WSCC Time Attack 2025 Classing Poll

[donrolandofurioso]

Kyle, if it were that easy, we wouldn't need classes at all. Just beat Russ Friesen and Kaycee Coyle, and you win the championship!

[FFAttack]

2 hours ago, donrolandofurioso said:

I am interjecting here to clarify some things, and to straighten out some incorrect statements some people make.

The PAX system that we have been using pre-2023 is the system that has been used by the Ontario Time Attack group for a long time. They use two different PAX factors; one for slow tracks, and one for fast tracks. Our PAX factors really closely mimic their fast-track PAX. We are definitely not the only ones using this system.

The PAX factor set-up has been used in our club for a long time; it was already being utilized when I joined WSCC. Only in 2023 the then-active Time Attack director decided to do away with the 13 classes by combining them into four classes. There were most definitely advantages to the PAX system, as there were disadvantages. It needs to be said that some of the most vocal opponents of the PAX system didn't even race under the PAX system. They are definitely entitled to their opinion, but what are they basing their opinion on?

 

While I appreciate all the different comments about other classification systems out there, for 2025 I have decided to go with what we have and know. We had a major discussion about utilizing Gridlife, SCCA, modified SCCA etc. some time back, and I am gladly willing to open this discussion again now that we have a track that is smooth enough to invite other racers to.

However, for everybody to even get an idea how their car performs on this -essentially new- track, I am not willing to change technical rules. Let's all get a few laps on the repaved track before we shake everything up. 

So what was the point of this poll then? 
 

It’s ok, you can call me by name we all know you’re eluding to me.  

 

I did Autocross for 6 year with PAX since you asked. 

[donrolandofurioso]

Jeremy, I did not use your name because you are not the only one not having raced Time Attack at WSCC under the PAX ruling. I wanted to clear up some of the incorrect statements that have been made.

You asked what the poll was for? To find out how the majority of the people feels about this topic. I fully understand your stance on PAX, and I am not saying that you are wrong, nor that you are right. However, just because you don't like PAX (I draw that assumption from your comments), it does not mean that other people don't get to voice their opinion. The purpose of a poll is to give everybody an equal opportunity to express their opinion.

This poll is there to find out what the majority of Time Attackers want - not what the loudest or brashest Time Attackers want.

 

Edited October 28 by donrolandofurioso

[Brian_Earl_Spilner]

My own two cents; I've always found PAX to be an extremely flawed system. While it can be interesting & curious to see where a specific car may place roughly in relation to cars in a different class, I don't feel that final results and standings should be based on the artificial numbers that PAX produces.

[Weebly]

On 10/26/2024 at 9:03 PM, Mopar11 said:

This was the previous discussion from 2022

https://forums.wscc.mb.ca/index.php?/topic/12454-2023-pax-classing-discussion/

 

Finally read through all the discussion (5 pages) we had back in late 2022 in preparation for the 2023 season. Brings back some memories I had forgotten.  Deja vu all over again?

[T Gooss]

I don't think there's any honor in winning a race with a slower lap time. If I'm not mistaken in 2022 everyone was competing for the same trophy so 150hp cars were racing against 600hp cars. I think that's ridiculous. If I understand correctly the pax factor is suppose to eliminate any advantage that might come from modifying or building a faster car. Then the people that put in the most time and money are the ones at the biggest disadvantage. That seems like a bad way to try and grow this sport. I agree driver skill is more important then what they drive but I think it should be acceptable to put time and money into modifications to gain lap time.

[Iceracer]

On 10/30/2024 at 6:56 PM, T Gooss said:

I don't think there's any honor in winning a race with a slower lap time. If I'm not mistaken in 2022 everyone was competing for the same trophy so 150hp cars were racing against 600hp cars. I think that's ridiculous. If I understand correctly the pax factor is suppose to eliminate any advantage that might come from modifying or building a faster car. Then the people that put in the most time and money are the ones at the biggest disadvantage. That seems like a bad way to try and grow this sport. I agree driver skill is more important then what they drive but I think it should be acceptable to put time and money into modifications to gain lap time.

So it's the car that wins the race not the driver?

[T Gooss]

1 hour ago, Iceracer said:

So it's the car that wins the race not the driver?

That's not what I'm saying, I think it takes both to win. As car enthusiasts why are we trying to take the car out of the equation?

[Iceracer]

4 hours ago, T Gooss said:

That's not what I'm saying, I think it takes both to win. As car enthusiasts why are we trying to take the car out of the equation?

If your car is properly prepared for whichever class it's in - all is equal. That's pax. Not all enthusiasts feel the need, nor have the ability to put the money into a vehicle. Should they be penalized? This isn't Nascar or F1.

[Brian_Earl_Spilner]

20 minutes ago, Iceracer said:

If your car is properly prepared for whichever class it's in - all is equal. 

But therein lies the problem... some cars and preparations are more equal than others. One of the biggest flaws I've seen over the years are PAX-favorable cars or PAX-favorable modifications that give runners a loophole or edge into scoring better PAX times.

That sort of system should not be used to dictate final results.

[Iceracer]

22 minutes ago, Brian_Earl_Spilner said:

But therein lies the problem... some cars and preparations are more equal than others. One of the biggest flaws I've seen over the years are PAX-favorable cars or PAX-favorable modifications that give runners a loophole or edge into scoring better PAX times.

That sort of system should not be used to dictate final results.

So what's your suggestion then? Afaik there are no other factoring systems that work as well as PAX overall. He who spends the most wins all?

[T Gooss]

4 hours ago, Iceracer said:

So what's your suggestion then? Afaik there are no other factoring systems that work as well as PAX overall. He who spends the most wins all?

You're right this isn't Nascar, F1 or autocross. The only time attack that I've heard of that actually uses a factoring system is OTA. There's maybe more but the majority of time attack events that I've seen have regulated classes that compete raw time. 

Why do we need to "properly prepare" a car for its class if pax is supposed to be the great equalizer? 

We've all seen numerous flaws in the pax system so I would disagree with the statement "all is equal". 

I understand everyone has a different budget and it's important that those with a lower budget still have a chance at winning. I think with good regulations and classes there can be room for modifications that improve lap time. With a limit of course, too many modifications would bump you into the next class. This makes the slower classes more favorable to lower budgets. We all know that racing isn't cheap and it's definitely not free. If there are "enthusiasts that don't feel the need or have the ability to put any money into a vehicle" i personally don't think that's how you win a championship in time attack. I don't think they should be "penalized" but I think it should be acceptable to allow some modifications within a class.

[Iceracer]

21 hours ago, Brian_Earl_Spilner said:

But therein lies the problem... some cars and preparations are more equal than others. One of the biggest flaws I've seen over the years are PAX-favorable cars or PAX-favorable modifications that give runners a loophole or edge into scoring better PAX times.

If you're wanting to and knowing that you will be competing wouldn't it be a good idea to do research to see which cars work best in their respective classes? There always have been and will always continue to be cars that do well and others that won't/don't. 

Your "reasoning" seems to come across saying the world should be a "fair" place.  

[Tysawch]

My issue with pax is that I can't tell if anyone is cheating. You do a car classing that has no easily identifiable limits to a class. example my evo. its ran as a mod car and SGT1 car with the only difference being how much boost it ran. it went fastest as a SGT1 car by 6 tenths (if it was competing for a Sgt class win would that raise concerns?). VS Gridlife or GTA rules that have very fast to identify limits to the classes. I can walk up to a car and visually place it in a Gridlife class fairly quickly and accurately without knowledge of the car since its rules are based on easily scrutinized aspects. ie tire size and tw, aero size and number of wing elements. Explaining pax classing and how it works is and always has been a hurdle to getting new faces out. the rules are very time consuming and cumbersome to negotiate. the only rules I found more frustrating to class with was SCCA. 

Pax has lots of non checkable holes and advantages that are purely based on the cars factory options and class. remember your base model 350z can't have a aftermarket diff without taking pips. But if you have the track pack (VLSD) then you are pip free to swap the diff to a clutch type of your choice well retaining your base pax.(I'm not a fan of these loop holes) This year we seen a 3 second delta with our frs between 2 setups that pax the same. Pax sees no advantage from 2 way coilovers but the transponder told us otherwise. how is it fair to a low class like gt that I can show up on kw 2 ways ($$$) and pax/Class the same as a stock ish frs on entry level suspension? the gridlife rules would punt me up a class and maintain the spirit of a low class to be a entry level stepping stone.

 

my closing thoughts. Pax is not time attack. Time attack is a raw time competition with classes based around tires/ aero and engine size/ aspiration. the best driver does not always win, nor the best prepared car.  regardless of what is decided I will see you all out in 2025 to continue chasing PB's and records

[Brian_Earl_Spilner]

On 11/2/2024 at 11:11 AM, Iceracer said:

If you're wanting to and knowing that you will be competing wouldn't it be a good idea to do research to see which cars work best in their respective classes? There always have been and will always continue to be cars that do well and others that won't/don't. 

Your "reasoning" seems to come across saying the world should be a "fair" place.  

On the contrary. Everybody knows the world is not a fair place. But we're not talking about "the world" here and all of its injustices. We're talking about a racing hobby.

My point from the start is that while PAX touts itself as being a "fair" system (to use your word), it is anything but. And the tone of your response would indicate that you seem to be fine with PAX being UNfair, because the world isn't a fair place. Not exactly sound logic.

And at the end of the day, the event is called Time Attack. It's not Calculator Attack.

[Iceracer]

8 hours ago, Brian_Earl_Spilner said:

On the contrary. Everybody knows the world is not a fair place. But we're not talking about "the world" here and all of its injustices. We're talking about a racing hobby.

My point from the start is that while PAX touts itself as being a "fair" system (to use your word), it is anything but. And the tone of your response would indicate that you seem to be fine with PAX being UNfair, because the world isn't a fair place. Not exactly sound logic.

And at the end of the day, the event is called Time Attack. It's not Calculator Attack.

So once again I ask you - what's your suggestion/idea for classing?

[Brian_Earl_Spilner]

16 hours ago, Iceracer said:

So once again I ask you - what's your suggestion/idea for classing?

I don't have a solution. But that also begs the question, do we need a solution?

Back in the first couple of years of Time Attack with JT as director when there were only 5 or 6 of us running, we just ran against the clock.. plain and simple. Everyone knew their naturally aspirated 2.0 wasn't going to hold a candle to the Corvettes, but nobody cared. You ran to see what YOU could do, and then try to best your own times, or similar runners, which is effectively the spirit of Time Attack.

I'm not sure why PAX or any other system was introduced in later years to try to make Miatas hang with Vipers. Seems extremely nonsensical to me.

[nopistons]

35 minutes ago, Brian_Earl_Spilner said:

I'm not sure why PAX or any other system was introduced in later years to try to make Miatas hang with Vipers. Seems extremely nonsensical to me.

You sort of asked and answered your question.

There were few cars in TA events. And then TA started to grow, and then fall. reason for it was that smaller budgets felt squeezed out, that there was no drive to improve. They requested a way to feel included. Guess what? now TA is the largest grid at a competition event, and has been for some time.

High-level reading of the commentary here suggests that everyone wants to have a classing structure, as long as it isn't OTA.
There has to be a balance of the largest money spent wins overall VS. everyone gets a trophy. 

To the commentary of "fastest time wins", just enter into "RAW TIME" class and move on. Seems counterproductive to argue that all folks need to be in this class if you believe you can win it. Remember, this means reliable, consistent , sub minute times for everyone who enters! 

Edited November 5 by nopistons
Clarity, Spelling, Grammar

[Rare Snake]

On 11/5/2024 at 10:24 AM, Brian_Earl_Spilner said:

I'm not sure why PAX or any other system was introduced in later years to try to make Miatas hang with Vipers. Seems extremely nonsensical to me.

I have to chime in here, maybe just because you said the magic word haha.

Brian Earl Spilner, (it does sound like a serial killer) and Iceracer, I don't think I know who you guys are for real, or if we've raced together, but I appreciate the back and forth on the different views. This post has been quite interesting so far.

Personally, I really like the idea of attempting to compare apples to oranges, as impossible as that is. I think we all just like to see ourselves on the same page, no matter our choice of weapons to strap into.

I feel like I'm a bit of a freak in this world, because I've played hard at both ends, for quite a few years now. It took forever, but I eventually got quick enough in my "fast" car, and somewhere along the line, I accidently got quick in my "slow" car too. So it feels like everything I look at with this stuff has my eyes going in opposite directions. 

Now I'm in big trouble, because the track looked so nice the last time I saw it... now I want to put new tires on both before Spring, I think they can both do better!

 

Edited November 6 by Rare Snake
didn't like wording.

[Tysawch]

10 hours ago, nopistons said:

To the commentary of "fastest time wins", just enter into "RAW TIME" class and move on. Seems counterproductive to argue that all folks need to be in this class if you believe you can win it. Remember, this means reliable, consistent , sub minute times for everyone who enters! 

I think this is what troubles a lot of us. A lot of people want raw time battles but don't have/ or want to spend that sub minute money. or sub 58 for that matter. but enjoy the engineering challenge of building something seriously fast in the garage. this normally nets you the most punished classing in pax. it really takes the wind out of your sails when you can break the track record (by multiple seconds) in a mod 1 car and not win the overall with pax

 

I think pax made a lot of sense when car counts low to make a form of competition. now that the fields have grown over the years does it still offer the best form of compition and driver retention? 

[Lance_L]

From a club stand point the primary goal should be to choose a system that has the best chance to increase membership, that being the key function of a club. Every decision has perceived winners and losers, otherwise it wouldn't be a decision.

In my opinion this can be broken down into 2 parts, a simple binary first part. Is the goal to reward "Car and Driver" or "Driver"?

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a35863214/sabine-schmitz-top-gear-transit-nurburgring-lap/

This is a good story to use as an example.

Sabine is obviously a better driver than Clarkson. Using the same car, on the same track she dropped 47s off of his time.

But say by choice, time available, or budget, all she could race was the van. Her time in the van was  13s longer than Carlson's in the Jag. Who should win? The fastest time? or the better driver? Might Clarkson feel cheated of his better time by a mathematical hack? After all he may have sacrificed to have the better car.  He might, but it is really irrelevant if the goal is to reward the driver.

The stated goal of the PAX was to reward better drivers. The preamble goes into the whole the same proficient driver, say Sabine, in each of these configurated cars, can expect to have the same time. Is this likely the case? Absolutely not! Certain mods will benefit one driver more than another, even our theoretical driver. The system was designed by human's it will have flaws. But if a system has flaws was the sole case for discarding it, we'd have no systems at all. But in the end that is irrelevant to the first binary choice, Driver, or "Car and Driver".

Once that decision is made then you move on from there, if it is fastest around the track, all you need is a stop watch.

If the decision is "driver" then it gets more difficult. Picking an existing system is not an entirely bad idea, especially if drivers are driving in other jurisdictions. The jurisdiction that uses this system, Ontario, likely has more skilled drivers with deeper pockets and faces the same challenges. It may actually be that the disparity in resources in Ontario is so great, that no other system can be used. Either way, I'm inclined to let someone else lead the charge into the bureaucracy wall.

If the club's choice is driver, the decision, despite its flaws, seems to lead to the PAX system.  Anything, custom designed by us for us, is likely to be looked at with more suspicion by some, and that will not forward the key Club goal, increasing membership.

I think the PAX system in autocross makes it more interesting, and during limited visits, I haven't encountered a lot of drivers upset about the mathematical component of their time.

I would argue that the PAX system actually rewards time and driver, and doesn't disincentivise money. As I said earlier some mods will benefit some drivers more. This would imply time and investment in figuring out the best value "as in points" of each mod to that particular driver. Far more real investment then just writing a check for another 400 hp. 

Anyways, that's my 2 cents, take it for what is cost.

Edited November 11 by Lance_L
Typo

[Anonychuk]

There is nothing simpler than RAW Times, which is the core idea of Time Attack and what it was created around in its origin.

It's not called Math Attack.

[ron]

I think it boils down to what we want to do as a group of enthusiasts.

I, myself, feel like I am with Tyler on the preference for something like GridLife. I relish the challenge of building something fast and unique in my garage. Simpler ruleset suits me the best. Walking down the pit lane and knowing which class each car fits into is appealing.

I also recognize that time-attack can be a stepping stone into Road Race for some people and one global feature of road racing is a big thick rulebook. So, if we as a club decide we want to continue to run with lots of rules, I am OK with that as well.

The roots of Time Attack out of Japan were weighted more towards the car with more minimal rules and basic classes based primarily on power-to-weight, tires, size of aero (not to suggest the driver is not important). This can get pretty serious for those interested in the challenge of building crazy stuff and also far better for spectators.

In my opinion, we have open-lapping to get new people into the sport. Time Attack is often people’s first timed discipline on the road course. AutoX has a goal of trying to emphasize the driver and Road Racing around the world is geared more towards team competition (both trying to take every advantage you can find out of the rules and pairing that with a good driver - money clearly helps). Another driver focused discipline would be spec racing. Unfortunately we don’t have enough involvement to attract a big enough field of spec racers and close 2nd to this is a group of people building very similar cars and running them in Road Race.

Someone suggested our rule sets have a significant impact on participation. I’m not personally convinced of that. Our rules do not prevent people from entering their cars. I see a better correlation between marketing events and participation. We recently came off a peak during Covid where our sport was one of the few allowed to continue. And I would sooner assume that tighter budgets these days are likely to have a bigger impact than which rules we use.

Basing our rules on what impact they might have on a non-member visitor (such as someone from the US), who won’t be competing for the year’s point total anyway, also makes no sense.

We only got in 8 race days this year and it was decided to use the best 6 out of 8 results. Even with that:

- We had 1 person in ’T’ group attend every event (he was also the fastest in T). No one else, came out to more than 1 weekend (2 days). 

- We had 2 people in ‘GT’ vying for first place with a third that would have been in the running as well if his car did not break. 

- SGT was 1 person (with the potential for maybe another). 

- Only 1 person in Mod. 

- Not taking anything away from Kaycee, who deserved first place, frankly, Extreme was up for grabs for anyone that showed up to 6 out of 8 events this year. Myself and one other only made it to 4 events. I blame my lack of prep for my car failing to make 6+ events.

Add this up - we have between 5 and 10 people that are serious about competing in Time Attack.

13 classes just doesn’t make sense to me. 2-3 serious people in GT would likely either have all 3 still in the same split class or 1 would be on their own. Also not good.

Only given 3 options - leaving things the same makes the most sense.

If given the chance to vote for something like GridLife, I would weigh that against the concept of having Time Attack positioned as a stepping stone to door-to-door Road Racing.

[Majestic]

So I can see there are 2 votes that are not for either of the major contenders here, I was just wondering what we are going to do about those? Will they still be counted as they are or will be they be reassigned into whichever option they closest resemble? I understand there is still time until the poll closes but it was a thought I'd had that i was curious about.

[donrolandofurioso]

This is a good question! It seems that at this point in time that particular option will not win (unless there is a large amount of people who intend to vote for that option within the next few days. I will have to talk to David to see whether it is even possible to find out who those people were, and whether their vote can be moved as per their liking.

On the other hand, I need to consider how fair it is to let those voters change their opinion based on the likelihood of their choice winning. 

 

Ideally, their vote cannot be reissued. Then there will be no arguments about fairness.

Edited November 22 by donrolandofurioso

[donrolandofurioso]

From a moral point of view, I cannot let people change their votes after being cast.

From a technical point of view, it is not possible to eradicate their previous vote and reassign a new vote.

Therefore, any vote cast will remain as originally assigned.

[Rustfree]

"Run-off" elections/voting, are not uncommon.

 

[Anonychuk]

It's 22/22 for PAX/Anything but PAX, yet with 2 options not for PAX it's splits that vote to weaken it...

[donrolandofurioso]

To everybody:

 

The poll will close on November 30th at 23:59 (11:59 pm for the metrically challenged)!

If you have not cast your vote yet, speak up now or forever hold your peace!

[Anonychuk]

I have a proxy vote for keep the same as is, for Zared Schukei, until his forum access is granted to cast it himself, he is planning on attending the school in the spring.