Annual Met Council Rules Meeting, Saturday, Dec. 8th

[MNbiker]

ANNOUNCEMENT

The annual Rules Meeting of the Metropolitan Council of Sports Car Clubs will held on Saturday, December 8th, from 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM. The meeting will be held at the home of the current Rules Chair, Steve Garnjobst. Members from all Met Council clubs are welcome to attend.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss and agree on what changes (if any) will be proposed for the 2008 Met Council Autocross Series Rules. Proposed changes will then be provided to all Met Council Clubs for review. Club representatives will vote on any proposed changes at the February Met Council meeting.

Thus far, no changes to the current rules have been proposed. If you wish to propose any changes, please submit them to me by December 6th, so I can distribute an agenda to member clubs.

The current Met Council Rules may be accessed at:
http://www.met-council.org/rules.html (http://www.met-council.org/rules.html)

Thanks!

Steve Garnjobst
Met Council Rules Chair
xprepared@msn.com


Location:
2241 Kenwood Court
Maplewood, MN 55117


Directions:
My house is located approximately 5 miles North of downtown Saint Paul, off Highway 36.
From Highway 36, just East of Interstate 35E, take the Edgerton St. exit. Turn South on Edgerton to the first stop sign (County Road B). Turn left (East) on County Road B and drive a long 2 blocks to Kenwood Court. Turn left on Kenwood Court and drive to straight to the end of the cul-de-sac.

[MNbiker]

So far, only one change has been proposed:

Add a Pro PAX class. Finishing positions would be determined by multiplying raw times by the applicable PAX/RTP factor for the car each entrant is driving at that event. So, the class would operate identically to the existing Street Tire Index class, except that race tires would be allowed. The primary purpose of the Pro PAX class would be to provide close competition for more accomplished drivers - especially those who may have little to no competition in their regular class at a local level. However, any driver could choose to run in the class.

Are there any other proposals?

[Ivan]

Perhaps it is implied, but I propose that the pro-pax class be calculated in 2 sets of 3 runs per event (similar to Milwaukee). Helps with hammering in the "get it done in 3" mentality necessary for national level competition. Not the same as running 2 different courses, but closer to that mindset.
Also, if there are more bodies needed for timing or registration due to this proposed change, I volunteer.

--Ivan

[phile]

Perhaps it is implied, but I propose that the pro-pax class be calculated in 2 sets of 3 runs per event (similar to Milwaukee). Helps with hammering in the "get it done in 3" mentality necessary for national level competition. Not the same as running 2 different courses, but closer to that mindset.
Also, if there are more bodies needed for timing or registration due to this proposed change, I volunteer.

--Ivan
I'm pretty sure that if this split-timing scheme is included in the proposal, it's doomed.

Politics is the art of the possible. A simple PRO class scored like the Street Tire class is possible.

[G. Jay]

So far, only one change has been proposed:

Add a Pro PAX class. Finishing positions would be determined by multiplying raw times by the applicable PAX/RTP factor for the car each entrant is driving at that event. So, the class would operate identically to the existing Street Tire Index class, except that race tires would be allowed. The primary purpose of the Pro PAX class would be to provide close competition for more accomplished drivers - especially those who may have little to no competition in their regular class at a local level. However, any driver could choose to run in the class.

Are there any other proposals?

Why would a separate class be needed? How would this be different than the parrallel PAX rankings done now? A person might run in an existing class, out PAX the "Pro PAX'rs", and then get no recognition for it.

[phile]

How would this be different than the parallel PAX rankings done now?

Gifted drivers may leave their regular classes to mere mortals. ;)

As with most "new" proposals, a PAXed class for higher-level drivers is not new to Met Council. The PRO class lasted several years. It started strong, and then faded to the point that the rules committee euthanized it. It looked pretty silly with one or two entries at an event. Maybe now is a good time to raise it from the dead, considering the number of local folks now making the treks to Milwaukee and Topeka.

[MNbiker]

Why would a separate class be needed? How would this be different than the parrallel PAX rankings done now? A person might run in an existing class, out PAX the "Pro PAX'rs", and then get no recognition for it.
We will still have event-wide PAX rankings, even if this new class is approved. And it is possible that one or more top drivers may opt not to compete in the Pro class, for whatever reason. Milwaukee is a perfect example - most of the top drivers run in Pro PAX. However Bart Borowski (2 time defending DS National Champ) chooses to run in his regular class instead.

The reason some drivers have asked for us to re-institute a Pro class is to provide more direct competition at events. One could argue the PAX rankings are sufficient, but the compeition is less intense if drivers are spread across multiple classes & run groups.

[washburn]

Why would a separate class be needed? How would this be different than the parrallel PAX rankings done now? A person might run in an existing class, out PAX the "Pro PAX'rs", and then get no recognition for it.

The idea is to free up the regular classes from the occasional "Class Overlord" so trophies are available to others. I think it's a good idea, and I also agree that it should be 2 sets of 3 runs per event. (Or 2 runs if we're cutting back)
Once the raw times are dumped into spreadsheets, I don't see where doing a little spreadsheet majic wouldn't take care of the administration.

If it's still a problem, I would propose using only the first three runs and calling it good.

[Ivan]

I'm pretty sure that if this split-timing scheme is included in the proposal, it's doomed.

Politics is the art of the possible. A simple PRO class scored like the Street Tire class is possible.

...Which is why I'm not in politics. More of a suggestion or request I guess. I was making assumptions that it was possible (and also volunteering to help). Reasons for assuming:

1. AxWare allows different sessions per event, and separately paxed classes.
2. It is being done elsewhere (Milwaukee)... albeit they're probably not using Axware.

Just realized that other Met council clubs' software may not have the same capabilities...
I'd like to research it more, unless someone has already done so and deemed it impossible.

My apologies if this was already discussed at a monthly meeting (location and time frame just don't align for me).

[MNbiker]

Perhaps it is implied, but I propose that the pro-pax class be calculated in 2 sets of 3 runs per event (similar to Milwaukee). Helps with hammering in the "get it done in 3" mentality necessary for national level competition. Not the same as running 2 different courses, but closer to that mindset.
Also, if there are more bodies needed for timing or registration due to this proposed change, I volunteer.

--Ivan

Assuming we run the class just like the Street Tire Index class, no additional effort would be required for timing & scoring, as MyAutoEvents and AXWare support PAX classes.

Like Phil, I believe including the "two event" scoring you describe will doom the proposal for at least two reasons:

1. Such a format will put additional work on timing & scoring. This will likely be a major concern for clubs other than MAC, who have archaic timing systems. Even with MAC, I don't particularly want to deal with the extra manual calculations at the end of the event. I'm not aware of any way to automatically calculate the results as you describe in AXWare.

2. We can't guarantee a certain number of runs at each event.
The number of runs from event to event, and even from morning to afternoon in the same event, can vary quite a bit.

I understand the intent, but the proposal will have a far greater chance of approval if it stays simple.

-Steve

p.s. Milwaukee uses AXWare.

[Ivan]

Assuming we run the class just like the Street Tire Index class, no additional effort would be required required for timing & scoring, as MyAutoEvents and AXWare support PAX classes.

Like Phil, I believe including the "two event" scoring you describe will doom the proposal for at least two reasons:

1. Such a format will put additional work on timing & scoring. This will likely be a major concern for clubs other than MAC, who have archaic timing systems. Even with MAC, I don't particularly want to deal with the extra manual calculations at the end of the event.

2. We can't guarantee a certain number of runs at each event.
The number of runs from event to event, and even from morning to afternoon in the same event, can vary quite a bit.

I understand the intent, but the proposal will have a far greater chance of approval if it stays simple.

-Steve

p.s. Milwaukee uses AXWare.

Thanks for the detailed input, makes sense for getting the initial approval.

[MNbiker]

Here's the formal language I will present to the Rules Committee for discussion.

-Steve


Add the following to Section 9:

9.3 Pro (P) Class: Available to all drivers in classes specified in Section 8.1. Results shall be calculated according to the current PAX/RTP Index, as published by Chicago Region SCCA®.

9.3.1 Pro class will be available at all events. Pro is not involved in any bumping to other classes or categories, regardless of the number of Pro entrants. Pro entrants will not affect regular-class sizes or trophy calculations in any way.

9.3.2 Vehicles shall meet all applicable rules for their regular SCCA® Solo class.

9.3.3 Pro shall be treated as a regular class for the Met Council Autocross Series.

[phile]

9.3.4 Drivers must elect to run in the Pro class prior to the first competition run at an event, and may not change car classing (including regular SCCA® Solo class) after runs have commenced.

9.3.4 Drivers are not required to run the same vehicle or regular SCCA® Solo classing at each event.





9.3.4 and 9.3.4 Seem to be pretty obvious. There does not seem to be any provision in the rules for people to change classes in the middle of an event. Also, there is no logical reason to expect that anyone would run the same class and vehicle at every event. It is not required in the T class, either.

Then I noticed a little redundancy in numbering. :)

[CDeutsch]

Personally I'm only interested in the class if it uses a 3 run format (whether it's two sets of 3 runs or one). If it's just a regular 5-6 run PAX class like Street Tire Index, I'll just keep running in the same class since PAX overall will continue to be calculated. But that's just me.

[rdub]

I think the pro class Pax is always good
I think the 3 run format SUCKS ,since we have more runs use them all. Lets not get TOO MILWAUKEE, we're MAC...GET IT,LIVE IT, REMEMBER IT.
Notes from the past, when we opened PRO to everyone,it dilluted the class,it should be the top 10-15 Paxers invited.
Also all the pro class needs to run together as a group

[Ivan]

I think the pro class Pax is always good
I think the 3 run format SUCKS ,since we have more runs use them all. Lets not get TOO MILWAUKEE, we're MAC...GET IT,LIVE IT, REMEMBER IT.
Notes from the past, when we opened PRO to everyone,it dilluted the class,it should be the top 10-15 Paxers invited.
Also all the pro class needs to run together as a group

Whatever it takes to accomplish your last point gets my vote. Although I'd prefer a split 3-run format*... if it'll shoot down the pro class vote altogether, I'll wait.
And I'll defer to your experience on the "open to everyone" issue, good point. But, hopefully people will respect the intent and wait until they're really ready to try the pro class.

* (IMO is less about Milwaukee and more about practicing on more even ground as other top national competitors)

[JKarsten]

Even if you take the to 20 people and send out "invites" and only 2 people want to run the class how would that effect ProClass.

[Darryl]

Straight forward... If you want to run pro you can, if not you'd just run in class... I paxed like 98th so I'm out...

[rdub]

DW and guys.....I'm just rying to ELIMINATE the dork the signs up for pro to be cool,and make it a class to work for ,sort of an earned posibility

[washburn]

Hey, if you want to get your ass handed to you in Pro, I say let them. Overall index is still there and tells the real story. Besides, I want Darryl to run in Pro too!

[Darryl]

DW and guys.....I'm just rying to ELIMINATE the dork the signs up for pro to be cool,and make it a class to work for ,sort of an earned posibility

NOW IT"S DW not DDUB... I agree RW...

[murph]

* (IMO is less about Milwaukee and more about practicing on more even ground as other top national competitors)

This is the value I see in a pro class as well. We already know who the best drivers in the club are via PAX ranking, it's the nationals-style 3-run pressure that would be more interesting IMO.

[rdub]

NO it actually won't....I drive as fast as I can every run.....stop me at 3 and thats probably gonna be my best.....give me 2 or 3 more and I will probably run faster and so will everyone else,so it's a wash,it averages the same.
there's no more pressure with 3 runs than with 6 at the top of the Pax heap.

[miata#37]

This is the value I see in a pro class as well. We already know who the best drivers in the club are via PAX ranking, it's the nationals-style 3-run pressure that would be more interesting IMO.

+1

If we're going to do this, it needs to be done in a "3 run + remaining runs" format. That format will help train us to do a better job preparing before our first runs at Divisional/National events. It also rewards those drivers who do so. That is the only reason I can see for the class to exist. Otherwise it just makes the other classes something less than they were. What's the sense in winning STU if the 2 faster STU driver's were in PRO logging better times? All it means is that you won a false trophy. That's just plain hollow. Why would ANYBODY from a seasoned veteran to a first year driver want that?

[Ivan]

Let's let it get off the ground. This is a great chance to add another challenging aspect to our sport locally. Amend the rule later if it's too diluted, or if the format isn't challenging enough to make it worthwhile. The current proposal isn't ideal in my opinion, but it's a step in the right direction. Unless some change happens to allow the skill levels of current top drivers (and subsequently all drivers) to continue to rise, they will get bored and find something else to do or somewhere else to go. Maybe that type of ebb and flow is fine with some folks, but I'd rather not see that happen.

By the way, how are the representatives counted in the actual vote? Proportionate number of representative votes to the total membership of a particular club? 1 vote per club?

[Ivan]

NO it actually won't....I drive as fast as I can every run.....stop me at 3 and thats probably gonna be my best.....give me 2 or 3 more and I will probably run faster and so will everyone else,so it's a wash,it averages the same.
there's no more pressure with 3 runs than with 6 at the top of the Pax heap.

Sounds like you're talking about ONLY having 3 runs... we're primarily talking about 2 sets of three (or as many as an afternoon will allow). Then adding the best from each session.

[rdub]

No I get it .....its just not anymore practice than making 6 regular runs
or any harder or any more pressure.
And again PRO was created originally to give others a chance in the class to
compete with maybe a lesser prepped car ,or learning drivers.....so they won't get discouraged by gettin there butts kicked all the time .
NOTE some drivers don't care about National Competition ,so a win
(even if the best class driver in PRO is ahead of them) is still a WIN and A Trophy.

[Ivan]

...

And again PRO was created originally to give others a chance in the class to
compete with maybe a lesser prepped car ,or learning drivers.....so they won't get discouraged by gettin there butts kicked all the time .
NOTE some drivers don't care about National Competition ,so a win
(even if the best class driver in PRO is ahead of them) is still a WIN and A Trophy.

Makes sense, and Gretchen says she likes that reasoning too. :)

[MNbiker]

1. How are rule changes approved?
The Rules Committee does not vote on or approve the rules. It is an informal group that simply discusses potential changes for the upcoming year, and hashes out a list of changes that are forwarded to member clubs for review. Each club has one vote on the Met Council. It takes a majority vote for a proposed change to be adopted for the upcoming year.

Since I've been the rules chair, it has been my approach to encourage frank discussion at the rules meeting, and only forward proposed changes with a high liklihood of passage. This collaborative approach seems to have worked well, and we've had excellent cooperation among the Met Council clubs the past several years.

2. Redundant 9.3.4 sections?
We could probably do without either of the 9.3.4 sections, so I have removed them. I threw the language together pretty quickly. That's why I put this stuff out for review.

3. Running the class together?
Of course we would run all Pro class drivers in the same heat. In fact, the only class the rules allow us to split up is SI.

[weidnerpaul]

I just looked at the old minutes (April 2007) and the Met Council kart rules were probationary for one year... Is this being revisited on Saturday?



Old Business:
Steve G.
Kart Rules reviewed, VF and Midway only, Trial this year. Also some more detail on the MAC rules as well, he will post on the forum in the appropriate spot

[MNbiker]

OK, now that I'm done answering a couple questions, I'd like to offer a few of my own opinions.

First, I'd recommend backing off the fixation on splitting the runs in half, if you want this class to be formed. As MAC's Met Council Rep, I can tell you this issue will likely kill the proposal. Feel free to attend the Rules meeting and present this format to the other clubs, but I think you'll find the concept to be a hard sell. I'm not even certain you'd get a majority at a MAC membership meeting.

Second, I actually see very limited value in the 3 run plus ? run format, as run at Milwaukee and proposed in this thread. The similarity to National events is so tenuous that I simply don't think the benefits outweigh the additional administration. If you want a more realistic approximation of National events, then make only the first three runs count for Pro Class. THAT would actually measure drivers' ability to read and drive a course in 3 runs. Use the subsequent runs for tuning the car, experimenting, etc.
FWIW - this format might also have a better chance of being ratified by the other clubs.

I am most definitely NOT in favor of creating an invitation-only list, and I doubt such a proposal would be ratified by the Met Council clubs. Honestly, this seems like over-legislation to me. Things like this are generally self-regulating - if someone's getting their butt kicked, they'll likely opt-out pretty quickly.

[MNbiker]

I just looked at the old minutes (April 2007) and the Met Council kart rules were probationary for one year... Is this being revisited on Saturday?

Paul,

This is a MAC-only class, so it won't be on the agenda for the Met Council rules meeting. We will discuss the kart class at the Feb. MAC membership meeeting.

[gsk8r]

Makes sense, and Gretchen says she likes that reasoning too. :)

Yeah, maybe I might get a chance to win a trophy someday. Even if it is "falsely" won because better drivers were in a different (PRO) class. :lol:

All kidding aside, I think it would be a good idea to have a Pro class. It increases the competition level for those who deem that important in their development. Why not offer all kinds of levels of competition since we have all levels of competitors?

-Gretchen "just plain hollow" A. :p

[EWAustin]

<snip>make only the first three runs count for Pro Class. THAT would actually measure drivers' ability to read and drive a course in 3 runs. Use the subsequent runs for tuning the car, experimenting, etc.
FWIW - this format might also have a better chance of being ratified by the other clubs.



Seems this would be pretty easy to administer from a timing-trailer point of view. Whenever a PRO driver finishes, check how many runs (s)he's had. If it's more than three, mark the run a DNF. They'll still be able to see their times, and use the runs for car set-up and practice, but only the first three runs will count.

And, it could be easily double checked before the official results are posted on the results page of this site.

[aansorge]

No I get it .....its just not anymore practice than making 6 regular runs
or any harder or any more pressure.

I disagree.



And again PRO was created originally to give others a chance in the class to
compete with maybe a lesser prepped car ,or learning drivers.....so they won't get discouraged by gettin there butts kicked all the time .
NOTE some drivers don't care about National Competition ,so a win
(even if the best class driver in PRO is ahead of them) is still a WIN and A Trophy.

I agree with the second point but disagree with the first. If I have to get one good run in the first three and one good run in the second 2 or 3 that is more pressure than getting one good run in 6.

[G. Jay]

If the Pro PAX class runs on a different format then the people in other classes may not have the ability to compare themselves to those drivers. I want to compete in STS2 but I always want to see where I stack up in the larger picture. I'd like to see that their run format allows them to be PAX'd fairly against the other drivers as well. If they only run three that count this will be compromised. One of the reasons I bought a car that could be competitive was to compare my PAX to the best drivers in the area. The alternate format for Pro PAX proposal threatens that.

[MNbiker]

I agree with the second point but disagree with the first. If I have to get one good run in the first three and one good run in the second 2 or 3 that is more pressure than getting one good run in 6.
More pressure, maybe. However, those second 2, 3, or 5 (in the case of Midway) runs aren't measuring driver performance in a way that's applicable to National events - as the driver doesn't need to learn a new course.

Now that we're talking about this, I'll throw out another twist. If you really want to ensure the most pressure and Nationals-like situation, don't allow Pro drivers to serve as instructors or have an instructor ride along with them until their three competition runs are completed. I've seen Milwaukee's liberal ride-along policy get abused by many of their Pro drivers, who sometimes get several looks at the course, prior to their first timed run. This could make it a bit tougher to ensure we have enough instructors for morning heats. However, we could work around that issue.

Only 3 runs, no additional looks at the course - IMHO that format provides a more accurate representation of what I hear drivers asking for.

[MNbiker]

If the Pro PAX class runs on a different format then the people in other classes may not have the ability to compare themselves to those drivers. I want to compete in STS2 but I always want to see where I stack up in the larger picture. I'd like to see that their run format allows them to be PAX'd fairly against the other drivers as well. If they only run three that count this will be compromised. One of the reasons I bought a car that could be competitive was to compare my PAX to the best drivers in the area. The alternate format for Pro PAX proposal threatens that.
Not necessarily. We would still publish the standard PAX Results report, which shows results across all runs. Plus, you can still use the Pro drivers as a measuring stick. The gap may be a little less, but the comparison would still be valid.

[Ivan]

If the Pro PAX class runs on a different format then the people in other classes may not have the ability to compare themselves to those drivers. I want to compete in STS2 but I always want to see where I stack up in the larger picture. I'd like to see that their run format allows them to be PAX'd fairly against the other drivers as well. If they only run three that count this will be compromised. One of the reasons I bought a car that could be competitive was to compare my PAX to the best drivers in the area. The alternate format for Pro PAX proposal threatens that.

Interesting to see how much PAX is used as a guage for development... pretty cool. To be clear... only the alternate format where the last 3 runs are DNF's would threaten your guage.

One thing that develops with experience, is often getting your fastest run (or within a couple tenths) during the first few runs. That's one aspect I really tried to work on over the past season (pay no attention to my M9 times :oops: ). The typical "best of two sets" format just forces the issue for those who normally treat the first 1 or 2 as practice runs. Maybe not more pressure... but definitely enforces the need to properly walk the course, and know what you're going to do with the car before staging for your first run.

Either way, and based on the explanation of how rules are enacted, Steve's proposal in the first post seems to be a good compromise. "All or nothing" will turn out to be "nothing" without coming to some kind of agreement. If there's enough interest, maybe there can be a MAC rules amendment in the future.

[murph]

NO it actually won't....I drive as fast as I can every run.....stop me at 3 and thats probably gonna be my best.....give me 2 or 3 more and I will probably run faster and so will everyone else,so it's a wash,it averages the same.
there's no more pressure with 3 runs than with 6 at the top of the Pax heap.

I'm sure the more experienced folks can nail things in 3 runs consistently, folks like Chris and I need more practice at that. Maybe we can establish our own little side ranking for the "best in 3" if the vets don't want to include that in the new pro class. (of course, we also probably won't compete in pro class then)

[Justin (Vision Speedworks)]

(Honest Question)

For the PRO's, is it more beneficial in the long run to:

A. Get really good at having your best run in 3 attempts?

OR

B. Have twice the seat time by running all 6 runs?

[MattD]

I think they would still take all of the 6/7/8 runs, but only count the first 3. ...maybe.

[washburn]

Yeah...no one wants to cut the number of runs...just how they are scored.

[miata#37]

Maybe we should just give out trophies for the top 3 PAX finishers at each MAC event and not involve the Met. Council.

[G. Jay]

Maybe we should just give out trophies for the top 3 PAX finishers at each MAC event and not involve the Met. Council.

I'm there. A parallel competition for the best PAX in the first three runs. All competitors eligible. This would put pressure on the third run while also retaining value in the rest of the runs. It would also not devalue class wins by siphoning off the top drivers. I personally don't want to win a class because a better driver opted out. I also would like to be eligible for a PAX competition without having to abandon my class.

[aansorge]

I like the idea of a PRO class and 6 runs is really ok in my book (despite my earlier post) but GJay's idea is a good one and has merit in terms of thinning the classes.

[gsk8r]

Great idea, but I think the point of the Pro Class is to allow the entrants to directly compete with each other in one heat/run group. The "big guns" are currently spread out among the classes and therefore don't get that opportunity to directly push each other and fight for a top spot (rather than always win their class because they have no competition).

Also... any driver, whether they are a "big gun" or not, might not compete in their regular class for any number of reasons. If I won my class because Ivan was sick, Randy was on his honeymoon, Josh was dealing with timing issues and decided not to drive, and Ted was co-driving with someone else in another class, then so be it (forget bumping, I'm just trying to demonstrate a point). Likewise, Neal might enter my class co-driving with Ivan and beat us all. It's kind of the nature of the game.

As far as my progress is concerned, I gauge that by comparing my times to Ivan's. I can do that whether he is in my class or not.

[washburn]

Correct...the times will still be there. You can always compare yourself to anyone at any time...just dig through the results.

Pro class is fun for those who want to do it. Running all together is more fun too. I always play it up in Milwaukee when I'm announcing for the Pro class. It has the premier drivers and it's a lot of fun to watch that competition.

[G. Jay]

I think it is good for the top drivers to compete against each other. It should be great competition. If they drive 30 seconds apart or 30 minutes apart is, I think, less important than that they are competing. Changing course conditions would be an issue, though. I can go with the flow on this and the preference of the top drivers is clear enough. In their shoes I'd want the same. If the class works then it, or an invitation to it, will be something to aspire to. It drops the rest of the classes down a couple rungs and that is dissapointing. On the up side the path to excellence is about to become more clear.

I'd still like to see all competitor's performance published in the Pro PAX format, if only for comparison. If Pro PAX uses an all-run format then this will happen automatically in the usual way. I think Pro PAX should have some form of a three run format, though, as a matter of preparation for Nationals.

MAC has a lot of great and committed drivers. I love the idea of nurturing the top level and of the MAC ever improving it's Nationals performances. Long live Pro PAX.

[miata#37]

Could we call it "Challenge" or some other name besides "Pro"? "Pro" sounds a little uppity imho.

[MNbiker]

Could we call it "Challenge" or some other name besides "Pro"? "Pro" sounds a little uppity imho.
Must we be different, just for the sake of being different? Every other club I'm aware of who has such a class calls it Pro. :?

Besides, it's a nice, short name and P works well as a class designator.

-Steve

p.s. If it makes you feel better, you can imagine the P stands for pinhead, instead of Pro. Or maybe a word that rhymes with slick. ;)

[DCM]

I was rules chair.
But now I'm so far behind on rules.
Might help if I ran once or twice.....

[Darryl]

Must we be different, just for the sake of being different? Every other club I'm aware of who has such a class calls it Pro. :?

Besides, it's a nice, short name and P works well as a class designator.

-Steve

p.s. If it makes you feel better, you can imagine the P stands for pinhead, instead of Pro. Or maybe a word that rhymes with slick. ;)

That shut the arm chair rule makers up... Well done STEVE... :)

[miata#37]

That shut the arm chair rule makers up... Well done STEVE... :)

Yup. Shut me right up ;-)

[G. Jay]

Yup. Shut me right up ;-)

Not me, I was done. Though now that I'm writing I will agree that "Pro" is a bit elitist but also that it is not worth bucking convention.;)

[washburn]

Not me, I was done. Though now that I'm writing I will agree that "Pro" is a bit elitist but also that it is not worth bucking convention.;)

Sorry you think it's a bit elitist. Look at it from my point of view. Say I decide to run an HS Mini this year. I don't want to come off sounding like a conceited ass, but I think I would have very little competition. Assuming I'm correct: Boooooring. I've done this long enough that the simple joy of just driving isn't enough anymore...I want someone to compete directly against. I know you're thinking: "Yeah, you really need a lot of my sympathy", but that's just the way it is from my point of view.

Continuing to offer a place for those drivers who want to aspire to National level competition, means that this kind of thing is inevitable. It's done in virtually every SCCA region in the country. It helps to round out our club....we have a great Novice Program, offer great class competition, and also have an upper level that's heathy and growing. If there's nothing to keep this sub-set of drivers interested, I would feel were asking them to look elsewhere for what they need. I don't see this as being elitist, these competitors are just interested in slightly different aspects of the sport, have a little bit different perspective on things, and the club is simply meeting their needs too.

For the record, I do not think it dilutes or lessens class competition one bit. Winning AS is still winning AS, whether there is a Pro competitor or not. I see it all the time in Milwaukee. We had Pro when I started in MN. I always looked up to them and thought "that would be cool" to myself. It helped motivate me.

[G. Jay]

Not me, I was done. Though now that I'm writing I will agree that "Pro" is a bit elitist but also that it is not worth bucking convention.;)

To clarify, I'm refering to Miata#37's comment about the name possibly being "Challenge" instead of "Pro", not the existance of the class. Very small issue and I think Steve's argument wins.

I think the idea of providing the best drivers with various cars a way to compete against each other is important for the reasons you state and as per a previouis post of mine (#49 this thread).

I'm sorry if I misscommunicated. I want this class to happen. I want the best drivers to stay at MAC and kick but at Nats under our banner. As I indicated previously, I aspire to be in this class one day.

[MattD]

I'm sorry if I misscommunicated. I want this class to happen.


Sooo... what you're trying to say is that you don't want a Pro class, right? :p :lol:

[oldtoyota]

Sorry you think it's a bit elitist. Look at it from my point of view. Say I decide to run an HS Mini this year. I don't want to come off sounding like a conceited ass, but I think I would have very little competition. Assuming I'm correct: Boooooring. I've done this long enough that the simple joy of just driving isn't enough anymore...I want someone to compete directly against. I know you're thinking: "Yeah, you really need a lot of my sympathy", but that's just the way it is from my point of view.

Continuing to offer a place for those drivers who want to aspire to National level competition, means that this kind of thing is inevitable. It's done in virtually every SCCA region in the country. It helps to round out our club....we have a great Novice Program, offer great class competition, and also have an upper level that's heathy and growing. If there's nothing to keep this sub-set of drivers interested, I would feel were asking them to look elsewhere for what they need. I don't see this as being elitist, these competitors are just interested in slightly different aspects of the sport, have a little bit different perspective on things, and the club is simply meeting their needs too.

For the record, I do not think it dilutes or lessens class competition one bit. Winning AS is still winning AS, whether there is a Pro competitor or not. I see it all the time in Milwaukee. We had Pro when I started in MN. I always looked up to them and thought "that would be cool" to myself. It helped motivate me.

So lets see if I get this. If you are a driver of a car in a class with no effective competition, it gives you a place to compete, Kind of like a place for excluded street tire index cars. If you have real competition in your class it makes more sense to run with your class.

The benefits I see over the current PAX would be running together and doing something like what Steve mentioned not letting people get extra views of the course via doing instructional runs.

The only draw back I see is you could shrink small classes to the point they get bumped.

[MNbiker]

The only draw back I see is you could shrink small classes to the point they get bumped.
This is a valid concern. Just running through a few what-if's, I'm guessing a Pro class could result in 3-4 more classes being bumped at a typical event.

[oldtoyota]

This is a valid concern. Just running through a few what-if's, I'm guessing a Pro class could result in 3-4 more classes being bumped at a typical event.

How many people did you think would run Pro?

[phile]

How many people did you think would run Pro?
That's a good question for several reasons.

How many people would remove themselves from a regular class to run the PRO class under the rules that Steve G has formulated?

Hands, please.

[AlexL]

I would.

[rdub]

ME too

[Ivan]

three...

[oldtoyota]

There goes CS

[ITSrotary]

Nope.

Besides not qualifying because I didn't end up in the top 20 overall pax, I fail to see how not running against the best in class is a motivator, either to get faster or to continue to participate in events.

There's no shame in losing to a faster driver, take your beatings, when you win your trophy it will mean that much more.

[washburn]

........Four

[tyrayb]

I like the Pro class format and would probably run there.

Regarding the "empty" victory of winning a class that has lost the top driver to the Pro class. Another large element is prep level. Some just don't have the desire to prep their cars to the levels of those setting their sights on nationals. Moving the top cars into Pro allows those in STx/xSP/SMx to compete without having to drop the big $$$.

I also agree that Pro drivers should not get any free looks. However, this also means someone running in Pro can't be the course designer. Unfortunately, some of our best designers are also our best drivers.

Finally, as a former Street Tire Index driver, my only frustration was not really knowing where I stood until the results are posted. The display doesn't show PAX, so you can't just go up to a competitor and see how you stack up. But, most of us have pocket PCs for our MaxQs, so a simple app could help out.

Tyler

[MattD]

What'd I end up, 4-5... 6th in DS? I'm trying to just have some fun -- no chance I'll want to be in Pro until I actually start to get serious about my driving. ...which will involve me driving the ITR more than 9 times a year.

[MNbiker]

How many people did you think would run Pro?
6-8, maybe 10 at a large event.

I probably won't run Pro until the XP PAX stabilizes a bit and/or the car prep level catches up to the PAX number.

[washburn]

I also agree that Pro drivers should not get any free looks. However, this also means someone running in Pro can't be the course designer. Unfortunately, some of our best designers are also our best drivers.

Tyler

Nahhh. Many course designers get beat on their own course. No practice of course, but go ahead and let anyone design who wants to.

[chuck b]

another side benefit of Pro class is if a pro drivers sluts a car, he has a place to drive it should she choose to, besides the original class- allowing those non pro drivers to continue with their close competition.

[MNbiker]

...However, this also means someone running in Pro can't be the course designer....
I can tell you first-hand that designing the course really isn't an advantage. You get more time to think about the layout, but less time to actually walk the course and decide how you're going to drive it. On occasion, we do pre-drive some of the course, but typically avoid driving the complete course at speed, and often don't even make it around the entire course. My approach to pre-driving a course, is to limit it to one or more specific elements that need adjustment or to check a potential safety concern.

Honestly, I think the biggest thing to eliminate for the Pros is the ride-alongs. I find a ride-along with a decent driver at speed almost as valuable as a run where I'm driving.

[washburn]

I
Honestly, I think the biggest thing to eliminate for the Pros is the ride-alongs. I find a ride-along with a decent driver at speed almost as valuable as a run where I'm driving.

Yeah, but that rarely happens. Any time I'm in a car, it's with someone new or someone looking for help on something. I personally believe that a Pro class driver will gain very little, if anything, from this. They are still going to have the course figured out in three runs. (Some of us don't learn anyway...both days at Nationals this year, I stood on my first runs!)

I really don't think you need to make a big deal about this. As a Pro driver, if your really that put out by your competition getting ride alongs in a newbies car, get out there and get some yourself! And I really don't see the Pro driver going out and begging ride alongs just to get a competitive advantage. "Quick, gimme a ride so I can beat Randy.." It's against the code...I say [pirate voice] "Stick to the Code". [/pirate voice]

You WANT the Pro's riding in other people cars. What good is it to have a bunch of "Pro's" who aren't allowed to help out other people?

[MNbiker]

... And I really don't see the Pro driver going out and begging ride alongs just to get a competitive advantage...
I can't say we've had an issue with this at MAC events, but I've definitely seen the practice abused at Milwaukee Region events.

[oldtoyota]

You WANT the Pro's riding in other people cars. What good is it to have a bunch of "Pro's" who aren't allowed to help out other people?

I think we have plenty of people that are not running in Pro that could fill that role so why even make it an opening for a possible problem. Most people seeking ride alongs are people that need a lot of help and not people that need just a few things to get to the next level that the Pro type driver will provide.

[MNbiker]

I think we have plenty of people that are not running in Pro that could fill that role so why even make it an opening for a possible problem. Most people seeking ride alongs are people that need a lot of help and not people that need just a few things to get to the next level that the Pro type driver will provide.
I'll venture a guess that most of the instructors who have been signing up for the instructor work assignment won't be running Pro.

The biggest thing the Pro's would be giving up is ride-alongs with co-drivers (Pat/Chris, Neal/Darryl, etc.). However, I contend this type of ride-along is exactly the type of extra course look that provides the most advantage.

What's the consensus on this issue? I can present the rule change with or without a ride-along prohibition. The other clubs typically don't allow ride-alongs anyway, so it's really up to MAC.

[rdub]

I think we need to help people who ask ,even if we run pro.
I invite people I know to try autoX and they expect me to help them(which is correct)
If I can't do this when I want ,I simply won't run pro.

We all know who we are in Pro and can police ourselves if it gets
to be an issue.
I never minded anyone riding together in co drives or teaching in the past.

[G. Jay]

I'll venture a guess that most of the instructors who have been signing up for the instructor work assignment won't be running Pro.

The biggest thing the Pro's would be giving up is ride-alongs with co-drivers (Pat/Chris, Neal/Darryl, etc.). However, I contend this type of ride-along is exactly the type of extra course look that provides the most advantage.

What's the consensus on this issue? I can present the rule change with or without a ride-along prohibition. The other clubs typically don't allow ride-alongs anyway, so it's really up to MAC.

I think it would be nice for the non-Pro drivers to have access to the Pro drivers for instruction. Count me in that camp. I'd like to get a variety of perspectives from the top drivers this season.

[tyrayb]

I don't agree that a ride with a newbie is any less valuable than a ride with an advanced driver. It is still an "at speed" look at the course that will help cement focal points along with braking zones and lines.

However, I agree that it is more important that newcomers be offered all the resources they want to come up to speed. That definitely includes getting instruction from the pros.

It seems that a rule simply prohibiting pro's from riding with other pro's is sufficient. More subtle tactics can be taken to reduce any perceived advantages of running pro and instructing. For instance, always put the Pros in the first run group.

Tyler

[phile]

MAC has guidelines for instructors. 914 Dave is in charge of that. If someone is abusing his instructor privileges, Dave is empowered to strike him from the list.

[Darryl]

I went back and read all the posts in this thread… Now I think creating a Pro class isn’t such a good idea… I learned a lot having Neal and Katie ride with me last year and don’t want to lose that option next year…
PAX works well enough…
Keep the classing as it was in 07… Same as the SCCA + street tire index…

[oldtoyota]

For instance, always put the Pros in the first run group.

Tyler

If that is the case then count me in for Pro. :rockon (if I make it to an event)

Actually that is a good idea and the other is to always have SI in the last group.

[MNbiker]

OK, reading no clear consensus on any additions to the basic proposal, we'll go with the bare-bones version for now. This version includes no provisions for special scoring or prohibitions against instructor ride-alongs. If MAC wants to further tighter guidelines for the Pro Class at MOWOG events, we can do so later in our Supplementary Rules.

-Steve



Add the following to Section 9:

9.3 Pro (P) Class: Available to all drivers in classes specified in Section 8.1. Results shall be calculated according to the current PAX/RTP Index, as published by Chicago Region SCCA®.

9.3.1 Pro class will be available at all events. Pro is not involved in any bumping to other classes or categories, regardless of the number of Pro entrants. Pro entrants will not affect regular-class sizes or trophy calculations in any way.

9.3.2 Vehicles shall meet all applicable rules for their regular SCCA® Solo class.

9.3.3 Pro shall be treated as a regular class for the Met Council Autocross Series.

[CDeutsch]

PAX works well enough…
Keep the classing as it was in 07… Same as the SCCA + street tire index…

What are we trying to achieve with the Pro class is my question?

If it's A) opening up trophy spots in regular classes, I guess we should do it.

If it's B) preparing drivers for national level competition, I don't see the point without the 3 run format. Removing ride alongs also doesn't help.

If it's C) a class for bragging rights. I don't see how it's any different then top PAX overall, and in my eyes will always come in second to top PAX overall.

If it's D) cool to say you run Pro class. I don't understand that, but whatever floats your boat. :p

Maybe I'm missing something. Goal E) anyone?

As proposed I don't plan on running in it. I'll be doing ride alongs with Darryl. ;)

[G. Jay]

What are we trying to achieve with the Pro class is my question?

I think is a good idea because a Pro class or a virtual Pro class will take drivers who win their class routinely and give them competition. This should provide incentive to up their game and make it more interesting for them. The additional performance level will help drivers develop to the highest levels, making MAC more competitive at Nationals.

A dedicated run group would be nice for the Pro's. A virtual Pro PAX that is a parallel calculation to the existing classes, tracked throughout the day and having a yearend award is the minimum requirement, IMO, and would allow all to participate automatically.

[111R]

How about scoring the first 3 runs then allowing instructional ride-alongs the remaining runs?

[MNbiker]

How about scoring the first 3 runs then allowing instructional ride-alongs the remaining runs?
I suggested that a couple pages ago. I do believe that would be the most appropriate format, if the intent is to create the closest equivalent to a National event. However, I'm not going to propse it, unless there's a pretty strong consensus for the concept.

[aansorge]

Instructor ride alongs have always benefited the instructors in the PAX scores so this wouldn't be too much of a change. I think the best course of action is doing what is stated: have Pro class run in the first heat and only count the first 3 runs. Subsequent runs won't count towards towards PAX or the class win. That'll add pressure!!

All of the non-pro's can then have as a goal to beat the PRO dudes in PAX!!!

[CDeutsch]

Instructor ride alongs have always benefited the instructors in the PAX scores so this wouldn't be too much of a change. I think the best course of action is doing what is stated: have Pro class run in the first heat and only count the first 3 runs. Subsequent runs won't count towards towards PAX or the class win. That'll add pressure!!

All of the non-pro's can then have as a goal to beat the PRO dudes in PAX!!!

How about as a compromise, the first 3 runs count towards Pro and all the runs count towards overall PAX. Otherwise the Pros day will be over after first heat and we'll see lots of "I would/could have had top PAX if you look at my 5th run" posts. ;)

Obviously I'd like to see it scored 3 + how ever many afternoon runs there are but if it can't be done it can't be done.

[aansorge]

The reason I say only count the first 3 towards PAX is because many of us are doing instructional runs and that is an advantage in the PAX ratings.
But what you are suggesting is probably what I would FAVOR. :oops:

[CDeutsch]

Any updates from the meeting today Steve?

[phile]

Any updates from the meeting today Steve?

I believe the recommendations will be forwarded to the attendees for proofreading, then will be available to the Council and others. Give Steve time for this process.

[CDeutsch]

I believe the recommendations will be forwarded to the attendees for proofreading, then will be available to the Council and others. Give Steve time for this process.

Come on Phile it's 2007! That meeting should be up on YouTube by now. :D

You mean I have to wait? :flame: j/k :p

[phile]

Come on Phile it's 2007! That meeting should be up on YouTube by now. :D

You mean I have to wait? :flame: j/k :p

Yeah. That's what I mean. If you didn't want to wait, the time and place of the meeting was posted earlier.
;)

[zurno]

Say I decide to run an HS Mini this year. I don't want to come off sounding like a conceited ass, but I think I would have very little competition.

Stay the heck out of HS. :p

[porkbone]

How about scoring the first 3 runs then allowing instructional ride-alongs the remaining runs?

Dang, where was I four weeks ago when this thread started? Oh yeah, probably in the hospital with a newborn.

Anyway, I agree that this format (scoring the first 3 runs then allowing instructional ride-alongs the remaining runs) is the best compromise. This is how they handled it in Denver. Pro ("X") class drivers were allowed to GIVE instructional runs in their first 3, but could not ride with anyone. In the unlikely event that the drivers were allowed more than 3 runs, none of the times beyond the first 3 were counted.

[SmokingTires]

How about as a compromise, the first 3 runs count towards Pro and all the runs count towards overall PAX. Otherwise the Pros day will be over after first heat and we'll see lots of "I would/could have had top PAX if you look at my 5th run" posts. ;)


But we already get that with "If I wouldn't have hit that cone" Or "If that attractive blonde wasn't on the side of the course"

I'm all in for three runs to count, the rest for instruction or tuning. It takes the pressure off when the competitive side takes over and no matter how much you say "I tried in 3, you still push your hardest for more instead of playing with suspension or other things that you wouldn't normally fiddle with when your going for the gold.

[CDeutsch]

But we already get that with "If I wouldn't have hit that cone" Or "If that attractive blonde wasn't on the side of the course"

I'm all in for three runs to count, the rest for instruction or tuning. It takes the pressure off when the competitive side takes over and no matter how much you say "I tried in 3, you still push your hardest for more instead of playing with suspension or other things that you wouldn't normally fiddle with when your going for the gold.

FYI, the meeting was weeks ago. :p

Feel free to keep discussing, but it's probably too late to make a difference.