by the ROW. But there is that ghetto barrier.
It works both ways. It's a wall that keeps your ideas and culture in and other ideas and cultures out. I'm
trying to give you (and others) an opportunity (and prod you to take the opportunity) to lower the wall a bit.
Don't take it down. It's a security blanket. But let a few other ideas in. Examine them. And most
importantly, export your good ideas to other Regions and Zones.
Until a few years ago, we in MR were unaware of the unique "Autocrosses" that SDR conducted. One of
your members, Keith Verlaque (not sure about that spelling...sorry!) joined our e-mail list and jumped in
on a discussion. That led to a couple of us talking to Keith privately about your formats. I was intrigued.
I have continued to delve deeper into what you and others do and call "AX". I became astounded at the
incredible variety! When I would attend Parades and enter the event now called "AX", I was similarly
astounded at the LACK of variety. Even when we had a Parade in Zone 8, we got roughly the same
events...certainly you never served us one of YOUR unique AX events! I was curious why this happens.
The Parade AX event is mostly open loop...very little feedback from any group that worked to standardize
the Parade AX. I know, because I'm an old PCR guy and spent years approving Parade Driving Events.
We were not allowed to upset the format...just insure safety. Yet they are quite homogenious in spite of a
lack of standardization. There must be an AX "god" that is controlling things? So yes, to Tom's earlier
question, there IS a global definition of "Autocross" and it serves to keep the sport intact. It's just not
written down. CD]
I'm concerned that the names we attach to different events could have unwelcome implications. By
whatever name, each region conducts entry-level events open to all comers with stock vehicles. Some
regions also conduct events with greater levels of risk and accordingly they require some driver
certification, more safety equipment, and different insurance. It would be unfortunate if, in our attempt to
assign labels to entry-level events, we create a perception of a hierarchy of risk, under which one region's
"Type 3 AX" is viewed as having greater levels of risk that another region's "Type 1 AX". For if we
perceive a significantly higher level of risk for different entry-level events, it becomes natural to require
different levels of driver certification, safety equipment, and insurance.
[Methinks ye use "entry-level" to excess. If you read the above passage w/o "entry-level" it
communicates the same idea. We DO have a range of risk associated with all our events. We do not call
them the same names. A Rally is more dangerous than an AX and has more dire consequences
(primarily because the speeds are higher and "innocent" bystanders can be involved in accidents). By
your logic, we should call Rallys, "Autocrosses" to insure that we don't have a way for us and others to
discriminate differences?
That's a recipe for disaster! We SHOULD discriminate according to risk and consequences. We
SHOULD communicate these variances to our members. We increasingly don't and that is wrong. If one
event is more dangerous and has more financially dire consequences for us and our insurers, it is
essential that we understand those differences and NOT try to hide them. CD]
I suggest that the primary difference between SDR's entry-level events and some others is our large
venue and the number of practice laps permitted, but that there is no significant difference in risk. (I
personally find the characterization of our entry-level event as a "time-trial" to be particularly disturbing
because, in my mind, a time-trial is a higher-speed event with multiple cars and controlled passing =
greater risk).
Are you telling us that SDR does not have MULTIPLE cars practicing in the AM at Qualcomm Stadium?
Are they not taking continuous laps and not counted laps, but rather, a timed session? That format
sounds exactly like a TT to the rest of us. CD]
The working description for autocross just seems to lend itself to this problem.
T1 parking lot, < 1/2 mile, < 50 MPH
T2 parking lot, < 1 mile, < 70 MPH
T3 parking lot, > 1 mile, > 70 MPH
T4 track, with pyloned "safety" features
T5 track, w/o pyloned "safety" features
[You failed to include my disclaimer: "These are intentionally terse and incomplete." CD]
If you were writing the insurance for different events, wouldn't it be prudent to demand greater premiums
and more safety requirements on a T3 than a T1 autocross? But just because a region has a large
venue with room for longer, faster tracks, does not imply greater risk (50 mph can be plenty risky in a
small parking lot).
If it becomes necessary to place increasing levels of driver certification and safety equipment on the
different levels of autocross, then does the T1 become the only format open to newbies?
My $0.02 (and not even a penny from Zone 8). Carl Scragg
[Carl is concerned that making changes will telegraph risk differences and result in increased scrutiny of
events, both by PCA and our insurers. I'm concerned that it won't. I suspect that changing the name of
SDR events at Qualcomm Stadium to "Time Trials" would have ZERO consequences. We have a venue
that is BIGGER than Qualcomm (after all, this is TEXAS). We have had multiple AX and TT events there.
We called the TT events "Time Trials". We had that name blazoned across bright yellow T-shirts. We
told PCA it was a TT. The Insurer knew. We didn't pay extra for the event insurance, because it wasn't
on a race track. Nobody was required to have unusual safety equipment. Nobody died. We had one
wreck (@#$% Corvette drivers), but he survived and I'm unaware of any Insurance complications due to
the name. He fixed the car to terrorize our events another day. That should please Carl.
But as I told him privately, "Carl, it isn't done that way. You are fantasizing. Now I'm sure there is
something in the water out there! ;-) The insurance underwriters don't know diddly about what we do for
parking lot events. They also don't WANT to know. I am sure. I've talked to K& K and Naughton over the
years. I have discussed this in the past with Bob Gelles. They ONLY want to see the BIG picture. They
want US to manage the details. They know that WE know how to control the risk better than they do.
They just want to monitor the incident rate, see us being concerned, fixing things that need fixing,
establishing safety guidelines, and following them. If the incident rate is too high, we talk and either have
to lower the incident rate or pay more for coverage. Individual parking lot events don't get ANY attention.
The name is of ZERO importance. We could call it a "circle jerk" and if our incident stats said it was
dangerous, we would have to do something or pay more. Urban legends are everywhere..."
I'm concerned that PCA is ignoring obvious risks in one place and exaggerating fantasy risks in other
places. But that's a different issue for another time and forum. I am NOT working on that issue. I
envision NO changes that would affect Carl's "entry-level" events happening as a result of the proposed
name changes. CD]
———154 5/17/2003
Carl, If we call T1,T2, AND T3 "Autocrosses" and T4 AND T5 "Time trials" [does that] make a difference?
The insurance carriers would insure either AX type, or DE or CR type insurance. The regions fill out the
forms acordingly. OK? Nick Betegh
———155 5/17/2003
Interesting. You [Ted] haven't said anything that contradicted me; and I don't think I disagree with
anything you say. We seem to not be understanding that we are meaning the same thing.
Sentence 1 [Tom is refering to Ted's post # 152] is obviously correct for DE's -- but it also applies to
Time Trials -- as described in PCA's Guidelines for Autocross, Rally & Track and how Zone 8 runs a
Time Trial. Perhaps the ROW (to borrow from Carl Scragg ) runs Time Trials differently, I only have
Zone 8 experience. At a Time Trial -- here in Zone 8 anyway -- after all that practice is done we have a
timed run session with only 1 or 2 cars on the track (for safety and the practical aspects of timing force
that few.)
I wholeheartedly agree with Sentence 2 -- the gist of what I said in my email was that DE's don't have
timing!
Sentence 3 I also agree with -- and would say that we feel similarly about Time Trials -- they are
competitive yes, but against the clock, not racing.
[Actually, Tom, it IS racing as defined in most dictionaries. A "race" is simply a "contest of speed". CD]
Sentence 4 I also agree with wholeheartedly -- which, if you remember the email that I was replying to,
was my point!!!! Here is the sentence from the original email: "Don't know about "time trials" we call 'em
DE's and sneak in timed runs at the end of the event." And my whole purpose for writing was to say
"WHY?" If competition is what you want, just call it a Time Trial from the start! Why risk the insurance
coverage? This is an accepted and legal PCA event for which you can get insurance (Charlie's point).
At least in Zone 8, everything is the same as a DE UNTIL you bring the clocks out. And when you do,
it's OK! You aren't breaking any rules or risking your insurance because you told them up front it was a
Time Trial. The only thing is that you lose track time because you can't have as many cars on the track
during timed runs. And if you really want a DE, then why are you sneaking in timing?
I only know Z8 and how we do things. When I read PCA's Guidelines for Autocross, Rally & Track, I
don't see us in violation of anything, but perhaps the ROW either runs Time Trials or DE's or both
differently than we do. Like I said we mostly do Time Trials, and only run a DE when we don't have time
for that final run session to do the timing (usually because it is a one day event instead of a two day
event). But for either event, the practice sessions, if you want to call them that, are run the same. Limited,
controlled, safe passing --- Instructors until someone is cleared to drive solo, etc. etc. We are NOT
talking Club Race here, and neither are we taking Autocross -- we are in between those two extremes.
Some seem to think we have radically different interpretations of autocross (see the other email thread),
maybe we have radically different interpretations of DE and Time Trial too. But to us a DE is practice 9-5
and a Time Trial is practice 9-2 and timing 2-5. That's it in a nutshell, anyway. Tom Brown
———156 5/18/2003
That would be a big improvement [in response to Nick's suggestion to label the T4 and T5 events "Time
Trials"]. I think that there is an important distinction between parking lot events and track events due to
the consequences of an off-track excursion. But I think that the distinction between the parking lot events,
T1-T3, is potentially misleading. Carl Scragg
[I'm still concerned that in other parts of the country, Regions have "Autocrosses" in venues where the
edges of the pavement come close to the course. I avoid calling these "tracks" because often they are
Police Driving Ranges, old Airports, etc. But they share some of the hazards of tracks. I'm not sure
these Regions want to call them Time Trials, any more than SDR does? CD]
———157 5/18/2003
OK, I admit I'm breaking the rule Charlie outlines. I'm gonna make the "reply all" worth it. I have actually
read the whole barage of e-mails. I'm going to take it as a sign that our group really got engaged, the
"snooze" is over. And? To make this work we're all going to have to consider things that we probably
haven't considered before, that we have as just "givens." As long as we keep the eye on the ball: coming
up with event stuff that will serve enthusiasts and increase participation, be safe and be real skill training...
I think we'll do very well (as Charlie is hinting.) We'll have to listen to actually each other. I do have a
working definition for that. It's more than merely hearing the words...it's about being WILLING to be
changed by what you hear. Doesn't mean it will always happen, just that you bring that willingness to the
whole conversation. If we [all] do that...we will likely create something awesome for our communities. As
an over 20 year participant, I have long understood that PCA members have competitive instincts (it's
kinda built into the brand, don't you think!) And that low-speed autocross and higher-speed time-trials are
the only competitive events that [the] majority in our community can afford, in a sustainable fashion.
Given that they are the events that majority of members can genuinely participate in, year after year
(there isn't the "money burnout" that is so prevalent in Club Racing...I've been there, done that). Oh, it
might be a suprise, but it was with an SCCA GT-1 911 back in '89!) That means we would be smart to [do]
a really great job with these kind of "everyman" events, don't you think? The great-for-everybody future
of the USA enthusiast Porsche community likely rests on it...that we all "stay at the table" and make it
work! Thank you all for time, and for really listening. Kim Crumb
[Nicely done...except for all the missing words. :-)
Ever consider a 2nd career as a "Motivational Speaker"? CD]
———158 5/31/2003
Today, I sent out invitations to a small group, asking for participation in a Sub-Committee to work to
create an "AX Ladder" within PCA. I wrote:
Dear Autocross enthusiast,
Thus far, you have helped us create a forum for Autocross enthusiasts in PCA, gather information about
AX events, and work to define a "standard" Autocross format. As we have seen, there are many "flavors"
of these events and everyone has a preference for a slightly different one (usually the one they are
familiar with). The ultimate goal of this effort is to create a national AX competition, specifically for
Porsches. The idea is to encourage Regions to hold qualifying AX events (in addition to their "normal"
Autocrosses), while adhering to the guidelines we are developing that would create a set of qualified
competitors for a yearly National AX event...a "runoff", possibly held at each Parade to supplement the
existing Parade AX event with a national competition.
If we can all agree that, in general, this vision is a good one, then we ask that you join us on a committee
to create a proposal for this structure to present to the rest of PCA.
A few of us are still busy trying to collect information to allow us to present a flexible Porsche
classification scheme for use by Regions of any size.
Although work on our AX Classifications is not complete, we are creating another sub-committee within
the ad hoc AX Group to work in parallel with the Classification Sub-Committee. We'll initially call this the
"AX Ladder Sub-Committee". We'd like you to be a member of that group. We need your help in:
· Finalizing the details of our standard Formats
· Developing Rules for Inter-Regional AX Competitions
· Deciding how to promote these events
· Lobbying PCA at the National Level to allow and support these events
· Making plans to kick off the first events
There are 5 groups within PCA that potentially need to be involved with our plans:
1. The Zone Reps
2. The Parade Committee
3. The Parade Competition Rules Committee
4. The Executive Council
5. The Board
There are at least 2 different paths we could take:
· Have the "National PCA AX Championship" event as a stand-alone event
· Have the "National PCA AX Championship" event as a part of the Parade AX
If we agree that the "National PCA AX Championship" event should be held in conjunction with the Parade
AX, it would be good that the Parade Committee and the PCR Committee have direct representation on
the "AX Ladder Sub-Committee", since they have oversight over and draft rules for all Parade events.
An alternate approach could avoid much of the PCA bureaucracy and create an independent AX ladder
and Runoff event separate from the Parade. At this juncture, we have not decided which of the 2
alternatives should be our choice, or if there is another plan we should consider.
The Zone Reps should also work with the Sub-Committee at some level, because most of the
"qualification" events will occur at the Zone level.
Once we agree on a plan, we intend to petition the EC and with their blessings, present the proposal to
the Board, for approval.
We encourage you to discuss this with other Autocross enthusiasts in your Region and Zone. The more
interest we have for this national AX competition, the more receptive the Board will be. The progress we
are making with classification should improve the fairness of competition regardless of the size of the AX
event and lead to a fun and fair event for everyone. There are many ideas to discuss, such as how
competitors would qualify and what, if any, incentives National should provide for those that qualify (e.g.,
guaranteed
Parade registration, etc.) and for the sponsoring Regions (e.g., subsidies).
We are inviting members from many different Regions to be a part of this Sub-Committee. Our goal is to
develop an agreed upon format that is acceptable to the broadest representation of Regions. We believe
this is extremely important for the successful development of this national competition. There will be
much discussion (and probably disagreement) but we do hope with your participation to reach a
consensus on a proposal that we can all support.
Please tell us whether or not you are willing to help us define the details, draft a proposal, and lobby for
this program as a member of the AX Ladder Sub-Committee.
Thanks in advance...
Note that not every member of the ad hoc AX Group received an invitation. We tried to select members
that had demonstrated an interest to be active, were opinionated, had wide experience, and were
geographically diverse. If you were not invited and want to volunteer, write me. Charlie Davis
———159 5/31/2003
I will be happy and honored to work with you on this subcomitee in whatever capacity you like. In the
mean time, herewith attached is the best, and as comprehensive data I was able to acumulate for all
Porsches. I invite anyone to add, and correct any of the info who you think would have FACTUAL
information to add. Please pass this Excell spreadsheet to anyone you think might help. I have not heard
anything from the Germans on the other side of the pond, so I think we should bag them.
[I think Nick is using the verb "to bag" to mean "to ignore" or "to remove from consideration". Nick's
excellent list of Porsche Specs is located at the bottom of the "Classes" page. CD]
I have been checking the adhoc-ax @ rennlist, and there is nothing new. Is this avenue still going to be
used? by the subgroup? Nick Betegh
[I hope the Group uses it. The "Ladder Sub-Committee will have private e-mail conversations, with
regular reports to the entire Group. CD]
———160 6/5/2003
I'd be glad to contribute whatever I can to the AX Ladder Sub-committee. I think that it could only help
the club to develop a "standardized" autocross format that regions could adopt in whole or in part, or
could ignore and continue to use their own. I also like the idea of a national autocross "runoff" to be held
in conjunction with the Parade.
Let me know what you'd like me to focus on. Carey Spreen
More to come as received...
|
