Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Moderators: Mike Simanyi, Rick Brown, Michael Palero

Jacob Abrams
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:50 pm
Car#: 728

Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Jacob Abrams » Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:00 pm

I've been meaning to bring this up for a while, but wasn't sure the best way to do so.

Anyway, I'd like to suggest the PAX modifier for CST be changed to something more appropriate given the factors in play, including but not limited to the tires in use, the cars generally run by CST participants, and average course design as it affects what type of car is most competitive.

At the moment, for those not aware, the current pax is .858. The current PAX of CSM (and street mod as well I think, correct me if I'm wrong) is .853. Regardless of any other factors, I'd love an explanation of how that makes any sense at all. So you're telling me an Identical car running hoosier A7s is going to be slower than the same car on 200tw tires? I think not...frankly the system is broken for us CST competitors. I would love to play for Pax rankings as well, and pay attention to where I land in that, but right now I couldn't care less.

Even ASP has a more generous PAX modifier than us in CST, at .848. Again, please explain to me how that makes any sense. The general trend in our course design (which has been overall great this season) is that a lighter car with stickier tires is the one most likely to win over one with power alone. If you want to compare say my relatively competitive CST car to Tom's Evo, I may have a touch more power, but he has 500lbs less weight, wider wheels/tires, and 40tw tires vs my 200tw tires. If by some miracle we run equal times he still would win. Doesn't add up to me. If the high modifier for CST is designed to avoid some high power super car (say a McLaren 650, Ferrari 458, etc) from showing up and cleaning up the PAX ranking then perhaps we need some special clause not allowing super cars to run the class. Maybe create CSST if that is a real concern, but frankly that is unlikely to be a real issue.

Based on the data through the season for the leaders in CST and other classes I'd say a modifier around the same as STR would be a step in the right direction. They seem to edge us out on most occasions, but the top times are relatively close together. STR is 0.823, and I suggest we nearly mirror that with CST. After all STR seems to consistently be the fastest 200tw tire class. Yes, CST allows for more modifications, so perhaps something like .828 would be more appropriate, but regardless where it is now is something simply not relevant to the current competition or competitors.

User avatar
Reed Gibson
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:33 pm
Club: SCNAX

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Reed Gibson » Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:13 am

To play devil's advocate, CST is not a real SCCA class and doesn't need to be made competitive in PAX with other classes. The lack of rules can allow (on rare occasion) for a well setup CST to beat out a lot of other street tire classes. Personally, I would not be a fan of seeing CST cars out-PAX other cars that are built to the strict Solo rule sets. Just my .02 cents

User avatar
Max Hayter
Posts: 2042
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 31
Location: Powdering the boys...

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Max Hayter » Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:46 am

I agree with both of you... it's silly now, but it should be tougher than other street tire classes.

.835

: drops mic

User avatar
Anthony Porta
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 30
Contact:

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Anthony Porta » Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:55 am

How about the pax is actually correct.

The rule aside from street tires is that is has to be "capable" of being registered, so want I see some active areo sucker cars that weight 800lbs. If someone really took advantage of the rules I think the pax would make more sense. In any case its not an scca national class and was designed as a local catch-all single class.

When I was in CST I also brought up the issue with the PAX but instead of building an awd vacuum miata, I went to BSP.

User avatar
Eric Clements
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 879
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: No$
Car#: 30
Location: Pasadena

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Eric Clements » Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:44 am

Think about a Ariel Atom, Lotus 7/Elan with wings, tunnels and power. If someone wanted to build a car for a local class they could do just fine on the index.

User avatar
Reed Gibson
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:33 pm
Club: SCNAX

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Reed Gibson » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:30 am

Anthony Porta wrote:How about the pax is actually correct.

The rule aside from street tires is that is has to be "capable" of being registered, so want I see some active areo sucker cars that weight 800lbs. If someone really took advantage of the rules I think the pax would make more sense. In any case its not an scca national class and was designed as a local catch-all single class.

When I was in CST I also brought up the issue with the PAX but instead of building an awd vacuum miata, I went to BSP.


Fan car 2019!

User avatar
Steve Ekstrand
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 7367
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 15
Location: This space left intentionally blank
Contact:

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Steve Ekstrand » Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:59 pm

I'd make the Pax 1.200.
Dr. Conemangler
aka The Malefic One
2015 Wildcat Honda F600

User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Executive Board Member
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Mike Simanyi » Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:10 pm

Steve Ekstrand wrote:I'd make the Pax 1.200.

I LOLed.

I'm with Anthony on this. CST is wide frikkin' open. Put 20 square feet of wings on an Ariel Atom with the insane 8 cylinder forced induction engine and that thing will make XP look like a bunch of kindergarten push cars.

Everyone in CST is competing against themselves. They don't need to put into competition with people on an indexed basis, outside their class - people who, as previously mentioned, are building to the highly regulated and monitored national rules.

That said, our supplemental regulations show CSM indexed at .882 based on the SSM index and CST at .864, based on 98% of the CSM index. So where did these .858 CST and .853 CSM values come from in the original post?



Edited to add: And of course we'll update for the 2019 PAX values in January, so all of these numbers will be history...





Edited yet again! The .882 index for CSM in our Supp Regs was from 2016's PAX for SSM. 98% of that is .864 so I understand the Supp Regs values and acknowledge they're incorrect. The 2018 PAX value for SSM is .871, so our Supp Regs and timing should reflect that as the CSM index, and 98% of that is .85358, which should be rounded to .854. Edited^3 to say: I don't understand the .858 CSM index, but I also don't know where the OP found CSM at .853.

User avatar
Rick Brown
Club Representative
Posts: 4747
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 240
Location: Lake Elsinore, CA

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Rick Brown » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:30 pm

Mike Simanyi wrote:
Edited yet again! The .882 index for CSM in our Supp Regs was from 2016's PAX for SSM. 98% of that is .864 so I understand the Supp Regs values and acknowledge they're incorrect. The 2018 PAX value for SSM is .871, so our Supp Regs and timing should reflect that as the CSM index, and 98% of that is .85358, which should be rounded to .854. Edited^3 to say: I don't understand the .858 CSM index, but I also don't know where the OP found CSM at .853.


Probably from results. Just checked in Axware and CSM is .875 and CST is .858. Which means I probably forgot to update those with all the rest at the beginning of the year. Probably meant to look at the Sup Regs to see what they were supposed to match and never did it.
Since light is faster than sound...many people look bright until they speak...

User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Executive Board Member
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Mike Simanyi » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:49 pm

You're in good company Rick. Our Supp Regs go back to 2016...

Jacob Abrams
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:50 pm
Car#: 728

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Jacob Abrams » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:01 pm

Anthony Porta wrote:How about the pax is actually correct.

The rule aside from street tires is that is has to be "capable" of being registered, so want I see some active areo sucker cars that weight 800lbs. If someone really took advantage of the rules I think the pax would make more sense. In any case its not an scca national class and was designed as a local catch-all single class.

When I was in CST I also brought up the issue with the PAX but instead of building an awd vacuum miata, I went to BSP.


Right, I understand the PAX is built around the idea of protecting against some crazy super car build just stomping everyone. But that is more fantasy than reality. I don't see any of those on the grid, do you?

I'm not saying we shouldn't protect against these fantasy cars (I'm mean frankly I plan on building one at some point), but at the same time we need to cater to our existing members, and things that will help retain new members and grow the sport. To only look at it from one angle is very short sighted. If even one person has an issue with it doesn't that warrant some thought being put into it at the very least? You know that saying about the customer always being right in sales? It's a bit of an extreme take on it, but it's not wrong.

It is a complex problem, but not one that should be ignored because it too difficult to solve overnight. I'm not sure what the exact solution to adjusting the pax and still protecting against super cars is. I'd like to think a CST v2 (CSST, CA Super street tire) is a decent option, though it does add confusion. Make the rule set the same for both CST and CSST, but split the two based on the weight of the car perhaps. I'm not sure where the cut off would be exactly, maybe 2400lbs or something around there. Just a thought. I'm sure with time a better idea could be reached, but it's a start.

Reed Gibson wrote:To play devil's advocate, CST is not a real SCCA class and doesn't need to be made competitive in PAX with other classes. The lack of rules can allow (on rare occasion) for a well setup CST to beat out a lot of other street tire classes. Personally, I would not be a fan of seeing CST cars out-PAX other cars that are built to the strict Solo rule sets. Just my .02 cents


Why does it not need to be competitive with other classes? That's barely one step away from saying we [CST] should only be out there for fun runs and our times don't count. We both should have equal opportunities to measure ourselves against other drivers and enjoy it in the process.

Right now the PAX is putting us on the complete other end of the spectrum. Brandon's fastest time last event (a pretty quick lap) put him around 35th total PAX. Running the same car in STR he would easily be in the top 10, if not 5. I think around 35th is the highest anyone has finished all season.

In hindsight suggesting it should match STR is too extreme a move in the other direction, but something around Max's suggestion of .835 seems like a decent place to start when considering what it should be changed to. I wouldn't want a number to be selected at random, if we do change it there should be some basic statistical analysis at least.


Rick Brown wrote:Probably from results.


Correct, I pulled it from the results from the most recent event.

Stan's EVO in CSM Pax has a lower modifier than CST. I'm hoping that is a typo or mistake.That is one thing that bothered me the most, seeing a class with identical open rules but 40tw tires having a lower modifier.

To be honest I'd like to see either the PAX adjusted to a more competitive number or removed completely (ie, 1.0 pax, or not have CST classified at all in PAX). The way it is now with it not accurately representing a single person competing is totally absurd. I'm a firm believer in doing things right or not at all, and this feels very half assed to me. Either get it right or just admit defeat and remove it.

User avatar
Reed Gibson
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:33 pm
Club: SCNAX

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Reed Gibson » Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:17 am

At the end of the day, CST exists in its own little bubble in our region as do many other "catch-all" classes throughout the country. The class is, as stated above, designed to allow the large number of cars in the real world that don't fit the Solo rule sets to run together. We have a very harsh PAX for the class to keep the results essentially buried against all of the true classes. If you want to place higher in the PAX chart, you'll need to either run competitively in a normal class or go crazy with your CST build. Simple as that.

We're not trying to undermine your competitiveness but the general consensus is that CST should remain a catch-all (i.e. run for fun) class for all the cars that added roll center adjusters and got bumped out of street touring :lol:

User avatar
Anthony Porta
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 30
Contact:

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Anthony Porta » Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:54 am

Jacob Abrams wrote:
Anthony Porta wrote:it was designed as a local catch-all single class.


Make the rule set the same for both CST and CSST, but split the two based on the weight of the car perhaps. I'm not sure where the cut off would be exactly, maybe 2400lbs or something around there.


Jacob Abrams wrote:
Reed Gibson wrote:CST is not a real SCCA class and doesn't need to be made competitive in PAX with other classes.

Right now the PAX is putting us on the complete other end of the spectrum. Brandon's fastest time last event (a pretty quick lap) put him around 35th total PAX. Running the same car in STR he would easily be in the top 10, if not 5. I think around 35th is the highest anyone has finished all season.



1) Brandon's car is not an STR car.
2) Are you suggesting that PAX results are important? They are arbitrarily set for all national classes, buy Rick Ruth, not the SCCA itself. At Nationals drivers compete against their class alone. At a Pro Solo, Pax has caused entire classes to boycott certain pax classes. Look at R1 at the Crows Pro.... Where did all those C-Mod cars go?


Jacob Abrams wrote:
Rick Brown wrote:Probably from results.


Correct, I pulled it from the results from the most recent event.

Stan's EVO in CSM Pax has a lower modifier than CST. I'm hoping that is a typo or mistake.That is one thing that bothered me the most, seeing a class with identical open rules but 40tw tires having a lower modifier.


yeah, Rick.... lol
Our results from last event show
CSM .853
CST .858
Our 2018 Supp Reg's show
CSM .882
CST .864
If its supposed to be csm = ssm and cst = CSM *.98
SSM = .871
CSM = .871
CST= .853

Lets get this cleared up for 2019.

Jacob Abrams wrote:To be honest I'd like to see either the PAX adjusted to a more competitive number or removed completely (ie, 1.0 pax, or not have CST classified at all in PAX). The way it is now with it not accurately representing a single person competing is totally absurd. I'm a firm believer in doing things right or not at all, and this feels very half assed to me. Either get it right or just admit defeat and remove it.


Its supposed to be SSM = CSM and CST = .98(CSM)
If its that way....

ME 68.849 x .871 = 59.967
Stan 69.997 x .871 = 60.967
Brandon 71.602 x .853 = 61.076

My car on street tires is typically 2 seconds slower at AAA so...
70.849 x .853 = 60.434

Still quite in the lead, which would have put me 25th in pax. 1.573 would need to come off to match my BSP time. I could easily drop 300 lbs out of my car, add areo and probably be top 10 in Pax in CST.

The Evo 2 seconds slower on street tires would be
68.030 + 2.00 = 70.030 x .853 = 59.735 or 12th in pax.

With areo, less weight, and built engine like what is in Stan's car? Even higher...

User avatar
Craig Naylor
Posts: 1948
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 80
Location: Long Beach

Re: Proposed CST pax modifier adjustment

Postby Craig Naylor » Thu Nov 22, 2018 6:03 pm

I totally get your point about the cars on site in CST.CSM, not being built to the classes max capability.

As pointed out, the PAX index, is created by one individual. Ask around, and you will easily find competitors who feel that various National class's are over/under weighted as well.

Rick does the best he can scouring actual event results from events all across the country. While our and a few other regions with long fast courses are included in his calculations, so are regions driving on postage stamp lots, where a 20 sec course requires 2 laps. The net result will not be equal to all course designs/lengths, etc.

Lot differences aside, his intent assumes all SCCA classes are competed in by cars built to the max of the rule set. You yourself admit that the local CST/CSM PAX, might be appropriate IF a local car was built to the max of the rule-set. Based upon your logic, any class locally comprised of cars not nationally competitive (because they have not been built to the fullest extent of their classes) should also have their PAX adjusted as well.

My car is NOT built to the max rule set for STS. Should I too, join the line to request a reduced PAX index as well? See the slippery slope here?


Return to “Public Rules Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests