Swap calculator fixes

[mender]

I'm  going to put this out there as a bit of a feeler to see what others think should be updated/fixed/tweaked on the swap calculator based on their experiences. The observations in this thread could be checked by someone in management that has a free evening or three. I'm hoping this will be an easy way to get attention drawn to anomalies without needing to go through a petition process. This isn't about a rule change, just getting the swap calculator to work according to the present rules.

 

Fieros: other than the '84 which only came with a 4 cylinder, the highest value and weight car is the GT and is what the VPi is based on. I'm pretty sure of that because I was the one that sent in the AIV ads for GTs that Mike based the value on. At the time 4 cylinder cars were averaging $100 vs $150 for the V6 GTs. Value was set at 175 points then reduced to 150 points in 2016 by my request to equal the MR2, based on a 1985 Road & Track test showing the stock 4 cylinder MR2 was faster around a road course than the stock Fiero V6 GT.

 

Proposed changes:

1. '84 Fiero (4 cylinder) VPi should be 100 points and retain the weight listed. All other years ('85 - '88) should be 150 points and use the GT weight; presently the swap calculator uses the 4 cylinder weight for '84 - '86 and the V6 GT weight for the '87 - '88. According to the present rules, the highest value car and weight should be used by the swap calculator regardless so this should be an easy fix by using 150 point VPI and 2780 lbs curb weight (2502 lbs official Champ weight) for all Fiero swaps.

2. If there is a fuel capacity factor, please note that '84 - '86 had a 10.0 gallon tank and the '87 - '88 had the 11.9 gallon tank. No "discount" has been shown for the small tank in the earlier cars.

3. There are no '89 Fieros! Please take it off the list!

Edited April 11, 2018 by mender

[tommytipover]

Volkswagen Golf/Rabbit are wrong too. They've got the year split between MK1 and MK2 wrong. I have emailed Tech with no response...

 

I think if you cut the roof off a MK1 you could get it to 1677, 1845 was probably right for the last of the MK1's not the early MK2. I can't imagine the early MK2 was 400+ lbs. lighter. than the later MK2

Edited April 11, 2018 by tommytipover

[mender]

5 minutes ago, tommytipover said:

Volkswagen Golf/Rabbit are wrong too. They've got the year split between MK1 and MK2 wrong. I have emailed Tech with no response...

List the corrections so that someone can have all the issues in one place. Hopefully that helps them clean up the swap calculator without having to search through hundreds of posts for the details.

Edited April 11, 2018 by mender

[Ronh911]

I recommend everyone send their corrections/re-evaluation requests to Phil and CC Mike on it.  I did this last month for the 944s.  I received a prompt response that they will look at it but the process takes some time before they will implement any changes if necessary.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Ronh911

[mender]

4 minutes ago, Ronh911 said:

I recommend everyone send there corrections/re-evaluation requests to Phil and CC Mike on it.  I did this last month for the 944s.  I received a prompt response that they will look at it but the process takes some time before they will implement any changes if necessary.

The re-evaluation requests should be sent in but I feel that corrections that are not re-evaluations would be better all in one place so someone can have easy access to all the info at once.

[Chris Huggins]

Can we correct the formula listed in the rules to match the formula listed in the swap calculator?  Hell, Ill even volunteer to work on the code if it will help.

There should be an "if" statement associated with some cars, so that the "highest value" is used as the starting MPV for particular cars (or not, depending on what the powers decide).

 

If I can tweak the code, the E30 will get a nice MPV reduction

 

[wvumtnbkr]

Here is my OVERALL proposal.

 

Use the swap math as is with the exception of removing the comment regarding highest valued model MUST be used.  If there is an issue with a specific car (BMW's, and maybe 944) address that 1 issue.  Don't make all of these other issues now pop up!

 

If you use the swap math and it comes out cheaper to swap in a "bigger" engine from the same platform, then if you just claimed the platform swap, there is something wrong with the value of one of the cars.  Address this directly, don't use rules that impact other situations that can cause confusion.

 

OR, make people use EITHER the swap rules (with ZERO exceptions) OR the platform swap rule - I believe the platform swap rule basically covers the BMW and 944 situation effectively WITHOUT adding the weird "highest valued model" clause on the  swap sheets.

 

In other words, if the swap formula works, and is achieving the goal of parity through PWR, whatever the calculator spits out should be good enough.  All internal model / platform swaps should just be valued at whatever model they become.

 

Boom Done.

 

Please tell me why this wouldn't work/

 

 

Also, the S4 RX7 value is probably 25 pts too low and the S5 RX7 is probably 25 pts too high.

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by wvumtnbkr

[Wittenauer Racing]

 

Why not just consolidate E30's/E36/etc so by default you get the highest model? Instead of listing every variant, just say "E30" or "E34"...

 

 

If there's a variant we want people to use as a base of "X" car for a swap, then it should be the only listing and it should be rather generically labeled.

 

 

[Andrew D Johnson]

11 minutes ago, Huggy said:

Can we correct the formula listed in the rules to match the formula listed in the swap calculator?  Hell, Ill even volunteer to work on the code if it will help.

There should be an "if" statement associated with some cars, so that the "highest value" is used as the starting MPV for particular cars (or not, depending on what the powers decide).

 

If I can tweak the code, the E30 will get a nice MPV reduction

 

Bill already wrote the new code. 

 

   if( a =/ MR2 ) {
      // if condition is true then print the following
      cout << "Car = 500 points" << endl;
   } else {
      // if condition is false then print the following
      cout << "MR2 = -500 points" << endl;
 

[Chris Huggins]

Swap form should also maintain your previous selections - aka you shouldnt have to select "bmw" and "M20B25" over and over again if you want to try different "hp in" values.

[wvumtnbkr]

20 minutes ago, Wittenauer Racing said:

 

Why not just consolidate E30's/E36/etc so by default you get the highest model? Instead of listing every variant, just say "E30" or "E34"...

 

 

If there's a variant we want people to use as a base of "X" car for a swap, then it should be the only listing and it should be rather generically labeled.

 

 

This was my initial thought too.  however, what about people that WANT to run the 4 cylinder and use points for other things?

[wvumtnbkr]

28 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Here is my OVERALL proposal.

 

Use the swap math as is with the exception of removing the comment regarding highest valued model MUST be used.  If there is an issue with a specific car (BMW's, and maybe 944) address that 1 issue.  Don't make all of these other issues now pop up!

 

If you use the swap math and it comes out cheaper to swap in a "bigger" engine from the same platform, then if you just claimed the platform swap, there is something wrong with the value of one of the cars.  Address this directly, don't use rules that impact other situations that can cause confusion.

 

OR, make people use EITHER the swap rules (with ZERO exceptions) OR the platform swap rule - I believe the platform swap rule basically covers the BMW and 944 situation effectively WITHOUT adding the weird "highest valued model" clause on the  swap sheets.

 

In other words, if the swap formula works, and is achieving the goal of parity through PWR, whatever the calculator spits out should be good enough.  All internal model / platform swaps should just be valued at whatever model they become.

 

Boom Done.

 

Please tell me why this wouldn't work/

 

 

Also, the S4 RX7 value is probably 25 pts too low and the S5 RX7 is probably 25 pts too high.

 

 

 

Hey, Huggy, why the sad face?  I am VERY open to constructive critism....

[Wittenauer Racing]

28 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Here is my OVERALL proposal.

 

Use the swap math as is with the exception of removing the comment regarding highest valued model MUST be used.  If there is an issue with a specific car (BMW's, and maybe 944) address that 1 issue.  Don't make all of these other issues now pop up!

 

Yes, in general more basic models are just that, basic, aka worse in terms of performance. Softer shocks, springs, worse brakes, open diffs, weak transmissions, etc. Same with base model cars that had a turbo version.

 

Quote

If you use the swap math and it comes out cheaper to swap in a "bigger" engine from the same platform, then if you just claimed the platform swap, there is something wrong with the value of one of the cars.  Address this directly, don't use rules that impact other situations that can cause confusion.

 

Personally I disagree a little here- it's an issue because of how 2x and freebies function, not the values of the car.

 

Given no other changes (no diff, no trans, no brakes, or suspension), an early M10 318 with an M20 shoved in will be worse in an endurance race than a 325i, therefore it should have less points. However in actual application, that doesnt work because as long as it's under 2x, I can put the biggest brakes and the stiffest springs I want on it. 

 

 

Overall I'm a big fan of "you have X, so use X for your swap calc starting point" like @wvumtnbkr suggests, but you'll always get weird parity issues if I can take my 318, early 944, non turbo and put the same level of suspension and brakes on that the upper model guys are running.

 

 

 

[Hayne]

1 minute ago, wvumtnbkr said:

This was my initial thought too.  however, what about people that WANT to run the 4 cylinder and use points for other things?

 Then they wouldn't be doing a swap. 

[tommytipover]

9 minutes ago, Huggy said:

Swap form should also maintain your previous selections - aka you shouldnt have to select "bmw" and "M20B25" over and over again if you want to try different "hp in" values.

I made this crude spreadsheet in an effort to try and understand. Fill in the outlined boxes with your numbers and see the magic.

Swap Calc.xlsx

[Wittenauer Racing]

11 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

This was my initial thought too.  however, what about people that WANT to run the 4 cylinder and use points for other things?

 

Ah, maybe I should have been a bit more clear- keep the sub models in the main VPi table, just take them out of the vehicle listings for the Swap page.

 

To me the Swap page should be the one-stop shop for your car's starting value if you're going to swap, then you add all the fixed points stuff from 4.3

 

If note 2 is to be applied for cars with turbo models, it should spit out as part of the Swap Calc too....

Edited April 11, 2018 by Wittenauer Racing
clarity

[wvumtnbkr]

8 minutes ago, Hayne said:

 Then they wouldn't be doing a swap. 

Right!  I misinterpreted the comment.

 

I was thinking that all values of those cars (swapped or not) would be just e30 = value.

 

If the post was meant to represent only the swapped cars, I think that is the same as what other people have been saying by "fix the online swap calculator" which DEFINITELY needs done.

 

I see that I missed it by "That much".  Thanks for the clarification post!

Edited April 11, 2018 by wvumtnbkr

[Black Magic]

I think the calculator is perhaps the least efficient, least transparent, least direct way of assigning a vpi. 

 

We need a simple list of pre approved engine+chassis combos with already assigned vpi. List an online "quote tool", but all new combos need tech approval who will update the online list. 

 

Reason why, did you know the Porsche swap math and vpi could produce the 944 combo in question? I didn't. Did you know with a simple year\model tom foolery you could get an srt4 engine to be small enough to swap into a neon at sub 500 points (guess you didn't). An online list of points and approved engines would show it. 

 

I ran a lemons race recently. I love our series more, but their benevolent dictator approach to tech was surprisingly effective. Maybe we need a little more "i call bs" in our series vs "the numbers say i have to let it by". 

[Ronh911]

3 minutes ago, Black Magic said:

I think the calculator is perhaps the least efficient, least transparent, least direct way of assigning a vpi. 

 

We need a simple list of pre approved engine+chassis combos with already assigned vpi. List an online "quote tool", but all new combos need tech approval who will update the online list. 

 

Reason why, did you know the Porsche swap math and vpi could produce the 944 combo in question? I didn't. Did you know with a simple year\model tom foolery you could get an srt4 engine to be small enough to swap into a neon at sub 500 points (guess you didn't). An online list of points and approved engines would show it. 

 

I ran a lemons race recently. I love our series more, but their benevolent dictator approach to tech was surprisingly effective. Maybe we need a little more "i call bs" in our series vs "the numbers say i have to let it by". 

 

Couldn't agree more with this!

[Hayne]

20 minutes ago, Black Magic said:

 Maybe we need a little more "i call bs" in our series vs "the numbers say i have to let it by". 

 

"2.2.5. The Event Director reserves the right to transfer ANY
competition vehicle from the 500 point ChampCar classes
to the Exception Class (EC) at ANY time. This rule shall
only be invoked under extraordinary circumstances."

[Chris Huggins]

37 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

This was my initial thought too.  however, what about people that WANT to run the 4 cylinder and use points for other things?

Its the "swap" calculator, so it doesn't matter unless they are swapping to a different engine.  In that case, per the current rules, you are supposed to use the highest valued model (whatever that is interpreted as).

 

40 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Hey, Huggy, why the sad face?  I am VERY open to constructive critism....

I'm very torn about the current situation.  I dunno if your opinions matter - mine certainly don't, so take this with a grain of salt

 

/////// the following is very personal, with 0 regard to "series fairness", "Equality", etc)

 

I feel a bit robbed to know that the 944 teams have been able to do this engine swap for the past 4+ years, and BMW teams (myself, obviously) have been excluded.  I don't blame that on CC or Visceral specifically, but it is what it is (which in my opinion is a rotten situation). 

I have spent who knows how much time and money developing an old SOHC motor when I could have played the same games and been developing a much more modern engine, with much more relevant aftermarket support - one which is still forbidden fruit for e30 teams without taking laps.  

 

Specifically before "free" shocks and free springs, and with the old swap rules, e30 teams had to choose <handling> or <power>.  I felt this was a fair compromise.  After all the "free" bits (some of which I argued for), I realized that fair balance had been removed.  the <power> choice teams got "free" <handling> also, putting the stock engine-ed cars at a disadvantage.  This is only considering the balance between E30 teams, on the east coast, mostly at balanced tracks like VIR, and with successful cars from 3-4 years ago (Ronalds, SRI's, No Panic, etc)

 

so, the frowny face:  I don't like the idea of "if there is an issue with a specific car, address it" - that is what got us into the current situation, which resulted very specifically in BMW teams being disadvantaged versus 944 teams.  I feel that this balance should be handled in the base VPI.  If a car needs to be adjusted, than adjust the VPI, with much warning (6 months +).  Going up in VPI should be very seriously considered, as that is a quick way to piss off customers.  Same thing is possible with adjusting the way swaps are calculated.  If we decide to "nerf" the 944's now (by disallowing the swap), I think they are going to be seriously out-gunned versus the current situation, and currently they aren't proving to be significantly faster than the field.  IMO they seem competitive as-is, if a little underwhelming based on reliability reasons.

 

so, selfishly, I want the "bmw" clause removed, because I would love to run a M5x engine,  and the sad face is because I disagree with the specific exceptions wording.  

 

//////// the preceding was very personal, selfish, etc, and no consideration was given to how my opinion would effect the current balance of the series.

 

 

[zack_280]

 

240/260/280Z are all S30 chassis cars. 

 

The 280ZX is an S130.  The 280Z/280ZX are listed on the same line.  The 280ZX is a different chassis and later models had a turbo option.  That can eff up some swaps for a 280Z.  It should be corrected.  I have sent an official e-mail on this and it was officially ignored.

 

A 240Z doesn't have much weight to remove.  As raced the 240/260/280 are very similar cars.  The weight used in the swap math for the 240 should not be modified from the stock weight.  I'm not sure about the 260/280, but there's not much to take out of these cars before you add in a roll cage.

[Alchemy Autosport]

38 minutes ago, Ronh911 said:

 

Couldn't agree more with this!

 

42 minutes ago, Black Magic said:

I think the calculator is perhaps the least efficient, least transparent, least direct way of assigning a vpi. 

 

We need a simple list of pre approved engine+chassis combos with already assigned vpi. List an online "quote tool", but all new combos need tech approval who will update the online list. 

 

Reason why, did you know the Porsche swap math and vpi could produce the 944 combo in question? I didn't. Did you know with a simple year\model tom foolery you could get an srt4 engine to be small enough to swap into a neon at sub 500 points (guess you didn't). An online list of points and approved engines would show it. 

 

I ran a lemons race recently. I love our series more, but their benevolent dictator approach to tech was surprisingly effective. Maybe we need a little more "i call bs" in our series vs "the numbers say i have to let it by". 

 

AGREED!  People know they can squeak things past tech, then they cry bc it was let by once and then we have a new addition to the "Secret Rule Book".  Bring the hammer down at tech, deal with the drying up front and move on.

[TiredBirds]

So as I see it, If we wanted to swap and newer 350LT1 enigine we take a 438 point hit, meaning a total of 638, so no room for extras. but if I just build the stock 305 to produce even MORE power I only get a 100 pointish hit? Or take a truck LS engine that makes 255 I'm at 410 with room for goodies that will make even more power? 

[TiredBirds]

2 minutes ago, Alchemy Autosport said:

 

 

AGREED!  People know they can squeak things past tech, then they cry bc it was let by once and then we have a new addition to the "Secret Rule Book".  Bring the hammer down at tech, deal with the drying up front and move on.

We race both, We have a folder full of reciepts and picures for LeMons... If you don't be preparded to take laps and be called out.