Jump to content
mender

Next step beyond the MPV list?

Recommended Posts

The present MPV list is based on AIV, a perceived performance potential and apparently a random number. So far it's worked reasonably well but its time may be coming. If Chump were to start on a new "MPV" list, what do you think would be needed to generate relevent numbers for a more realistic and usable Performance Value (PV)?

 

1. Start with a "Golden Standard" and factor everything off that.

2. Select a number of performance factors (weight, hp, suspension sophistication, reliability, car layout, fuel, aero, ability to add lightness, etc), weight them and assign values that add up to the PV.

3. Go through the FPV list and swap formulas, consider how each affects the aforementioned performance factors and assign more realistic values.

4. ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My goal was to use the OBD2 323 E36 (which some dont agree with) as the base of the calculation. Make a formula that spits out 500. Then compare against other cars.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listed all the 500 point cars in another topic, that could be used to help calibrate the factors - if they truly are golden standard cars and not the result of 56.92378524. ;)

Edited by mender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the first question to work through...

 

Is there a cost component or purely performance balancing?  

 

To me this is the biggest question..  costs are relatively easy to calculate, but as witnessed by the Swap drama, costs dont really have much if anything to do with actual performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think MPV should be independent of costs, but improvements/additions should maintain some cost basis to keep things in check.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reluctance to let the mpv values change frequently or force people to file a petition to correct an unfair mpv is the core problem of mpv. The solution is not a constant raising mpv of winning cars but, more lowering of mpv of slow cars that stupid people like myself bring to the track over and over because we dumped a ton of money into an under competitive platform when we first entered the series choosing "the wrong car". 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with using "cost" is apparent to anyone who's ever read Robert Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_: "Value is a relative, not an absolute." The best-known thought-experiment on this is: A person is lost in the desert, He finds a pound of gold, and a pound of water -- which one is of greater value to him at that moment? (Hint: Look up the meaning of the slang term "goldbrick". >;) ) CC's populace should have gotten the message when "Cash For Clunkers" struck; suddenly every rustbucket out there had an effective minimum value of $2,500, so long as it could recognizably be called a "car"; which meant value ceased to be a meaningful measure. (There's at least one Western team -- no names -- who told me straight-out: "We run this engine because CFC made them dirt-cheap".)

 

I confess at this point: I've been working on a project off-and-on, compiling lists of engines used by cars in the MPV list, to see which ones have similar HP and torque values (modulo the obvious vagaries of age and upkeep -- I'm going with published as-new figures). It seems to me the complaint revolves around allowing someone to remove a 100HP/100tq. engine and install a 200HP/200tq. engine, and not take a point hit because both engines are common enough that both only cost $100; not that someone found a Saab Sonett sans Taunus V4, and decided to strap a low-end GM or Honda 4-pot to it because Taunus V4 blocks are like hen's teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a fan of the current MPV formula (having said that I would have not built our present CC)

Racing is an expensive hobby. CC does a very good job at "trying" to keep to the affordable racing idea. 

I would maybe like to see more of a power to weight ratio to 400 being top for a max "stock" performing car. Give them 100 to make it be able to go left and right. 

free up some points to the lower MPV cars to let them be a little more competitive. 

But what the heck. We're gonna race what we got and have a blast doing it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sully1133 said:

I am a fan of the current MPV formula (having said that I would have not built our present CC)

Racing is an expensive hobby. CC does a very good job at "trying" to keep to the affordable racing idea. 

I would maybe like to see more of a power to weight ratio to 400 being top for a max "stock" performing car. Give them 100 to make it be able to go left and right. 

free up some points to the lower MPV cars to let them be a little more competitive. 

But what the heck. We're gonna race what we got and have a blast doing it

Do you know what the current formula is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, if you still allow swaps and change the list?  value the cars top to bottom with highest fuel capacity at highest value and lowest at the lowest.  Might be funny to run a Yugo... but you only have 8 gallons of fuel to work with (good luck with that).  I bet it works out just fine, probably a perfect bell curve with the sweetspot hitting about 17-19 gallons or near the E30.

 

Run some numbers and look at the results.  yugos suck, 4800 pound station wagons with big gallon tanks suck.  Stuff in the middle?  Not so bad in size, performance and capacity of fuel and adaptability for swaps.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, my parts guy said:

Honestly, if you still allow swaps and change the list?  value the cars top to bottom with highest fuel capacity at highest value and lowest at the lowest.  Might be funny to run a Yugo... but you only have 8 gallons of fuel to work with (good luck with that).  I bet it works out just fine, probably a perfect bell curve with the sweetspot hitting about 17-19 gallons or near the E30.

 

Run some numbers and look at the results.  yugos suck, 4800 pound station wagons with big gallon tanks suck.  Stuff in the middle?  Not so bad in size, performance and capacity of fuel and adaptability for swaps.

Im writing my formula to benefit big fuel tanks, just to make you angry.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, my parts guy said:

  value the cars top to bottom with highest fuel capacity at highest value and lowest at the lowest.

 

 Your priority is fuel capacity, other people prioritize hp, some torque, others handling, some weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mender said:

2. Select a number of performance factors (weight, hp, suspension sophistication, reliability, car layout, fuel, aero, ability to add lightness, etc), weight them and assign values that add up to the PV.

Too many factors, KISS as much as possible, raced weight,hp and fuel if you must.

Aero, layout, reliability, suspension are up to the team when picking their steed and should not be a rule book factor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Team Infiniti said:

Too many factors, KISS as much as possible, raced weight,hp and fuel if you must.

Aero, layout, reliability, suspension are up to the team when picking their steed and should not be a rule book factor.

:huh:

 

This is for the list that the people will be making their selection from; supposedly the pre-equalized list that makes for a level playing field. You know, like the MPV list is supposed to be now. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even simpler, does there need to be an equation?  Finishes are close, anybody in the top ten might be down a number of laps but they are very likely a team capable of winning it.  Yes a few cars should be tweaked.  Why do all the work to "dream up" an equation when the current numbers are working pretty darn good - swaps aside.  

 

How to treat swaps?   From what I have heard they need to be held to the letter of the law... as should everybody.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mindspin311 said:

Im writing my formula to benefit big fuel tanks, just to make you angry.

 

Angry? ...pffft...from my perspective you're doing us all a favor, I can stop worrying about small cars that way.  :)

 

You guys get these rules ironed out.  See ya at the track, swing by for a frosty beverage and some good old fashioned "knee slappin" conversation. ^_^

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is even easier than all this.

  1. Someone in the top brass get a hold of IMSA.
  2. Ask to talk to the guy who does the BoP for the Continental Tire Series.
  3. Ask them for their magic wand that makes the racing there so fantastic.
  4. Apply it to Chump.

Why we think we, with our duct tape and our iPad telemetry systems, can come up with the holy grail on our own, bickering amongst ourselves, I have no idea.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mender said:

2. Select a number of performance factors (weight, hp, suspension sophistication, reliability, car layout, fuel, aero, ability to add lightness, etc), weight them and assign values that add up to the PV.

 

I am a huge fan... I think half of my posts have been pushing this. I would take it further and evaluate swapped cars using the same formula.  When the values for the stock car PV are generated, you consider HP and a portion of reliability to be engine specifications.  The rest are chassis specs.  At this point its just carA+engineB=PV.  For engines that are not listed, specifications would be set in proportion with the approved engines.

 

Since all engines need to be approved and evaluated, Chumpcar can shut down a too fast/expensive build before it even gets started.

 

EDIT: Just caught up on the swap formula thread.  Apparently this is the idea of the day. 

Edited by Twist-Ease

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finding usable real, as raced performance data may be possible, but potentially a large body of work.

 

There are (or at least should be) literally years of lap times, lap counts, and possibly even pit lane trips from various tracks around the country.  This data, with a bit of the right math, could be used to help the organizers start to identify where things need a bit more attention.  Yes, there are a huge number of anomalies in the data like new team, new car, new driver, new track, pro team, pro car, pro driver, cheating car, tire differences, etc. ad nauseum.  But with time, hard work, and the right tools, eventually trends, patterns, and outliers should be able to be identified.  It would not be quick, and would probably take a few practice cuts before any truly usable data started to emerge.  The bright side is that once the model basically works, it can be maintained, improved on, and used with each new set of results to help continue to improve data quality.

 

That said, the numbers alone would probably never be the whole story.  But it could be used as a basis to start asking questions, and offer some guidance on where a closer look might be necessary.  It could be used to identify vehicle types that always seem to fall short of their expected potential, and show which platforms consistently seem to over-perform.  It would also have the potential to highlight outliers for common platforms, both fast and slow, which could then be looked at in terms of car, team and driver development.

 

But do remember that being fast (or even fast over a 24 hour race) doesn't necessarily mean someone is cheating, or the platform is under rated.  Sometimes it just means that the car, drivers and team are really good, and have the experience necessary to capitalize on that.  For those teams, the data should support that.  For teams that are struggling, even against similar cars, the data could potentially be used to give feedback to the team.  While no one probably wants to be told they are slow, knowing they are performing (overall) in the bottom 25% of teams with that platform might be useful.  Who knows, it might lead to some mentoring and intra-team development.

 

Also it could be used to help platforms that truly are struggling, help maintain diversity in the series, and keep long term racers with older builds engaged.  One thing I noticed while in the tower with NASA was that the sharp end of the field was always under scrutiny, and most rules revisions were aimed at fixing issues up front.  What didn't get attention was the back half of the field where "everything was fine".  Over time car counts for some classes seemed to dwindle until the only drivers left were the "fast guys".  The slow half of the field where "everything was fine" had moved on to race elsewhere.  I always saw this as a missed opportunity by NASA  to retain racers and maintain or increase car counts.

 

Anyway, I think it would be a really fun project, and a great chance to do some really interesting data mining.

 

Oh, if radar gun data was available to be added into the mix, the data could be even more interesting.  I know NASA has used them at events to capture speeds, but that data was never published like lap times.

 

Edited by erioshi
past my bed time
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, erioshi said:

Finding usable real, as raced performance data may be possible, but potentially a large body of work.

 

Anyway, I think it would be a really fun project, and a great chance to do some really interesting data mining.

 

 

you aint kidding it's a pile of work.  :) I set out to simply find all the fuel capacities for every car on the list.... just that one thing.  I spent about 2 hours, got through one line and decided the job seemed impossible.  I gave up.  It's interesting to note that spouting numbers, and then having to guarantee they are accurate, is 2 different situations.  I did cars I kind of know.  Still had to double and triple check. do one thing wrong in a list performance matching, and you could create a whole new group of unicorns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...