Speed Factor vs. Car #

1355 Views 5 Replies 5 Participants Last post by jandreini, Jan 15, 2003

Lancia037Rally

Discussion Starter · Jan 14, 2003

Currently, SCCA's driver's permanent car# system seems pretty bogus. If you scan the list http://www.scca.org/amateur/performance_rally/car-seed.html
you will see indescrepencies of people who either bought their >200 series#, competed in 5 events but are way slow anyway and a couple organizer types/ClubRally Steward given low #s without meeting criteria.
And the whole ClubRally competitors are given #s determined by their division is flawed as well. Most evident is NEDiv's 900series #s. Since #s 991-999 are reserved for sweep vehicles that leaves only 90 car #s available for drivers. Well guess what, there are more than 90 drivers in the Division and many have other than 900 #s. Also, having codriven a 900 series # in a western event where all other cars have low car #s, spectators assume that those 900 # cars are slower.

So, how about SCCA annually issuing driver's car #s by their Speed Factor? Maybe with the exception that the manufacturer's get the first x amount of #s. Then teams know where they are in the event standings compared to everyone else rated near them. Start orders will be based by these #s anyway and you can get a general idea if you are going faster or slower than your previous SpeedFactored stages following reseeds. And you'll be able to set goals to get a lower # the following season. Spectators will be able to see who is moving up and who is falling behind based on car #s.

Canada issues car #s by event based upon the start order similar to this and it works great. Why SCCA has permanent car #s other than they can charge $500 non-active driver bond is beyond me.

Save

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

· #2 · Jan 15, 2003

> Canada issues car #s by event based upon the start order
>similar to this and it works great. Why SCCA has permanent
>car #s other than they can charge $500 non-active driver
>bond is beyond me.

I think there is a perceived benefit to having a fixed car number. Particularly in the "land of NASCAR", spectators and hopefully sponsors find it easier to follow the program if they can root for "their number 46 car".

From an engineer's perspective, I absolutely agree with you. But my experience with the sport is teaching me that not only do the folks with money to inject (ie. sponsors) not think that way, they're absolutely allergic to those who do.

Carl

Save

Trevor Donison

· #3 · Jan 15, 2003

Personally, after the Manufacturers entries (you know, the ones actually on TV), we should have our numbers based on start order. That way if you have number 70 but you do amazing before the re-seed, the spectators know that you have gone faster than 50 cars if you are 20th on the road.

Save

John Vanlandingham

· #4 · Jan 15, 2003

so Trev, you're saying do just exactly what the whole rest of the civilised world does, eh?
Sounds good.
Should the numbers for the "also rans" you know those of us who aren't worth start at 5?
Really, why not 1.

Seriouly folk there isn't really a title "National Champion" there is just the unmarketably dumb "Series Overall Points Leader" or something.
Maybe since the series long results is the only thing that matters, that should be the one position that gets special traetment and maybe a Title?

We really must make some effort at educating spectators and for that matter some of the younger competitors and even the guys writing those painfully boring press releases where I have seen gems such as

"after starting in 52nd place the brave and dashing and wickedly handsome crew of the Subu-bishi PGT 1.3 Wheezer has after 3 stages moved up to 39th."

Uh, doods we all started at ZERO.

Maybe we could convince Rallye Amerique it make a more or less standard Programme and have a slip in Start list.

That way there is no positive OR negative connotation to any number and Trev's reading would work.

And everybody would be happy.

Except the SCCA piggy bank for the little cash "calf" they'd loose.

John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

See less See more

Save

AlanPerry

· #5 · Jan 15, 2003

Just to offer a differing point of view, I like permanent numbers. I guess it is because I am used to hanging around race series where permanent numbers are the norm.

To me, car numbers based on start order only make sense in TSDs.

When Ross and I ran in our first couple Canadian events last year, our seed was not getting updated on the official seed list from SCCA to CARS and we would get put at the end of the start order. Then, we would show them our results and the SCCA rules and we would get moved up before the start and the car numbers would start off not matching the car number. Apparently, some of the spectators were used to the car number being the start order, so when, with car number 33, we came out of the mid-day reseed 7th on the road, it looked like we had done much better than we had. (Well, it was still pretty good for Ross to get that high up in the order. Too bad we got sucked into a snow bank on the penultimate stage.)

Anyway, my point (and I do have one) is that there always to be some shuffling with the start order after the car numbers are assigned that causes that scheme to not be as useful as some folks claim it is.

alan

See less See more

Save

jandreini

· #6 · Jan 15, 2003

So you'd like to do things just like they were done before THE MASTER PLAN was formed.It made perfect sense, and uninitiated spectators could be quickly shown how to know who was fast. Now it's a mystery to everyone(including me) how any competitor is doing at an event.

Save

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month